We never miss how things are. We only miss how things were.
Once we realize it, it's already gone. We never really have to give anything up.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The Path To Enlightenment
One can become desensitized to a wide range of experiences. The everyday is seen as the neutral or zero point on the scale of bad to good, with a seemingly infinite distance to either end. But there is a finite distance to pure "bad" within the tolerance of human life, and to know this state of being sets the ultimate ground point. Experience is no longer gauged by deviations from the neutral; they are gauged by how much better they are than certain death. Perspective is made whole, and discontent is put in its place.
There is a fine balance between perfect comfort and absolute suffering that reveals the best a human being is capable of. Such diversity is essential to a well-balanced human mind.
There is a fine balance between perfect comfort and absolute suffering that reveals the best a human being is capable of. Such diversity is essential to a well-balanced human mind.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Life Is A Strange And Beautiful Phenomenon
It is very strange, that a living being should have to die after living only for so long. The material world exists for hundreds, thousands, millions of years at a time, but a living being is powerless as it witnesses the contrast of its own death. We are made of the same stuff, yet we don't know how to hold on. Before we are ever aware, we are abandoned by whatever force guided us through that fleeting moment of genesis, forcing the base materials from which we are made to fend for themselves. And we cannot get it back. It is as though the moment we were born, it was all an accident, a mistake. And then one day the mistake is made right and we die, releasing the substances from which we were made back into the Earth, where they wait for hundreds, thousands, millions of years, until life again takes a pinch of sand and stands it up, and the beautiful mistake is made again.
The Taming Of The Apathy
People set life goals for themselves, never aware that they are alive every day.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Divine Discovery
I think it is absurd to assume a God that does not wish for us to explore the world within which we live. If science tells us that the Earth is six billion years old, that we evolved from a lower form of life, and that we are in no way whatsoever the center of the universe, then I would much rather live without "God" than with one that has cursed me with a logic that doesn't reveal truth.
I believe in God. And He is much more open-minded than people give Him credit for.
I believe in God. And He is much more open-minded than people give Him credit for.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Petitio Principii, or "A Coversation With The Armchair Philosopher"
As scientific research inevitably popularizes itself, fact is dressed by imagination as the uninformed inform one another of their varying interpretations of the data. A favorite among the armchair philosophers with self-awarded degrees in (meta)physics concerns the implications of quantum mechanics on spirituality. "Doesn't the uncertainty principle," they suggest, "imply that the complexity of the human mind cannot be explained by science alone?" or "Doesn't quantum entanglement show that telepathy and otherworldly communication is possible?" And of course, the popularization of string theory has led to a 'scientific justification' of higher dimensions and planes of existence which transcend our own. All of which is fascinating and worthy of contemplation, but not at all supported scientific considerations.
The logic behind it all is something like this: quantum mechanics shows us that subatomic particles behave in unpredictable ways, that space-transcending correlations can exist between individual particles through quantum entanglement, and that string theory suggests that higher dimensions provide a means by which to unify our understanding of the physical world. Therefore, since such acts of space-transcending magnificence are allowed under quantum theory, spiritual experience is given scientific support.
This, however, still begs the question, as no scientific evidence suggests that the effects of quantum mechanics take place on an everyday level. There is a factor of scale to be considered, a factor much easier circumnavigated in argument than in reality. The strange quantum behavior observed in the lab occurs only at the scale of the subatomic. Quantum mechanics does not provide the mechanism for spiritual transcendentalism any more than the laws of gravity will allow for solar systems to form in your office building. The physical scale is not right, and there are explicit reasons for why physical laws stick to their respective realms of authority.
Sure, quantum mechanics could perhaps explain certain aspects of 'spiritual experience,' provided we were each smaller than the size of a single atom, but quantum theory does not explain the religious experiences of the armchair philosopher whose size is comparable to that of a human being.
The logic behind it all is something like this: quantum mechanics shows us that subatomic particles behave in unpredictable ways, that space-transcending correlations can exist between individual particles through quantum entanglement, and that string theory suggests that higher dimensions provide a means by which to unify our understanding of the physical world. Therefore, since such acts of space-transcending magnificence are allowed under quantum theory, spiritual experience is given scientific support.
This, however, still begs the question, as no scientific evidence suggests that the effects of quantum mechanics take place on an everyday level. There is a factor of scale to be considered, a factor much easier circumnavigated in argument than in reality. The strange quantum behavior observed in the lab occurs only at the scale of the subatomic. Quantum mechanics does not provide the mechanism for spiritual transcendentalism any more than the laws of gravity will allow for solar systems to form in your office building. The physical scale is not right, and there are explicit reasons for why physical laws stick to their respective realms of authority.
Sure, quantum mechanics could perhaps explain certain aspects of 'spiritual experience,' provided we were each smaller than the size of a single atom, but quantum theory does not explain the religious experiences of the armchair philosopher whose size is comparable to that of a human being.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Man’s Ultimate Goal Is To Become God
God represents our interpretation of the ultimate being; it is the highest of which our minds can conceive. As we are so brash as to assume our capabilities of understanding are without significant limit (either individually or collectively), we define the greatest being we can imagine to be the greatest being possible. We imagine God as singular yet embodying everything which appears multiple, as all-knowing and all-understanding. God is also typically thought to possess infinite love, but I will only assume that such a level of understanding requires an attitude of "acceptance.” As God understands and accepts everything, God has no questions, no mental voids which haunt Him, no inability to rationalize His own seeming pitfalls. To God, everything makes sense, leaving nothing to cause concern or despair.
Religion and science are both mankind’s attempts to fill these voids within ourselves and to reach a final goal of sorts: to have our entire existence defined for us either through faith or experience. Either way, we wish to have sufficient knowledge to understand everything. And because we can conceive of understanding such things, we assume it must be possible.
From the humanities standpoint, we strive for the goal of human perfection, to improve ourselves ever further. Through religion we set the goals and standards by which a person must live in an effort to be as God wishes us to be. Jesus is the personification of this goal. Jesus was perfect to the greatest extent a man could be, and represents the highest possibility of human existence. Jesus was the only person ever to live perfectly by the rules of God, and thus for us to strive to be as God wants us to be is to strive to be like Jesus. And because Jesus was, in a sense, God, religion sets us toward becoming ever more God-like by means of our own improvement, toward similarity to the greatest being we can conceive. Through religion we strive only to be the greatest we can imagine.
From the scientific standpoint, we strive for a complete understanding of the physical world. Through the acquisition of knowledge, we wish to eventually gather enough information to make sense of the entire universe. But to possess such a wealth of information about the entire universe would be, in effect, to possess the universe within ourselves. And because we ourselves are part of the universe, we would inherently become part of that which we sought after. We would thus forever tie ourselves to all of creation.
What would it be like to reach our final goal? Of first significance, we would cease to be human. We would lose the drive which both justifies and defines our existence. Secondly, for a mind to reach the ultimate level of understanding would require an understanding of all other minds. As all conceivable minds become accessible within our own, we would lose our sense of identification. That which separates us would no longer exist. We would become singular, ever-present, and all knowing. And as our infinite knowledge would span all eternity, time would cease to be of significance, and we would simply exist.
We would become God.
Religion and science are both mankind’s attempts to fill these voids within ourselves and to reach a final goal of sorts: to have our entire existence defined for us either through faith or experience. Either way, we wish to have sufficient knowledge to understand everything. And because we can conceive of understanding such things, we assume it must be possible.
From the humanities standpoint, we strive for the goal of human perfection, to improve ourselves ever further. Through religion we set the goals and standards by which a person must live in an effort to be as God wishes us to be. Jesus is the personification of this goal. Jesus was perfect to the greatest extent a man could be, and represents the highest possibility of human existence. Jesus was the only person ever to live perfectly by the rules of God, and thus for us to strive to be as God wants us to be is to strive to be like Jesus. And because Jesus was, in a sense, God, religion sets us toward becoming ever more God-like by means of our own improvement, toward similarity to the greatest being we can conceive. Through religion we strive only to be the greatest we can imagine.
From the scientific standpoint, we strive for a complete understanding of the physical world. Through the acquisition of knowledge, we wish to eventually gather enough information to make sense of the entire universe. But to possess such a wealth of information about the entire universe would be, in effect, to possess the universe within ourselves. And because we ourselves are part of the universe, we would inherently become part of that which we sought after. We would thus forever tie ourselves to all of creation.
What would it be like to reach our final goal? Of first significance, we would cease to be human. We would lose the drive which both justifies and defines our existence. Secondly, for a mind to reach the ultimate level of understanding would require an understanding of all other minds. As all conceivable minds become accessible within our own, we would lose our sense of identification. That which separates us would no longer exist. We would become singular, ever-present, and all knowing. And as our infinite knowledge would span all eternity, time would cease to be of significance, and we would simply exist.
We would become God.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
End Of The Line
Because it's one - more
Train to the last stop
Where the cars de-rail and we all go home
Some - day - we'll sing and remember
The ties in the rail never came undone
Train to the last stop
Where the cars de-rail and we all go home
Some - day - we'll sing and remember
The ties in the rail never came undone
"Uncuttable"
To the best of our historical knowledge, the Greeks were the first to postulate the existence of the atom as the smallest unit of matter. To the Greeks, the atom was not made of smaller parts; an atom was the smallest piece of anything possible. Of course, scientists of the late 1800's and early 1900's discovered there were indeed 'parts' to the atom: the electron, the proton, and the neutron.
It is here that most elementary science textbooks stop. Most people have a mental image of an atom something akin to this: (Click image to enlarge.)
From the get-go there are two things wrong with this image, both of which were known to the scientists of the early 1900's (well before images like the one above made their way into science textbooks worldwide). First is a factor of scale: if the nucleus were the size of a fly in the middle of a stadium, the electrons would never be any nearer than the stands. Second is the fact that atomic-scale particles such as the proton and electron do not actually behave like solid particles; they rather behave like waves of energy. They don't really have a well-defined "position," as they appear to have above. Of course, both of these properties of the atom are difficult to draw in an economic fashion, so compromises must be made and the above representation must suffice. Unfortunately, few teachers explain this to students, and as a result people incorrectly imagine the atom to look something like the picture above.
There is, however, more to the story. By the 1970's, scientists had learned that there are more than three basic parts to an atom. It was discovered that not only are there particles such as photons, pions, and gluons that hold the atom together, there are particles called up quarks and down quarks that make up each proton and neutron. As a result, our simple atom has become an atomic zoo, as illustrated below: (The image below has the same shortcomings as those described for the previous image; Click image to enlarge.)
As you can see, it seems there's quite the mess to be had within the atom. It turns out, though, that this scheme actually simplifies our greater understanding of the subatomic realm, which contains hundreds of other types of "hadrons" in addition to the proton and neutron. Amazingly, these other entities are found to be made of the same basic particles as those found in the atom, such as quarks, further underpinning the apparent correctness of the model above.
So what's the point of knowing the true fundamental constituents of the atom? Well, our understanding of the basic "electron and nucleus" structure of the atom gave us our mastery over chemistry and molecules; an understanding of the true structure of the atom will perhaps someday provide us the tools for mastering the atom itself.
And yet most people are stuck somewhere between here and the ancient Greeks.
It is here that most elementary science textbooks stop. Most people have a mental image of an atom something akin to this: (Click image to enlarge.)
From the get-go there are two things wrong with this image, both of which were known to the scientists of the early 1900's (well before images like the one above made their way into science textbooks worldwide). First is a factor of scale: if the nucleus were the size of a fly in the middle of a stadium, the electrons would never be any nearer than the stands. Second is the fact that atomic-scale particles such as the proton and electron do not actually behave like solid particles; they rather behave like waves of energy. They don't really have a well-defined "position," as they appear to have above. Of course, both of these properties of the atom are difficult to draw in an economic fashion, so compromises must be made and the above representation must suffice. Unfortunately, few teachers explain this to students, and as a result people incorrectly imagine the atom to look something like the picture above.
There is, however, more to the story. By the 1970's, scientists had learned that there are more than three basic parts to an atom. It was discovered that not only are there particles such as photons, pions, and gluons that hold the atom together, there are particles called up quarks and down quarks that make up each proton and neutron. As a result, our simple atom has become an atomic zoo, as illustrated below: (The image below has the same shortcomings as those described for the previous image; Click image to enlarge.)
As you can see, it seems there's quite the mess to be had within the atom. It turns out, though, that this scheme actually simplifies our greater understanding of the subatomic realm, which contains hundreds of other types of "hadrons" in addition to the proton and neutron. Amazingly, these other entities are found to be made of the same basic particles as those found in the atom, such as quarks, further underpinning the apparent correctness of the model above.
So what's the point of knowing the true fundamental constituents of the atom? Well, our understanding of the basic "electron and nucleus" structure of the atom gave us our mastery over chemistry and molecules; an understanding of the true structure of the atom will perhaps someday provide us the tools for mastering the atom itself.
And yet most people are stuck somewhere between here and the ancient Greeks.
