Longing for Truth

This essay started out as an attempt to put all the things that I’d most like to tell people into one or two pages. After many revisions, this is the final version – at least for now! It’s a very condensed version of my thinking, and I’d point readers to some of my longer works for more detail – in particular Conatus and Truth HQ. The ‘emergence’ of particles from the quantum void is sort of assumed. Even although there aren’t really particles, just flux in the energy of the void. Flux that might be localised, but can also be cosmic. So the idea of ‘quantum entanglement’ – put simply, the idea that two ‘particles’ could influence one another instantaneously – is just a quirk of our insistence on particles. There are only ‘events’ – and these can be cosmic or local in scale. This notion, perhaps rather bizarrely, takes us to agency. Our normal conception of agency involves cause and effect. But – and following on from the above – our understanding of cause and effect is like our concept of particles. Yes, generally speaking, cause and effect is localised. We don’t need to consider quantum theory or relativity. We can just try to decide if an action is the result of agency or if it is instead ‘determined’. But rather than try to limit things to localised phenomena, why not instead embrace what the flux of form and formlessness is telling us? There are ‘events’ that are cosmic – almost beyond time and space – and could agency actually be of the same nature as this? Could agency happen outwith cause and effect, even although, on a local scale, it just appears to follow on in the common-sense way we usually observe? Actually, this idea puts determinism in as much jeopardy as free will. With logos – something that organises the flow between formlessness and form – we come close to the notion of agency. Top-down agency – Spirit, Word. I’m hesitant to say that the sum of all small-scale acts of agency – bottom-up – is equivalent to top-down. But they are, I think, deeply connected. Like a particle, an individual agent, ‘person’ or ‘soul’ is just an event – a temporary pattern woven into the greater whole of the cosmos. But I think it’s too big a step to say that, as such, we don’t exist. Instead, we are obliged, I think, to deal with our temporary embodiment whilst all the while keeping an eye on the big picture. Taken as a whole, it might be said that the universe could not be other than it is (and as such any agency involves acts of cosmic scale). But this notion contrasts with our time-bound, partial and limited views of reality. The contrast is one of the chief paradoxes of the universe. These days there seems to be an insistence on a very basic form of determinism – as if none of the complexities throw up by the quantum world mattered. Here’s a few other examples of such reductionism: First, again with quantum theory – despite explanations of wave-particle duality, super-position and the like – moves quickly into talking about particles. In evolution – despite insisting that it’s about random mutations and it’s a blind process of chance – moves swiftly into speaking about nature having ‘reasons’ and ‘purposes’. Then, in neuroscience, consciousness is often denied any kind of existence. But neurons seem to have been granted near miraculous powers of encoding, storing and transferring information. The single, coherent, conscious person that we take ourselves to be is denied any subjectivity or free will. But, in by the back door, our neurons seem to have powers of decision-making that us poor brain-owners are denied! Yes, it’s subjectivity that seems to be the problem for science – at least for the reductionist scientists I have in mind. They insist that they’re being ‘objective’. And sure, science should be objective. But the more they insist, the more we might wonder why they are being so insistent. As I’ve suggested, subjectivity has a habit of slipping back in by some devious route when it has been denied a proper place in our thinking. And maybe there’s a great deal of subjectivity in the more stridently objective scientists? I don’t know. What effect does all this have on us ordinary members of the public? I suppose we might look to science for some clear answers to difficult questions. And often these are delivered. Trouble is, the answers are just too clear! There’s a lot assumed and a lot not mentioned. And a tendency to go straight to pragmatics, technology and the like, rather than dealing with theory. So perhaps we are just confused? I feel it matters though. The view of life and the world we are being offered is, I think, sometimes a diminished one. Personally, I wish scientists would just say they don’t know more often. I look for a bit of honesty, a bit of humility. And I look for a bit of – dare I say – the occult, the supernatural, the spiritual, the mystical. I look for some enchantment! But, let me reassure you, I’m not offering any of the occult, spiritual, mystical enchanted stuff here! I don’t have answers – to the quantum, evolutionary, or neurological issues that I’ve raised above. But I do have a few observations I’d like to share. The first question, surely, is: Why is there something rather than nothing? A philosophical question, rather than a scientific one, to be fair. But in any case, not one that we seem likely to be able to answer. Hot on its heels though, is something similar: Why THIS universe, rather than something else? Or we might ask it as: Why have things turned out the way they have? There are philosophical attempts to answer this one. But I’d have to say, mostly too painful to even begin to explain! Once, though, we have this one unique universe, science steps in to scupper things! Because any kind of choice, agency or just plain alternative ways that things might shake out, then – according to the ‘many world’ interpretation of quantum theory – the universe gets split again – possibly into an infinity of alternative universes! This, really, is just the ultimate way of avoiding any kind of uncertainty. A way, perhaps, of trying to uphold determinism, to stamp out free will – to avoid subjectivity. So, in our universe, there’s particles and all apparent choice has been extinguished. That jump to particles is suspect though, as I’ve mentioned above. Particles are right at the edge of what we can experience of the world. They are a step up from form/pattern – into substance. So even although their ‘existence’ is intangible, I think we are forced to treat this first order of emergence as real. In any case, there’s no use always having to remind ourselves of quantum physics when we speak of substance or matter. Here are the key ideas I’d like to discuss – quality, relation, flux, substance, form, emergence, soul, agency. Let’s start with quality. It’s generally accepted that we do not see things directly, we only experience the qualities of things. And we do not even see qualities in isolation, we only ever see them in the context of other things. So, in a sense, all our perception is governed by quality and context – or quality and relation. We do not see ‘things-in-themselves’. It might be that there is some reality underneath the qualities that we see – some ‘ultimate substrate’. Or it might be that there are only qualities and relations. If there is an ultimate substrate, then clearly it is not matter. The thing-in-itself must relate somehow to the flux of energy that is at the root of matter. It must take account of the constant flux between chaos and order – formlessness and form. So it could be that the ultimate substrate is not a physical thing such as energy, but an ordering principle. It is not ‘substance’ as we would normally understand that word, but it is form. I don’t mean form in the sense of just three-dimensional arrangements in space. I mean form as an ordering principle. The flux between opposites was described as a harmony by Heraclitus – he used the word ‘logos’. The same idea is expressed in Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist traditions. The harmony between emptiness and fullness – formlessness and form, could then be an abstract principle of order. This ordering principle need not be supernatural. The universe might not need this distinction between natural and supernatural phenomenon that we so often impose on it. But it would be true to say that ultimate meaning could still be described as’ theological’ in the broadest sense of the word. An indication of what I mean by this can be obtained by considering the word ‘soul’. Let me explain what I mean by soul. I don’t mean anything like the usual religious idea (although I don’t necessarily discount that). Here’s what I mean: If an eye were a creature then seeing would be its soul. This is from Aristotle. Let me explain a bit more: Mind + Body + Being in the World = Soul This, I believe, is true of all sentient creatures. All are ‘ensouled’. Aristotle may think I’ve taken some liberties here. But I’m going to take another liberty and call this the Aristotelian soul. If you’re still with me then let me unpack this a bit more. First of all, there is nothing here necessarily spooky or mysterious. Mind, body and being in the world – all straight-forward and familiar. Secondly, all of these are working together, all of the time. So there is no consciousness without body and no consciousness without being in the world. (Developers of Artificial Intelligence and people who think they could cheat death by uploading their minds to a computer may wish to disagree here! But hey, like I’ve said, only opinions.) Thirdly, the body leads. Sensations – including emotions – are always our primary experience of the world. It’s only with an extraordinary amount of effort that we can have any kind of agency in terms of free will. And finally, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. So that sum I’ve given – Mind + Body + Being in the World = Soul – means more than just what those individual elements are up to. This ‘more than the sum of the parts’ thing goes by the name of emergence. Emergence is a very familiar thing for the simpler stuff of the world. Take two basic elements, like hydrogen and oxygen. Put them together – water. The properties of water are not somehow lurking mysteriously within the hydrogen and oxygen. The qualities of water only appear once the chemical compound has been formed. So what might be the emergent properties of Mind + Body + Being in the World? It’s tempting to think that there should be some mysterious added extra to look for here. But of course soul has already emerged. We are living within its emergence every day, so there’s no extra mystery here, just everyday experience – which, let’s face it, is mysterious enough. A few more things can be said to clarify exactly what the description of soul implies: The body lives within the soul. The mind lives within soul. And, most difficult perhaps, our being in the world is part of soul ­– soul is extended, not just local to mind and body. We can also carry the idea of emergence ‘higher’ and consider larger contexts. Put enough chemical compounds together and eventually life emerges. This is sometimes known as ‘strong emergence’. It is, again, contested, partly because of hierarchy. ‘Life’ is just reduced to complexity and not something unique and different from its constituent parts. So too with consciousness. This is an emergent property of life. (Or otherwise just lots more complexity.) And then we could go higher still and mention eco-systems, the bio-sphere, human cultures, the solar system, the galaxy. What, for instance, are the emergent properties of an eco-system, the bio-sphere, the solar system, the galaxy – even the whole cosmos? At the moment we are not in a position to answer such questions, but it seems likely that there are qualities that will become apparent when we know more about these larger scales. Our response to beauty is wonder and awe. (At least I hope it is! Surely there is something in nature that awes you.) From this we have a reverence for nature – regarding her as sacred. We also have the root of our values. Such values as freedom, equality, fairness and justice have their root in beauty and the harmonious ordering of nature. I said above that our soul is extended. There are three specific connections she makes: Firstly – that original connection back to our own bodies. Secondly – with nature. Thirdly – with the cosmos as a whole. Places have soul. Soul looks for place (which includes the other people living there). Soul looks to be at home. Those three connections are the making of home. So what exactly are the connections with body, nature and cosmos? This I cannot tell you because all of the connections are specific to each person individually. All I can say is that it is through considering these connections that our souls seek to be at home. It matters less, I think, that we might not feel these connections. It matters more, I think, that we spend time thinking about what they mean for us. I recognise this must seem very abstract. But I suggest (and given that we are already living completely within the soul) that we are already actively trying to understand these connections in our lives. We might not name or describe them quite as I have done above. But look at your own life. It is all about connection – it is all about context. We are all about seeking our place in the world, seeking our home, literally and metaphorically. All I’m suggesting is that we make this connection more conscious – more precise. Also, given what was said about emergence above – note that the definition of soul includes the two highest forms of emergence that we’re most familiar with – mind (as in, consciousness) and body (as in life). My suggestion – only an opinion – is that perhaps the same ideas apply to the whole universe. Perhaps the Great Spirit, or God, or however you want to describe these things is simply an emergence way beyond what we currently understand – but still, essentially, ‘natural’ not supernatural. Imagine what our lives could be like if we could think of them more specifically in the light of those three connections – body, nature, cosmos. Imagine how society might regard nature. Imagine how those connections might shape our towns and cities, our attitudes to work, our ways of making and trading. Putting it simply – seeking home changes all of these and changes them, I’d suggest, in far more profound and successful ways than any of the current ideas to solve the world’s problems. And as the universe has first gifted us – the gift of beauty – then we could see our lives as about passing on that gift. About making home – about making those connections beautiful. Amongst all this we may wonder what it is exactly that we should be doing. I don’t mean, so much, with regard to family, or work, or study. I mean more along the lines of – we can see that there are problems in the world and if we are caring people then what should we do? How should we live? Quite apart from what I’ve said above on emergence, soul, beauty, value and home – the question of how we should live must be the most pressing question we can ask. The world is full of paradox. The universe is paradoxical – nature is paradoxical – human nature is paradoxical! There’s always evil as well as good. There will always likely be struggles around power relations.We’re not going to solve that any time soon! So – how to live – that becomes a difficult question! I ask it of myself on a regular basis. And I cannot answer it for myself so I’m not going to try to answer it for you! But one thought I find useful is to think of three things again: What does the heart want? What does the body want? What does the mind want? The paradox of human nature is that these three don’t always align. So I think there may be some benefit in trying to unravel those three questions. When I ask, what does the heart want, I mean what is sacred to you – what is so special it means as much as life itself? Or indeed, what is so vile to you such that you cannot bear it? Meanwhile the body leads. The body is a lot closer to knowing what the heart wants than the mind. The body wants pleasure and denied of pleasure it will rebel. But sometimes the rational mind must step in, especially in our dealings with others. The three modes of being do not sit easily with one another. That is the human condition. That’s the challenge in all our lives.