Beyond Good and Evil

Dr. Ronnie J. Hastings

Archive for the category “History and Philosophy of Science”

God –The Ultimate Meme, or The Problem of God

In Perception Theory and Memes — Full Circle, [March 2019], the epistemological concept of memes was used to “tie together” the basic concepts of Perception Theory, “circling back” to the beginnings of the theory. This tying-together of memes into Perception Theory, if you will, was done within the group of related posts having to do with Perception Theory.

Similarly, this is the tying together of two groups of posts, one again being the Perception Theory group (Group II.) and the other being the origin of Christianity group (Group I.)  Both groups of posts share constituent subjects of God, religion, or, to use my phrase, god and god stories.

Group I. consists of Sorting Out the Apostle Paul, [April, 2012], Sorting Out Constantine I the Great and His Momma, [Feb., 2015], Sorting Out Jesus, [July, 2015], At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015], and Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015].  It is a personal journey of religious belief utilizing history as a forensic science and my own “spiritual” experiences as a guide toward understanding how Christianity (and, by extrapolation, all religious systems of belief) came about.  It utilizes modern biblical criticism and the application of philosophy’s Occam’s Razor.  Conclusions gleaned in this group of posts rest upon the separation of theology and ethics, the former seen as mostly epistemologically and intellectually toxic, and the latter seen as epistemologically, intellectually, and socially essential and vital.  As the title Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015] implies, Christianity’s value (and by implication the value of all religions) lies in the time-proven ethics of the Golden Rule or Principle of Reciprocity, not in theology.

Group II. is much larger numerically, which correctly implies its greater subject breadth and depth.  It consists of Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016], Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016], Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016], I Believe!, [Oct., 2016], Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017], Prayer, [Feb., 2017], Egalite: A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018], Going Global, [March, 2018], AVAPS!, [May, 2018], Toward an Imagined Order of Everything, Using AVAPS, [June, 2018], The “Problem ” of Free Will, [June, 2018], and, as indicated above, Perception Theory and Memes — Full Circle, [March, 2019].   This group develops a universal ontology and epistemology under the heading “Perception Theory.”  Perception Theory is a combination of rationalism and existentialism which enjoys a wide range of applications, as demonstrated in Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016] and The “Problem ” of Free Will, [June, 2018].  In addition to illuminating directions of modern political and economic theory, Perception Theory particularly sheds light on topics from Group I., as shown by Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016], I Believe!, [Oct., 2016], Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017],  and Prayer, [Feb., 2017].   Hence, from the perspective of sorting out “god and god stories,” much of Group II. seems like a continuation and elaboration of Group I. (as the posting dates of publishing on www.ronniejhastings.com (site name Beyond Good and Evil) above might indicate).

Memes blending “full circle” with Perception Theory (Perception Theory and Memes — Full Circle, [March, 2019]) indicates that a common theme woven throughout both groups, the “what” and “why” of gods and god stories, will also have a “full circle” of its own.  Philosophy of religion often posits the “problem” of God.  As in the “problem” of free will (The “Problem ” of Free Will, [June, 2018]), a question is begged:  is there need of a “problem” at all?  The epistemological questions surrounding the formation of Christianity (and all religious sects, for that matter), coupled with the suggestion that ontological differences among theists, atheists, and agnostics are silly and absurd (Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]), imply, in my opinion, a resolution concerning any such “problem” is highly plausible.

{Here it is necessary to interject that the more familiar the reader is with the content of all the posts referenced above, greater and swifter will be the understanding of that which is to follow.  Bear in mind that, as always, “understanding” is not necessarily the same as “agreeing.”  Listing all the posts above emphasizes that the “full circle” attempted hereafter is not some momentary epiphany, revelation, emotional experience, recent whim, or musing, but, rather, is the result of years of methodical, careful thought leading to satisfying  personal conclusions.  That they would be satisfying to anyone else is unwarranted speculation on my part.  Achieving understanding (not necessarily agreeing) with others may be a forlorn hope (See Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017]), but achieving any understanding from others at least would provide relief from any lingering angst over my personal “subjective trap” (See Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]) — adding to the personal relief memes give (See Perception Theory and Memes — Full Circle, [March 2019]).}

In dealing with gods and god stories in terms of memes, we do not start “from scratch;” all terminology has been defined in the above posts in both Groups I. and II.  The context of our start is 1. We are star-stuff in self-contemplation.  2.  Math is the language of the universe.  To this context is added 3.  God is a looped non-veridically based concept in our heads, or meme having no resonance with the “real” veridical world or universe outside our epiphenomenal minds contained in our veridical physiological brains. (Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016])  Therefore, God exists as does a unicorn, as does Santa Claus, as does the tooth fairy, as does Satan.  The same existence applies to the generic term “gods” as well as to stories about God, or god stories.

Memes or concepts of the veridical world outside us, like the idea of “rock” or “dog,” are non-veridical, like the memes of gods, but with a very important difference: they are resonant memes, resonating with the empirical data bombarding our senses when we experience a rock or a dog.  We use our epiphenomenal  imaginations to create memes of both looped concepts (non-veridically self-contained in the imagination) and resonant concepts (non-veridically related with the veridical “outside” world indicated by our continual “pouring in” of empirical sense data).  Imagined worlds in science fiction are looped memes and scientific theories are resonant memes.  “Scientific” objectivity is making memes as resonant as possible, or as veridical as possible (AVAPS!, [May, 2018] and Toward an Imagined Order of Everything, Using AVAPS, [June, 2018]).

Certain looped non-veridical memes, like Santa Claus and Satan, are made to appear resonant by saying Santa Claus is the “personification” of Christmas giving or Satan is the “personification” of human evil.  Personifications are like avatars, or manifestations of something else.  If the “something else” has a veridical existence, again, like a rock or a dog, then it would not be looped.  The behavior of giving at Christmas and acts of human evil are real enough, just as human values like “love” and “freedom,” but equating the spirit of giving with a human form or evil acts in general with a human form is as absurd as equating all the facets of human love to a single form (like a pagan goddess) or all the facets of freedom to a single form (like Miss Liberty).  Therefore, just like a goddess such as  Venus or Aphrodite does not exist like a rock or dog, or a historical woman named Miss Liberty does not exist like a rock or dog, Santa Claus does not exist, nor does Satan.  As extant beings, Santa Claus, Satan, Venus, and Miss Liberty are looped memes; the phenomena of which these four are personifications, giving at Christmas, human evil, love, and freedom, respectively, do exist as scientifically observable distinct acts in the veridical real world, and, therefore, are resonating, non-veridical memes (Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]).  Personifying (or making gods of) real human activity is a primitive habit of human imagination that probably began with the earliest forms of animism, and is linked with the origins of religion and its ritualization; personification was and still is a method of making sophisticated memes understandable for children; as adults it is strange today that in Christian civilizations we shed the notion that Santa “really” (that is, veridically) exists, but many of us still believe Satan “really” (i.e., veridically) exists.

What about the looped meme God, a.k.a. Yahweh, Elohim, or Jehovah in Judaism, God in Christianity, or Allah in Islam?  To what would God resonate to make God a resonate meme, like love, evil, or freedom?  To the whole world, being that God is the creator god?  Would that not be pantheism, meaning we worship the universe? (How odd would that be, in that we are part of the universe?  To worship the universe is to make the matter and energy of our bodies also objects of adoration, along with mountains, stars, animals, etc.)  To worship any part of the universe is, again, returning back to primitive religion, to idolatry.  It seems clear to me that we have made up God as the personification of everything, as the answer to any question we may pose.  As I said in Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016], God is the Grand Answerer, Super-friend, and Creator.   God, once believed in within the individual heads of worshipers, can be used to any end by the clergy, from yesterday’s shamans to today’s popes, ministers, priests, mullahs, etc.  It seems easy for us to forget that just because we can imagine X, that does not mean that X exists like a rock or a dog (Remember, a rock or a dog exists in our head like any other non-veridical meme — in the form of a concept stored as memory built by perception.)

God, therefore, is the ultimate meme, the meme beyond which nothing can be imagined.  The meme of God is seemingly a tribute to the power of our imagination, but the history of humanly imagined religion shows this tribute to be simultaneously a problem — a flexible meme easily twisted into a “pass” to do evil to each other; this is the toxicity of most, if not all, of theology; this is why Richard Dawkins describes religious, theological memes as agents of a chronic mental disease; this is why I separated ethics from theology in Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015].

But have I not described God as the atheists do?  No, not quite.  Perception Theory allows existence in the real, veridical universe outside our minds (which includes our bodies, including our brains), but also allows the epiphenomenal, non-veridical existence of imagined memes inside our minds, which are, in turn, inside our brains.  In other words, an imagined entity, like a unicorn, if defined in any mind, can have an ephemeral existence as stored data in the memory of the brain of that mind; in this sense looped non-veridical memes exist.  A very weak existence compared with the strong veridical existence of a rock’s meme or the quickened and strong veridical existence of a dog’s meme (Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]), for sure, but an existence made possible by our imaginative, epiphenomenal mind.  According to Perception Theory, then, an atheist recognizes only strong veridical existence, whereas a theist thinks that a weak existence is as strong as a strong existence.  An agnostic does not take either position, but Perception Theory would say all three positions are in denial of the ability of the mind to be both objective and subjective.  Theists, atheists, and agnostics can all agree that some form of God exists in the heads of both believers and non-believers (Atheists have a meme of a god that does not exist in the real veridical world like a meme of a rock or dog that does exist in the real veridical world.), and that existence of god has no basis outside the human mind; all can agree to the statement, “God exists!” in the dual veridical/non-veridical definition allowed in Perception Theory.  All the conflict, blood, and death perpetuated over disagreement as to what kind of God is “real” throughout the terrible annals of historical warfare, pillage, incarceration, and personal violence were never necessary, and in the long run silly; what still goes on today is folly, absurd, and unjustified.  How less amazing are the billions of concepts (memes) of God in the imaginations of humans worldwide compared to the consensus, imagined Creator God of, say, Genesis, Chapter 1?

In order for theists, atheists, and agnostics to agree on the existence of God or of the gods, atheists have to compromise but very little, while theists will have to move their position a great deal.  To agree that God exists in the imaginations of individual heads into which no other but that individual can “see,” due to the subjective trap, is not that far away from the “classic” atheistic claim that there is no supernatural deity or deities in the “real,” veridical universe.  The theist “classic” claim is just the opposite that of the atheist — there IS WITHOUT DOUBT a God that exists outside human imagination, just like some part of the universe or the universe itself actually exists.  If one listens carefully to the worshipful words of praise of theists (at least, this has been my experience), the existence of God is affirmed “within the heart” of the believer — affirmed by an epiphenomenal feeling of emotion fueled by faith (See Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017]).  That is about as far from objective evidence as one can get.  This, instead of affirming God’s existence, affirms what Perception Theory identifies as a looped non-veridically based case for existence.  That is, the theist’s affirmation of God’s existence is no stronger than that of affirming the existence of unicorns or tooth fairies, and is much weaker than affirming the existence, of, say, freedom.  And, of course, the theist’s affirmation of God’s existence is minuscule compared to the strong veridically based cases for existence of, say, a rock or a dog (Perception Theory:  Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]).  As for agnostics, I would speculate that some would welcome the compromise about God’s or the gods’ existence with the “little-to-lose shoulder shrug” of the atheists, or some might remain skeptical and non-committed, not willing to come close to agreeing with theists, who they see as gullible and naive.  All in all, I would speculate that at the “table” of agreement of all three groups over Perception Theory’s compromise possibility of the existence of God, it would be disproportionately made up of atheists, with a smaller group of agnostics, followed by an even smaller group of theists who have bravely changed their ontological thinking a great deal.   The future success of Perception Theory might be measured by seeing if the population at the compromise table might approach equal proportions from all three groups.  (No matter what the proportions at the table might be, Perception Theory might take credit for the absence of evangelism among the three groups, as, by definition, the table is one of agreement.)

Stated directly and succinctly, God or gods exist(s) only in our imaginations; we made up all deities, past, present, and future.  Most theology is not only useless, it can often be dangerous and even lethal.  Not all of religion is useless; part of religion is vital — the ethical part based upon the Golden Rule or Principle of Reciprocity (Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015]).  In Western culture this means a deliberate separation of ethics from theology in religions like the three Abrahamic ones, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; this separation is already done in some religions of Eastern culture, like Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, and Taoism.  We have met the Creator God, and it is us; there is no problem of God or of the gods — just like all memes in our heads, the ultimate meme of God or the gods is at our disposal; we can do with theology what we will; we can make it impotent and irrelevant, just as we have made memes like pseudoscience, superstitions, and unwanted or uninteresting fantasies.  Just as was done by so many Americans in their revolution for independence, religion must be relegated and confined to individual minds, not made into social and sacred creeds demanding conflicting evangelism (The United States of America — A Christian Nation? [June, 2012]).

 

With the gods relegated to fantasy within our heads, we can now deal with god stories and the lessons they teach with historical utilitarianism.  Like so much of “ancient wisdom” from our distant past, such as the humanistic Principle of Reciprocity, we can both individually and collectively judge the god stories and their lessons without fear of supernatural reprisals.  For example, in Christian culture, from which I come, I can now see that the Old Testament of the Bible is a collection of literature blended together by Hebrew scholars and priests to teleologically justify the invasion and conquest by newly independent nomads of what we call the Holy Land, all under the theological guise of the Hebrews being God’s “Chosen People.”  I can now see that the New Testament of the Bible is a collection of literature blended together by the scholars of a new sect to teleologically justify the execution of their leader as a common criminal (See all of Group I. for details).  The New Testament is to Christians what the Icelandic Sagas were to many Scandinavians of the Viking persuasion.

Erich Fromm, a Jewish humanist philosopher, who describes himself as a “non-theist,” has done something very similar way before Perception Theory.  In Ye Shall Be As Gods (Fawcett Premier Books, New York, 1966 — ISBN 0-449-30763-8), Fromm “radically” interprets the Old Testament as the evolution of the relationship between the meme (concept) of God and the entirety of mankind, not just the “Chosen People.”  He offers understanding into the “God is dead” meme and gives insight into the New Testament’s Passion of Christ, using Psalm 22.  The rabbinic teachings of the Old Testament during the centuries of the Diaspora are also employed.  By critically looking at the Old Testament, Fromm has, in my opinion, created paths toward its greater appreciation. (Why Some White Evangelical Christians Voted for and/or Still Support Donald Trump, [Dec., 2018])

With the gods relegated to fantasy within our heads, we can now investigate why religion sprang within the heads of our species in the first place.  The reasons why belief in some form of supernatural entities or spirits in the real world became, apparently, necessary for human survival in our cognitive revolution during our species “hunter-gatherer” stage can now be studied and be made into a consensus of anthropology.  Elements dealing with the origins of religion from Groups I. and II. have already pointed the way (See At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015],  Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015], Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016], I Believe!, [Oct., 2016],  and Toward an Imagined Order of Everything, Using AVAPS, [June, 2018]).  The physical and cognitive attributes that were passed on from generation to generation over thousands of years contributing to our species-wide universal “religiosity” will have to break down the elements of our survival, such as cooperation, altruism, and the necessity of suspending doubt and questioning in times of emergency, such as discussed in I Believe!, [Oct., 2016], wherein our ancestors having to deal with a “leopard problem” is offered as a “thought scenario.”  How did religion evolve from simple appeasement of a local “leopard god” to the continual sacrifice of thousands atop Aztec temples in Tenochtitlan?  How did we get from admonishing our children to be quiet when the shaman is speaking to the eruption of the Thirty Years War?  What a difference between believing a god or gods causes thunder/lightning and calling the faithful to the Crusades!

With the gods relegated to fantasy within our heads, we can now see how important the separation of theology from ethics is.  Moreover, such a separation is conveniently seen as a sorting of memes.  When the origin of religion, with its subsets of theology and ethics, is couched in terms of memes, I would suggest that the vital “good” memes, those of ethics coming from the human mind and necessarily developing in the longest childhood of all primates, if not of all mammals.  That is, the memes of ethics for human beings necessarily formed on the “template” of the development of the nuclear family — mother, child, father, and extended family, including friends.  The rules of behavior taught to a child are extrapolated to apply not only to the mother-child relationship, but to all other possible relationships within the hunter-gather group, and these rules collectively are treated as social norms applied throughout childhood and adulthood.  In turn, these norms were justified upon the authority of the group.  This collective authority became more than “what our mothers and older siblings told us;” it became the authority of the political leaders and the authority of the “spiritual” leaders, the shamen, the beginning of politics and the beginning of religion.  But now, without the necessity of religious memes, only those of politics and ethics are still needed.  (Recalling a point germane to the “need” for religion shown by Yuval Noah Harari in his book Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind – that religion is a meme that can motivate many more than a leader within shouting distance, once that meme is transmitted to other minds — I would hasten to add that today’s almost instant electronic communications over the world wide internet has taken over religion’s communicative skill and can spread memes much, much better; spreading theological memes using the internet only accelerates the spread of the “poison.”)  Religion and theology memes are not needed any more; only ethics memes are needed.

Gods as fantasy has at least one ancient precedent.  In India, in the 3rd to 6th centuries, BCE (or BC), the original form of Buddhism, called Hinayana or Theravada Buddhism, basically ignored the question of the existence of the gods (curiously non-theological) and concentrated on the human, inner, existentialist self (Jainism, contemporary with the founding centuries of Buddhism, could be spoken of in a similar vein, and could even be seen as outward looking, not for the gods, but for practicing an extreme reverence for life).  Hinayana Buddhism dealt with attaining Nirvana, or enlightenment as demonstrated by Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism; dealing with gods took a back seat to struggling with inner human desire; the gods were not germane to Siddhartha’s original teaching.  In time Mahayana Buddhism (along with other forms, like Zen) became the dominant form of Siddhartha’s teaching, in which Siddhartha himself, or Buddha, became deified as a god — much as Jesus himself became deified as a god in Christianity (Sorting Out Constantine I the Great and His Momma, [Feb., 2015]).  Imagery featuring the statues of Buddha are found at Mahayana sites, but sites featuring simple imagery such as Buddha’s footprint are Hinayana or Theravada sites.

Note the “direction” of Hinayana Buddhism, though admirably unhindered by the gods, is inward, toward the non-veridical, not outward, toward the veridical, as are science, technology, math, and engineering (the STEM subjects in US schools), which are equally and admirably unhindered by the gods.  The success of studying “outward” toward the veridical is another way of repeating the message of AVAPS!, [May, 2018] — As Veridical As Possible, Stupid!  Hinayana Buddhism took its lack of theology and went the “wrong” direction!  Hinayana Buddhism should have done “a 180,” (180 degrees) and gone the opposite direction.

Without the threats of punishment after death or fantasies of paradise after death germane to much of theology, religion becomes transparent as many, many forms of the sociological phenomenon of a cult.  At every religion’s beginning — more finely, at the beginning of every denomination’s sect — it is a cult.  If I in another time had acted upon my “visitation” from my deceased great uncle in the form of a vivid dream, as described in At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015], and had convinced others around me I had communicated with the dead, I would have formed a cult.  Great religions of the world throughout history are successful cults, their “truth” erroneously measured by their success, and large subsets of great religions are smaller successful cults.  Cults venerate a “great” being (usually a god or person of “special” powers) through the leadership of a cult founder, who also can be the venerated.  Thus, Judaism can be seen as Moses founding the veneration of Yahweh, Elohim, or Jehovah, and Christianity can be seen as Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene venerating Jesus (See At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015]).  Smaller successful cults in the Christian vein include cult leaders such as many Popes, many Orthodox archbishops, many saints, Martin Luther (Lutherans) , John Calvin (Presbyterians), Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer (Anglicans in U.K., Episcopalians in U.S.), George Fox (Quakers), Jane Wardley, Ann Lee, and Lucy Wright (Shakers), John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and Roger Williams (Baptists), Charles Wesley, John Wesley, and George Whitefield (Methodists), Joseph Smith (Mormons), Christian Rosenkreuz (Rosicrucians), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientists), William Miller and Ellen G. White (Seventh-day Adventists), Barton W. Stone (Christian Church, Disciples of Christ), Alexander Campbell (Church of Christ), Charles Fox Parham and William Seymour (Pentecostals), 1914 General Council at Hot Springs (Assembly of God), and Sun Myung Moon (Unification Church) — just to name a few with which I am familiar.  Two non-Christian examples of small successful cults are 3 Roman Emperors (veneration of Apollonius) (See Sorting Out Jesus, [July, 2015])  and Scientology (veneration of L. Ron Hubbard).  Two unsuccessful cult leaders and their cults here in the United States are Jim Jones (Peoples Temple) and David Koresh (Branch Davidians).  The toxicity of theology throughout history has been carried out through cults such as these.  The ethical kindness, love, and care of one group of humans to another group has also been carried out through cults such as these, but what has been overlooked is that ethical behavior needs no theology or organized religion to spread from one human to others.  When Jesus taught his version of the Golden Rule, he talked not of loving your neighbor as yourself through the social vehicle of the synagogue; the foundation of ethics, our caring for each other, has no origin in any religion or any theology; the Principle of Reciprocity began within each little hunter-gatherer group that successfully struggled for survival.  If theology exists as a meme in an individual, there it must stay — it should not be passed on to others; mental health services can help individuals for whom resisting that passing on is a struggle.  On the other hand, if ethics such as the ethical teachings of Jesus exists as a meme in an individual, by all means it should be passed on, as ethical memes were passed on in the little hunter-gatherer groups.  To be ethical in the manner spoken here is to be human, not religious or theological.  We are not human to each other through the imagined groups to which we belong, but, rather through the fact we are homo sapiens.

The general “shedding” of religion and its toxic theology, then, is seen as a veridically-based “enlightenment” which follows AVAPS toward more anthropological memes.  Imaginations young and old, fueled by the ethics of reciprocity (The Golden Rule), cannot but generate memes fired in the scrutiny of scientific consensus that will solve problems and heal wounds both for our species and for our planet and the universe beyond.  We are tweaking our inner-star-stuff to resonate more with the star-stuff that makes up the rest of the universe.

I would suggest that any reader who thinks this is but another announcement of another religion, of another cult, is victimized by her seemingly genetic tendency to think in terms of gods and god stories.  He needs to go back and read or re-read Groups I. and II.  God as the ultimate, unnecessary meme is NOT a new religion, NOT a new cult.  Rather, it is a veridically-directed philosophy transcendent of theism, atheism, or agnosticism.  Using the combination of rationalism and existentialism provided by Perception Theory, it suggests an expansion of anthropology to deal with the “who, what, why, and how” of human existence; the “who, what, why, and how” of human existence used to be handled by religion and its attendant theology, and I am suggesting that they have failed miserably.  The “should” statements used above are not evangelical pontificates, but, rather, are calls to consider looking at existence veridically, to look at existence in the opposite way Hinayana Buddhism did.  When I followed my own “shoulds” of Perception Theory tied to religion, I found the intellectual and emotional personal satisfaction I had been seeking for years. (“Personal satisfaction” does not mean I’ve not continued to question “everything,” especially this meme like Perception Theory that my imagination conjures.)  Perhaps my own intellectual adventure might be of help toward others finding their own version of personal satisfaction.  Or, perhaps not.  I’ve written it down compelled by an ethical Principle of Reciprocity tens of thousands of years old and taught by Jesus and so many others.

RJH

 

 

Perception Theory and Memes — Full Circle

It seems straightforward to integrate Perception Theory with Meme Theory.  Perception Theory has been introduced and experimentally tested on various issues and topics within this website Beyond Good and Evil or www.ronniejhastings. com (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016], Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016], and Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]).  The theory of memes was developed by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1989, Oxford University Press, New York, ISBN 0-19-286092-5 (pbk.) ) and expanded by Dawkins in A Devil’s Chaplain, Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (2003, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, ISBN 0-618-33540-4).  Daniel C. Dennett  in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Evolution and the Meanings of Life (1995, Simon & Schuster, New York, ISBN 0-684-80290-2) dealt with the philosophical implications of memes in evolutionary theory.

Generally, memes are synonymous with the non-veridical (subjective) ideas, concepts, memories, meanings, algorithms, symbols, theories, and language all illustrated in Figure 1 of Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016], as well as the interactions of the non-veridical interactions among memory loops, ideas, self-perception, and concepts represented in the same figure.  In other words, memes are the constituents of the non-veridical “world display screen” presented to our “mind’s eye” illustrated in Figure 2 of Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016].  ( For example, quoting from The Selfish Gene, “If the meme is a scientific idea……a rough measure of its survival value would be obtained by counting the number of times it is referred to in successive years in scientific journals.” )  Figure 2 is a collage of both veridically and non-veridically produced  results “projected” on the “screen” that makes up what we experience as perception.  So, why were memes not used from the very beginning of Perception Theory (2016)?  Mainly because memes by 2016 were associated with Dawkins’ theory that “religious” memes were like infectious, toxic “viruses,” meaning that in his view religion functioned like a mental disease.  In the minds of many of the religious, therefore, the word “memes” meant some sort of atheism, especially as Dawkins became demonized among some believers as a professed atheist.  So, at the beginning (2016) of the development of Perception Theory, the use of generic and more “benign” terms like “ideas” and “concepts” rather than a “toxic” term like “memes” seemed “fairer” and more “open minded” to both believers and non-believers alike.  Only when Perception Theory led to a possible “common ground” of agreement among theists, atheists, and agnostics in Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016] and after Perception Theory was applied to philosophical and religious cultural concepts such as belief, hope, faith, prayer, and free will (I Believe!, [Oct., 2016], Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017], Prayer, [Feb., 2017], and The “Problem” of Free Will, [June, 2018]), keeping memes out of the language of Perception Theory would make the theory appear incomplete; the “cat was out of the bag;” there was no longer any need to be concerned about open-mindedness, as the religious basis of such concerns had been exposed in the understanding of religion itself through the memes of Perception Theory .  Succinctly, since all theories are concepts, all theories are memes.  All religions are memes.  Memes are the common specie of human culture, and Perception Theory is an ontological approach to all culture.  Therefore, Perception Theory is another meme dealing with the production of memes, or, actually, a “meme of memes.”

It is possible Perception Theory is the most “self-contemplative” meme yet, a meme exploring the ontology of memes.  I suppose I could have entitled Perception Is Everything “Memes Are Everything” instead.

Therefore, the word “meme” could have been substituted for many of the different terms sprinkled all over Figure 1 of Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016] and substituted for all the drawn symbols ( both solid and dashed ) and written equations sprinkled all over Figure 2 of Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016].  But that would have been a too ridiculous application of Occam’s Razor, losing all categorical distinction of one meme from another (not to mention making two figures covered with the same word obviously unnecessary).  But using the word “meme” now, in coming full circle back to the beginning of Perception Theory as represented by Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016], may be useful in furthering understanding of the “subjective trap” introduced in Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016].  Could “meme” get us out of the trap?  Could “meme” help us “prove” that other minds like our own exist?  Could “meme” help us actually perceive the perception of another person?  “No, not really” is an appropriate answer to all three of these questions.  But because of the broader concept of the non-veridical products of our epiphenomenal mind that the term “meme” brings — namely, that memes “spread” from mind to mind —  the assumption of other minds around us becomes more intellectually palatable, more “comfortable” than just the stretching of “our limits of credulity into absurdity” presented in Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016].  ( Again quoting from the same sentences as above from The Selfish Gene, “..[the scientific theory meme’s] spread will depend on how acceptable it is to the population of individual scientists…” (brackets mine).)  Because our minds are filled (or “infected” to use Dawkins’ term) with memes that have “traveled” or been “transported” from meme sources other than our own mind (“Thank you!  I never thought of that!”), our tendency is never to doubt that “new” memes are from sources like we have within our own skulls — our brains.  Looking at the “behavior” of memes, the subjective trap seems not as isolating and bound to solipsism as it first appears.

The specie of human culture, the meme, allows Perception Theory to be thought of collectively, not confined to our own personal experience.  Perception Theory is a meme that provides a possible explanation of the production and evolution of memes in the epiphenomenal non-veridical mind of the veridical brain.  And cultural evolution can be understood as the flow of memes, the flow of humanly “made up” information, some of which we revere (because it is AVAPS,” as veridical as possible, stupid) — revere as “knowledge.”

 

RJH

 

 

The “Problem” of Free Will

Perception Theory (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]) describes human existence as a perpetual juxtaposition of empirical sense data from the outside, veridical, “real,” objective world outside our brains with imagined data of concepts, ideas, and orders from the “inside,” non-veridical, epiphenomenal subjectivity inside our brains — all projected upon our world view “screen” (perceived by the mind’s “eye”), upon which we simultaneously perceive what we “see” from the real world and what we “see” with our imagination. (Again, see Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016])  Clearly, the areas of philosophy emphasized by Perception Theory are ontology and epistemology.

Almost any extended discussion of human ontology and epistemology sooner or later gets around to the topic of “free will,” the  problem of whether we have discretionary powers over what we think and do, or, are we slaves to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry, such that any such discretionary powers are delusional.  Do we have free will or not?

It seems reasonable that Perception Theory has the ability to answer the question of free will and “solve” the problem of free will.

In Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016] the “subjective trap” is defined as the impossibility of an individual to see both the perception of something like “red” on our world screen inside our heads and the biochemistry within the neurons of our brain we know responsible for causing the perception “red” on our screen.  This impossibility leads to our assuming without proof that our perception of anything is just like someone else’s perception of the same thing.  Were we to look inside the head of that someone else perceiving red, we would see only his/her biochemistry of red, not his/her perception of red.  Hence, because of the subjective trap, we ASSUME others’ perceptions are as our perceptions, but there is no way of justifying that assumption in a scientific, objective way; we justify the assumption only in a practical, utilitarian way — communication among all of us seems to be compatibly possible making this assumption.

Is free will assumed similarly as are the perceptions of others?  If so, it would have to be assumptions within and about the individual mind, not assumptions about the perceptions of others.  Let’s say I am on a pleasant walk among a park’s many walkways and I come to a two-pronged fork in the path of equally appealing potential pathways, and, to all appearances, including my own, I CHOOSE one of the two paths and continue my walk.  Did I choose of my own free will?  A proponent of objective deterministic free will might argue that all my previous experience, if known, would predict with certainty which path I would choose, and only because I cannot command from my memory ALL my experiences (If I could, my brain would be flooded to insanity with stored empirical data.), I delude myself into thinking I flippantly, “for-no-reason,” “just-because-I-feel-like-it,” or randomly chose which path to take; in other words, I do not have free will, but have not the capacity of realizing I do not; my choosing is illusory.  A proponent of subjective free will might just as well argue that I have complete discretion in the two possible states of walking one path or another.  Even if my past experiences tend me toward my left or right, with each new decision I am free to choose either way in disregard of my tendencies, without having to justify that decision to anyone, including myself.  “Choosing without thinking about it” is a hallmark of my exercising what everyone is assumed to have, a free will.  But, just like the objective argument admits the futility of realizing all the assumed factors that “determine” the illusion of free will, the subjective argument irresponsibly assumes a “freedom” of choice ignoring all the physical laws to which the complexity of the brain and its epiphenomenal mind are subject.  Note how both arguments employ non-demonstrable assumptions, implying free will is not demonstrable without such assumptions.

Perception Theory, an admitted blend of the objective and the subjective (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]), suggests both arguments are useful in solving the problem of free will.  The patterns of empirical data that demand strong veridical resonance of the mind with the “outside” world compel science and medicine to conclude all causes and effects, including our apparent free will, to be understandable in terms of particles, fields, and energy.  Yet these particles, fields, and energy are creations, or concepts, or imagined orders of the subjective mind.  (The epistemological “bottom line” of particles, fields, and energy existing outside our brains (mind) is that when we observe external to ourselves as objectively as possible [scientifically], we have to say the universe outside us behaves AS IF all the universe is made of particles, fields, and energy.)  We know how these particles, fields, and energy can demonstrate and explain physical phenomenon throughout the universe, but we do not know how they can be used (yet) to demonstrate how empirical data and previously store ideas can produce veridical and non-veridical projections upon our world screen of perception in our heads.  Similarly, particles, fields, and energy cannot demonstrate (yet) the explanation of free will not being “free” at all.  On the other hand, the “freedom” of the subjective argument cannot be truly free, as our perceptions ultimately are products of “star-stuff” just as much as our brain and body are, and star-stuff is bound by the universe’s demonstrable laws of physical science and life science.

What is suggested by Perception Theory, then, is that just like it is logically impossible for a person to simultaneously experience both her biochemical (objective) perception of red and her non-veridical (subjective) perception of red, it is logically impossible for free will to be both completely deterministic and completely without empirical cause.  In other words, when I appear to exercise free will at the fork of paths I cannot assume my choice is determined NOR can I assume I’ve exercised any kind of free will.

So what is free will, given the logically impossibilities and forced assumptions of both free will’s detractors and proponents?  What is suggested in my mind as a trained physicist is that free will is just like light.  When you ask a physicist what is the nature of light, waves or particles, the answer is “both; it depends upon how light is measured or observed.”  Similarly, free will is neither determined or undetermined.  “Free will” has to be a non-veridical concept, but not a scientific one trying to explain the veridical world outside our brain.  Rather, free will is a concept trying to explain human choice or volition, a behavior of possibilities, just like human love is a behavior of possibilities.  Gravity is a concept that can take on objectivity; free will, like any other human psychological concept, cannot, as DEFINITIVE SELF-STUDY CANNOT BE AS OBJECTIVE AS DEFINITIVE STUDY OF OUTSIDE THE SELF.  When we study the star-stuff that is us, we cannot escape ourselves, so that we cannot ever see ourselves as if we were outside ourselves; we cannot see ourselves objectively like the subjects of physical science.  This is why physics is considered a “hard” science, while psychology is considered a “soft” science.  It is as if the study of our minds has built-in an unavoidable uncertainty principle, like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.  Just like light can behave differently in different cases, the exercise of our free will can appear deterministic in some cases and wildly free in others.  Two different observers of my choice at the fork of paths could describe my exercise of “free will” differently.  One might say he predicted my choice and the other might say my choice looked completely random to her.  Neither could measure the “amount” of free will I exercised, and, neither could I.  I could recall my choice later as one of conscious or unconscious deliberation, or as one of complete obliviousness to either path, or as one somewhere in between.

All this uncertainty and lack of objective definition suggests that free will is a rationalization of convenience arrived at in the minds of humans over thousands of years to obtain the mental comfort of explanation of particular human behavior in the act of choosing.  Free will is psychological balm soothing the discomfort in trying to answer “Why did I do that?”, or “Why did he do that?”, or “Why did she do that?”  The real answer, down to the neuron, is like education, too complicated to understand entirely.  The non-veridical concept of “free will” or “lack of free will” is assumed as a practical vehicle toward understanding human behavior.  Free will, like concepts of gods or god stories, is a practical and illogical explanation that conveniently and more easily explains behaviors without having to take the trouble to objectively study them; free will makes dealing with human choices efficient.  Free will is an unconscious assumption of the human mind passed on generation to generation directly or indirectly.

So, who is right when it comes to free will, the objective proponent or the subjective proponent?  Both.  Who is wrong when it comes to free will, the objective proponent or the subjective proponent?  Both.  The “problem” of free will is not a problem at all.

 

Yet, any impasse about free will implied by the foregoing discussion is not a “hard” impasse like the subjective trap in Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016].  Progress can be made toward understanding free will, by, first, dropping the “free” part and just talk about “will,” or just talk about human volition.  So my choice of paths employed above would come to a discussion of my choice being a product of my personal volition in that moment.  Next, one’s volition, or will, can be seen as a well-developed psycho-physio behavior practiced inside the individual from early days of infancy, if not before in the womb (See “I.  Development of Self-Consciousness in a Human Infant” in Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016]).

Part of human self-consciousness is the awareness we can willfully do or think things just by employing an “I want to..” in our mind.  In my opinion, the “feeling,” perception, genetic tendency, or epiphenomenal “extra” for self-consciousness that we can will any action or thought of our own free will is one of many important evolved results of the “Cognitive Revolution” that occurred in our species, according to Harari (Sapiens and Homo Deus), between 70,000 and 12,000 years ago, before the Agricultural Revolution.  Clearly, our conviction we have a will that we control had, and probably still has, survival value — a trait “favored” by our physical and cultural evolution.  Perception Theory emphasizes that, as our self-consciousness was developed, probably around and within the Cognitive Revolution, our imaginations developed the ability of perceiving ourselves independent of our present setting.  That is, we could imagine ourselves not only in the present, but also imagine ourselves in the past or in the future.  Imagining ourselves in this way naturally includes imagining ourselves doing or thinking something in the present, past, or future.  The logical explanation of the cause of our doing or thinking something independent of setting is having the ability to command our thoughts and actions of our imagination; it is logical to us we have a will “barking orders of our judgement or whimsy” within our imagination.  And it is logical to us because we’ve been exercising that will since we were infants, according to our imagination. (Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016])  We can easily imagine all infants, including ourselves when we were one, for the first time reaching out with a hand to touch or grasp some object that is not part of their body; the baby “wanted to” or “willed” his/herself to touch or grasp.

Not only can “will” be seen as a natural evolutionary development in our heads, it can be seen, thanks to modern science, as subject to statistics and probabilities of the complicated.  In the wake of the revolutionary development of the Kinetic Theory of Matter wherein all matter (including our bodies and our brains) is seen as composed of countless particles called atoms or clusters of atoms, molecules, statistical mechanics was developed in place of Newtonian mechanics, which had “no prayer” to describe countless masses moving and colliding with each other.  Statistical measurements, such as temperature, were defined to represent an average value of kinetic energy for all the masses, which tells you nothing about the value for a single particle.  Moreover, the scale of atoms and molecules is quantum mechanical, meaning mechanics are quantum, not Newtonian.  Hence, interactions on an atomic scale, such as the firing of a neuron in a brain cell, are statistical and quantum, not biological in scale and behavior.  In other words, our brain-based non-veridical “mind” exists because of countless neurons (brain cell) quantum mechanically interacting in accordance to biochemistry; just like the “well-defined” big-scale images on our TV screens are produced by atomic-level, quantum solid state circuitry understood in terms of electrons which are so tiny they can only be “seen” indirectly, our “well-defined” imagined images on our world perception screen in our heads are produced by atomic-level, quantum biochemistry within neurons understood in terms of the same electrons.  And all quantum phenomena are “fuzzy,” not fixed, subject to statistical fluctuations and unavoidably described in uncertain probabilities; the appearance of certainty on the scale of our bodies (big-scale) is the statistical mean of atomic “outputs” filtered by our averaging senses to a single result.  When we perceive “red,” the probability that we are perceiving data similar to previous perceptions of red is high, but, statistically, can never, ever be exactly the same, because the same exact set of electrons, atoms, and molecules that produced the previous perception are not available to produce the next; our big-scale senses only deliver the average of countless atomic-level inputs from incoming light data and processed, averaged biochemical data by our retina cells and optic nerve cells.  Imagine how “averaged” must be the non-veridical images on our world screen!  Our “feelings,” perceptions, and convictions are our big-scale utilitarian “averaging” of unimaginably numerous and unfathomably complicated quantum behaviors of the atomic level particles making up our brain.  And each “averaging,” it stands to reason, can never be repeated in detail.  Equally reasonable is the assumption that the averaging only has to be accurate enough to “get us by,” to assure that we survive as a species.

Our “will” is a self-imposed, evolutionary, imagined property describing our subjective “self,” the epiphenomenal result of the long-ago origin of self-awareness and self-consciousness.  It is a psychological, positive, mental “crutch” to attribute to ourselves the ability to conjure actions and thoughts; it is basic to our self-confidence.  There is, however, as best we know, no reason to call it “free.”

Further ontological insight into “will” can only be possible through future understanding, via scientific research, of how the physical, veridical brain can produce epiphenomenal, non-veridical perceptions.  The same research will perhaps make progress toward understanding and, maybe, redefining (“overcoming”) the subjective trap.  Though obviously useful, Perception Theory can be improved with better models and metaphors than veridical, non-veridical, world-view screen, etc.  Building a better theory seems necessary toward better understanding “will” and the subjective trap.

 

RJH

 

Toward an Imagined Order of Everything, Using AVAPS

Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]; Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016]; and Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]) defines human existence in terms of the products of our imagination, products formed by the non-veridical, subjective mind mixing veridical, empirical raw data from our senses with previously formed non-veridical subjective ideas, concepts, and perceptions. These products “appear” on the world display “screen” of our mind’s consciousness (Figure 1 in Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]). These products can be conveniently classified as “imagined orders,” after Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind and Homo Deus, A Brief History of Tomorrow).  Any products of the human mind that have been shared partially or wholly across the species throughout cultural history can be called imagined orders, such as plans, ideas, conceptions, inductions, deductions, scientific theories, political theories, economic theories, philosophies, religions, and ideologies of all ilks.  Since Perception Theory postulates that “Perception is everything” and since all perceptions are products of the non-veridical imagination, it follows that Perception Theory itself is an imagined order.

Using anthropology, archaeology, and history as forensic sciences, directions of human betterment and human progress can be ascertained by comparing the historical effects of different imagined orders across time.  In other words, there are better imagined orders than others, measured in benefits to the species; we need to follow the directions suggested by the “better” imagined orders.  In AVAPS! [May, 2018] it was suggested the “better” imagined orders were those as veridical as possible; in other words, the “better” imagined orders resonated strongly with the veridical, “real” world.  For example, the toxic theology attributed to all religions based upon gods and god stories (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016] and Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]) is not one of the better imagined orders upon which we should base future imagined orders.  In his song “Imagine,” John Lennon was right to suggest we should imagine no religion.

 

Perception Theory came not only to using Harari’s terminology, but originally came from questions taking years of off-and-on reading to resolve in my head questions like:  “What were the major historical events contributing to the modern world?” (The Big Picture, [Sept., 2011]); “Is the United States a Christian nation?” (The United States of America — A Christian Nation?, [June, 2012]); “Why did the US-like ideals in France devolve during the French Revolution into the Terror?” (Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, But Words We Don’t Know Can Also Hurt Us, or, Jesus Was a Liberalist, [March, 2012]); “Why was I never in my 40-year teaching career (within both public and private schools) never intellectually reconciled with the educational system I was supposed to be a part of?” (What is Wrong With Public Education…and What To Do About It, [April, 2012], What is Wrong With Public Education…Briefly Revisited, [April, 2012], 1:  Education Reform — Wrong Models!, [May, 2013], 2:  Education Reform — The Right Model, [May, 2013], 3:  Education Reform — How We Get the Teachers We Need, [May, 2013], Top Ten List for Teachers of HS Students Preparing for College or University (Not a Ranking) – A List for Their Students, Too!, [Dec., 2014], and “Campusology” at Texas A&M and in Education 6-12, [Nov., 2016]); “Why am I so critical of American political conservatism?” (Citizens (I) Call For the Destruction of the Political Professional Class, [Nov., 2012], Citizens (II) The Redistribution of Wealth, [Jan., 2013], Citizens (III) Call for Election Reform, [Jan., 2013], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 1, [Dec., 2012], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 2, [Dec., 2012], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 3, [Dec., 2012], Some Thoughts on Trump’s Election, [Nov., 2016], Dealing with Donald, or, A Citizen’s Survival Guide for Trump’s Apparent Presidency, [Dec., 2016]), 21st Century Luddites?, [March, 2017],  21st Century Tories?, [March, 2017], and Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]); “How did Christianity (and by implication other ‘world’ religions) come about?” (Sorting Out the Apostle Paul, [April, 2012], Sorting Out Constantine I the Great and His Momma, [Feb., 2015], Sorting Out Jesus, [July, 2015], At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015], and Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015]); “What are the historical and political effects of globalization?” (Going Global, [March, 2018]).

The results of reading summarized in the above posts indicate the possibility of talking about an “imagined order of everything,” or “universal imagined order,” or “global imagined order” made of component imagined orders seen as “good” for mankind and devoid of imagined orders shown by anthropology, archaeology, and history as “bad” for mankind.  Indeed, is it possible to imagine such a universal order?; is the indication valid?  What follows is the attempt to answer “yes.”  Many of the posts cited above correspond to “good” component imagined orders making up parts of the universal imagined order.

So far, Perception Theory, as developed by the above sources, suggests the global imagined order should include the following component imagined orders (in no hierarchical listing):  a) ethical, b) political/social, c) economic, d) ecological/environmental/agricultural,  e) educational, and f) scientific.

The imagined structure of the global imagined order has to be applicable to all humankind all over the globe and all humankind who will in future leave the planet to live and work in outer space, and, epistemologically, the components of the global imagined order must not conflict or contradict each other, just as we have today in modern science; the physical sciences do not say one thing while the life sciences say another, conflicting, contradictory thing.  The inclusive group of all of us will be thought of as the “ultimate family” and the components of the global imagined order must be also inclusive, compatible, and cooperative.

 

a) Ethically, individuals need to relate to each other via the Golden Rule, the Principle of Reciprocity — like the philosophy of the ethical teachings of Jesus (Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015]).  As Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015] points out, many other thinkers throughout human history — both sacred and secular — before and after the beginnings of Christianity, taught the ethics of the Golden Rule, or the Principle of Reciprocity.  Emphasizing that the Principle of Reciprocity is its own reward, no in-life or afterlife punishment need be taught to young minds.  For this reason and for the sake of avoiding hurting each other due to non-veridical epiphenomenal overload in individual minds, all supernatural gods and god stories should be phased out. (Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016])  John Lennon in “Imagine” sang of not only imagining no religion, but also “no hell below us and above us only sky.”

Harari classifies “religion” as any ideology (non-veridical concept) as anything that can bring together a human group of roughly 150 or more to agree upon a common purpose or action.  He therefore goes on to say that the “religion” of the enlightened West is liberal humanism, wherein the feelings and insights of the individual are supreme, replacing gods and god stories. (For comparison he reminds us of evolutionary humanism, the ideology or “religion” of fascism — which lost out in WWII — and of social humanism, the ideology or “religion” of communism — which collapsed beginning in 1989.)  I prefer to relegate “religion” to any ideology involving gods and god stories; animism and any thought system involving “spirits” (imagined non-veridical concepts) are also relegated to “religion.”  Any form of humanism is, at best, an ethical ideology, in that it attempts to suggest how we should behave toward each other as members of our species.  Therefore, my choice of Jesus’ (and others’) teachings of the Golden Rule could be considered humanistic.  However, I prefer to divorce “religion” from both “ethics” and “humanism.”

All religion, with its gods and god stories, is based upon the dangerous and deplorable “us-them syndrome,” which sooner or later fosters animosity between believers and non-believers.  This syndrome dooms all theologies to toxicity.  As Diderot said, “Sooner or later the moment comes when the concept [of God] that prevented the theft of one ecu [French coin of face value of about $30] causes the cutting of the throats of a hundred thousand men.” [parentheses mine]

Ethics fosters no “us-them syndrome.” (Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015])  And to me the Principle of Reciprocity is the ethics for us all.

This is not to say that religion and its accompanying theology, as I am defining it, will not be part of human culture eventually.  Being religious is a genetic tendency “built in” by our evolutionary past, but has become unnecessary to our survival, as other assurances have been developed by our minds that contribute reliably to our survival (e.g. science and medicine).  Therefore, religion is delegated to the individual mind henceforward; theology is limited to the individual, thanks to the subjective trap (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]).  Religion, with its theology, gods, and god stories is a personal matter for the single member of the species.  I have my own personal theology, for instance, and can say, along with Thomas Jefferson, “I am a sect of one.” (The United States of America — A Christian Nation?, [June, 2012], Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015], Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016], I Believe!, [Oct., 2016], Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017], and Prayer, [Feb., 2017])

b) Regarding political and social organizing of the human species, whatever avoids war, colonialism, and imperialism of all forms must be avoided.  No grouping of humans must advance itself at the expense of another; exploitation of one nation of another must cease.  The imagined order of egalitarianism must be expanded so that nations cease to be independent of all other nations; we are all stuck on the same planet with, at this time, no alternative; this earth is all we got.  Therefore, egalite must be expanded from egalite only among citizens of a single nation to egalite of every Homo sapiens on the planet  (Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, But Words We Don’t Know Can Also Hurt Us, or, Jesus Was a Liberalist, [March, 2012], and Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]).

The imagined order of the UN needs expanding into a more global UN composed of every nation, nations which cease to have political borders.  All military forces of each nation join the single global UN force for the purpose of keeping the peace worldwide and of responding to human need created by natural disasters anywhere in the world.  Similar to the way individual States in the United States relate to the national federal government, all nations relate to the global government, with responsibilities, resources, and money separated into regional and global designations.  The global government will be a republic both capitalistic and representative similar to those imagined at the births of the American Republic and the French Republic (Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, But Words We Don’t Know Can Also Hurt Us, or, Jesus Was a Liberalist, [March, 2012], The United States of America — A Christian Nation?, [June, 2012], For Your Consideration, I Give You…..Tom Paine, [August, 2014], and Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]).  No nation needs its own militia anymore, as danger to one UN member is danger to all; the peace-keeping global UN force, with no peer anywhere, will assure the protection of life, liberty, property, and rights the world over.

Health care, education, and housing will be provided by the global UN.  (Members in health care will be on a worldwide payroll, supported by worldwide competitive drug manufacturers, cutting-edge medical schools all over the earth, and globally reviewed medical research.)  The legacy of both UNICEF and UNESCO will be strengthened and widened.  Suffrage, the right to vote, will truly be universal.  The whole world will democratically vote to see what behaviors are deemed criminal enough to deny individuals of such rights as freedom and the vote.

The chamber of world representatives as well as the head of the executive part of the world government (a President, General Secretary, Prime Minister, etc.) shall be elected for finite terms by a democratic worldwide vote (not by electors).  A world court shall be periodically reformed from a cadre of elected judges (judges-in-waiting) from each former-sovereign-nation, or nation-state.  The court shall be appointed by a vote from the chamber of representatives (Congress, Parliament, Convention, Assembly, Althing, etc.) and shall preside and settle all disputes between or among nation-states.  All three branches of the world government, the legislative (chamber of world representatives), executive, and judicial (world court) shall be subject to limited terms, ceilings for years of service, and prohibitions to personal gain beyond their salaries.  Conviction of accepting bribes, accepting payments/perks from lobbyists, both corporation and/or political lobbyists, or committing criminal/civil crimes shall result in immediate termination and swift replacement by the germane nation-state government.

All nation-states will be required to limit campaign and election time for choosing members of all three branches of world government to one year or less.  (Citizens (I) Call For the Destruction of the Political Professional Class, [Nov., 2012] and Citizens (III) Call for Election Reform, [Jan., 2013])  In addition, within every nation-state, campaign contributions must have a universal limit per person and must come only from individuals, not corporations or political organizations.  Exceptions to these campaign contribution rules will result in the candidate’s expulsion from the race.

c)  The economic organization of the global UN implies a global economic system — a worldwide capitalism regulated to create both capital to build business and personal wealth.  Taxes on personal income  and investment requirements will be structured to make personal wealth limited, assuring capital will be reinvested into economic growth. (Citizens (II) The Redistribution of Wealth, [Jan., 2013])  Businesses will have incentives to operate with the partnership of the employees (mandatory employee stock ownership and mandatory retirement fund for all employees), so that all within that business have the same incentive to succeed.

Worldwide trade will be the primary modus operandi to insure perpetual world peace.  War to any degree hurts everyone, the least of which way is cutting off trade (death and maiming being the greatest way), but, at the same time, probably the most important way for the species at large.  (Going Global, [March, 2018] and 21st Century Luddites?, [March, 2017])  All economic barriers will come down; there will be no need for tariffs.  There will be a worldwide currency, similar to that in the European Union.  All stock markets will resonate to operate as if at one single site, as world trade makes every regional economy in business partnership with the rest of the world.  Highways on the land, sea, and air will perpetually be filled with exchanged goods.  Hunger, disease, and poverty will become things of the past (like smallpox, polio, and yellow fever) through trade.

d) Ecologically, environmentally, and agriculturally speaking, the home to all of us, the earth, needs to be treated as our one and only hope and treated holistically.  I’m not talking a cult-like worshiping of our planet as some living Gaia, but, rather, the development of a worldwide respect for not only the biosphere, but the great oceanic and geological processes that make our existence possible.  This respect is admittedly teleological, even selfish, as we have to use this planet to generate all the sustenance our species and our fellow species need both now and in the future.

Therefore, agriculture must be guided by environmentalism and ecology, as suggested by the warnings of both Harari and of Mann (1491 and 1493).  The vision of thinkers like Michio Kaku must engage thinkers and planners of the world government.  The world government has to allocate its efforts and resources toward making the land, sea, and air more productive without placing more of our fellow species (both plants and animals) on the endangered list.  Projects of converting sea water into fresh water should dominate most of the future seashores.  The possibility of turning the Sahara and other world deserts green should become more feasible.  All ocean shallows becoming underwater farms should be forthcoming.  Orbiting agricultural stations wherein food is perpetually grown in ideal conditions to feed the entire planet should become commonplace.  In addition, synthetically produced food, such as animal tissue, should be grown in “giant test tubes,” with the goal of not having to eat our domesticated sources of meat; genetic engineering is just as important in agriculture as it is in human medicine.  Synthetically produced food, especially large-scale synthetically product animal protein, can mean the land now needed for pasture can mostly be turned back to natural processes, producing through evolution more genetic vigor needed for the future.

As I said in  AVAPS! [May, 2018], “The world needs more marine biologists, not more missionaries!”

e)  Education needs to become an egalitarian worldwide phenomenon, particularly the education of young minds as practiced in American public schools (Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]).  This means educational funds for the entire world will come from taxation of personal property in all nation-states and distributed fairly to all nation-states by an educational arm of the the world government.  However, public education as practiced worldwide must be freed from “professional educators” and applied as in undergraduate and graduate college and university faculties, exemplified by such faculties in the United States.  (1:  Education Reform — Wrong Models!, [May, 2013], 2:  Education Reform — The Right Model, [May, 2013], 3:  Education Reform — How We Get the Teachers We Need, [May, 2013], Top Ten List for Teachers of HS Students Preparing for College or University (Not a Ranking) – A List for Their Students, Too!, [Dec., 2014])  A system of public schools from kindergarten level to grade 12 and at least one major four-year research college or university will be established in every nation-state, if not already in place in a given nation-state.  Through school taxes in every nation-state the education of each child from kindergarten through four years of university shall be offered free of charge (provided the student successfully fulfills the requirements of each previous level in college).  The deficiencies of a nation-state to provide such free education to a qualified student will be made up from a world education fund managed by the world government and contributed to annually by all nation-states as part of “membership dues.”

The worldwide curriculum used by all the planet’s schools will feature general physical and cultural anthropology, which will be focused on the cultural history of the particular nation-state.  World history touching upon the cultural histories of every nation-state will be taught in every nation-state.  The language of each nation-state will be taught locally, but the languages designated as “world languages” (how many?) by the world government will be taught in every nation-state.  (Presumably, these world languages, like the languages chosen in the UN today, will be the official languages used in the world government.)  All sciences and mathematics will be taught via a worldwide curriculum; math is treated as the “language of the universe.”  Engineering will have a local focus within a nation-state, along with an engineering curriculum of worldwide scope.  Philosophy curricula will have their universality supplemented by the works of local philosophers within each nation-state.  As part of the worldwide philosophy curriculum, comparative culture over time, including comparative religion, will be offered.

Cooperative research at the university level, which would inevitably be international cooperative research, will emphasize dealing with the challenges of climate change, of artificial intelligence, and of mankind traveling into space.  Architecture, also a worldwide endeavor, will work on novel housing for a presumably increasing global population — housing able to adapt to possible rises of ocean levels; living under the surface of the oceans as well as in space colonies in orbit, on the moon, on Mars, on moons of the gas giants, in interplanetary space, and in interstellar space will be worldwide endeavors.  Funding for all this research will come from local nation-state and worldwide dues contributed to the world education fund, not to mention research grants from corporations.

A given student’s education toward a college or university degree will normally be peppered with study programs abroad in other nation-states and with opportunities throughout to develop artistic and athletic skills.  Academic contests, art expositions, and athletic contests among teams of students from all nation-states will be preludes to worldwide Olympic-style events that include not only athletics, but academics and the arts also.  With sponsorship from their native nation-state, outstanding performers in these areas could be professionals in these areas, expanding the number of such professionals today.  A worldwide educational system will provide stage and lighting for ever-amazing intellectual and physical achievement.

f)  Science and math requirements characterize every level of every student in a worldwide educational system.  The philosophical assumptions and underlying concepts of science and math are replete in the philosophical studies of epistemology, ontology, ethics, and anthropology.  Children learn to count as soon as they learn to speak and read; children learn to test, experiment, and answer their own questions as soon as they are rationally able.  Truth based on evidence rather than authority is taught as early as possible, and scientific skepticism is practiced as early as possible.  Teachers will need to be trained to expect everything they teach be questioned by their students.  History of science will be taught as a parade of great ideas, not a parade of great people.

Next to the classrooms, the most important part of higher education will be scientific research.  It will be up to teachers to develop a science of education, if that is possible.  It will be necessary to develop a robust ethics for science and engineering, presumably based upon the Golden Rule and a dedication to protect and advance the integrity of science itself.  Done right, these precautions will assure that areas such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and robotics will not run amuck with dire consequences for our species.

Most of all, science must be remembered as a non-veridical enterprise of our imaginations, just as theology is.  All areas of study, including science, must function in such a way as to develop the imaginations of all people of all ages; all curricula and all teachers who teach young minds need to stimulate the imaginations of young minds; those who don’t need to be rewritten or asked to find another job, respectively.  And, it almost goes without saying, science needs to be AVAPS; the star-stuff we are must keep focused upon the star-stuff we are not.

 

In summation, then, an imagined order of everything or a global imagined order for all mankind should include:

a) A specific, non-religious ethic of the Golden Rule, or the Principle of Reciprocity; “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

b) A UN-like world government wherein all nations function like States of the United States in a federal government.  This world government has the three branches of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.  Members of these branches are democratically elected by a worldwide body of voters wherein suffrage is distributed as wide as possible.  It will have jurisdiction over a single, global military force to keep worldwide peace and respond to emergencies everywhere.

c) A planet-wide economic system of regulated capitalism engaged in worldwide free trade within a single universal market.

d) An environmentally conscious planet-preserving agriculture utilizing the best potentials of bio-technology.

e) A worldwide educational system offering a free universal education and funded by a world education fund governed by the world government, offering a globally coordinated curriculum.

and f) A commitment to progress indicated by an imaginative, respectful, and ethical worldwide scientific endeavor.

 

RJH

 

 

 

AVAPS!

Describing human existence in terms of Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]; Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016]; and  Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]) demonstrates that all perceptions, concepts, ideas, and theories are necessarily non-veridical, due to the subjective trap. Logically, it is possible no product of the human subjective mind is faithful to the veridical, “real world,” empirical data bombarding the human senses; it is discomforting, to say the least, considering the possibility that our collective perceptions over time (our existence) have little or no bearing upon an objective, external-to-our-mind, universe “out there” which we presume and assume to exist.  (An in-depth review of the veridical/non-veridical dichotomy can be found in At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015].)  The source of this discomfort is the ontological baseline assumption that we are star-stuff in self-contemplation (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]), for the more disengaged our non-veridical perceptions are from the raw data upon which they are based, the more removed we are from our physical building blocks (star-stuff), from the very veridical universe of which we are a constituent part.  In other words, the less we are “at one” with the universe — the less we see ourselves objectively, as we really are.

I am happy to say that Perception Theory uses the cultural history of our species to avoid the non-veridical discomfort and possible despair of disengagement from the veridical universe, thanks to the help of two recent works by historian Yuval Noah Harari, namely Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind (2011, ISBN 9780099590088, Vintage, London) and Homo Deus, A Brief History of Tomorrow (2015, ISBN 9781784703936, Vintage, London).

It was encouraging to read that Harari, though doing history, was using a human ontology parallel to that of Perception Theory, especially since I had formulated Perception Theory before I had read Harari.  That is, he understands the creative power of the human imagination, the existential, subjective part of human existence as well as the power that same creativity can have on the empirical, objective “real” world of science.  He does not deny the benefits to humanity given us by non-veridical scientific theories, but he understands they cannot be purely objective, can be themselves veridical.  What I call the non-veridical perceptions, concepts, ideas, and theories of our imagination Harari calls “imagined orders,” a term I will use henceforth for brevity.  One class of imagined orders we call “religions” (Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]; I Believe!, [Oct., 2016]; Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017]; and Prayer, [Feb., 2017]), with their “toxic theologies.”  Another class would be the imagined orders we call “scientific theories,” with their history of human-altering and planet-altering effects.  Clearly, essentially any well-developed concept in our minds could be call an imagined order.  For example, political theories, economic theories, and ethical theories.

Cultural history has given our species a direction, a clue for our imagined orders.  Ask what imagined orders have vaulted us into the world-wide collective of the “modern world,” in which we are benefactors of healthier, longer lifespans, of being relatively free, for the first time, of large-scale famine, plague and war, and of emerging with a consensus idea of the best political, economic, and ethical directions to pursue.  The answers have come in the survival of the political, economic, and ethical catastrophes of the 20th century:  combinations of imagined orders  of applied scientific theories, of non-theological, humanistic religions, of humanistic ethics that reach beyond our own species to other species, of practical capitalistic economies mitigated by tried and true socialist programs like universal health care, universal suffrage, universal, free public education, and care for the elderly, of political cooperatives based upon world trade and free from nationalism and delusions of empire, and of educational imaginative orders based upon how minds actually learn.  In other words, history has witnessed our blindly “stumbling” upon imagined orders that “work” for all of us because those orders take into account the natural more than the imagined supernatural, fanciful, or ill-conceived; we now know more imagined orders that “fit” the universe of which we are a part than ever before.

Consequently, I, as a scientist, am, perhaps, more optimistic about our future than the historian Harari.  It seems straightforward to me that our cultural history mandates we in future make our imagined orders as veridical as we possibly can, like great scientific theories like gravity, quantum mechanics, kinetic theory of matter, chemistry, biochemistry, evolution, and plate tectonics.  That is, make all imagined orders, scientific or not, as veridical as possible; in the vein of KISS!, “keep it simple, stupid!”, AVAPS!, “as veridical as possible!”

 

Here in the 21st century, we know what past mistakes to avoid repeating.  Don’t make the liberal mistake of making equality more important than freedom and brotherhood.  Don’t make the conservative mistakes that wealth cannot be created, that there are only zero-sum economies, that some must gain at the expense of others.  Don’t confuse education with indoctrination.  Don’t base truth upon authority.  Don’t create religions and political theories of intolerance; there are better imagined orders than religions, or nations, or empires.  There are better imagined orders than liberal humanism, social humanism, and scientific humanism (Homo Deus).

With the help of Harari, it is now possible to apply Perception Theory toward better imagined orders for all of us.

RJH

 

P.S.  Thinking toward better imagined orders need not be more complicated than asking the question “What the world needs now is __.”  The Beatles have suggested all you need is love, and that means the human capacity to love ourselves, others, and everything outside ourselves needs to be borne in mind.  Dionne Warwick sang it more directly with her 1966 hit “What the World Needs Now Is Love.”  What do all of us love?  Lots of things, sure, but the things that have grown to benefit everyone, like the inspiring contributions of the humanities and the world-altering improvements to our living on this planet of the sciences, engineering, and medicine seem to beckon our ardor.  Let me plant the seed of: what the world needs now is more scientists, engineers, doctors, environmentalists, social workers, care takers, historians, and philosophers.

Not long ago I attended a Southern Baptist church in which my wife grew up and in which we were married.  At the end of the service a 10th grade girl made public her decision to become a missionary instead of her previous dream of becoming a marine biologist.  My heart sank.  “The world needs more marine biologists, not more missionaries!” I said to myself.

 

RJH

Going Global

In addition to being possible 21st century Luddites and possible 21st century Tories, early 21st century American ultra-conservatives, such as those brought “out of the woodwork” by the Donald Trump administration, display other facets worthy of condemnation (21st Century Luddites?, [March, 2017] and 21st Century Tories?, [March, 2017]).  A common thread running through American ultra-conservatives very different from, say, lifting up the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a sacred call to own as many powerful weapons as possible {Guns, “Gun Control,” and School Massacres (Part The First), [March, 2013]; Guns, “Gun Control,” and School Massacres (Part The Second), [March, 2013]; Guns, “Gun Control,” and School Massacres (Part The Third), [April, 2013]; Guns, “Gun Control,” and School Massacres (Part The Fourth) — the “Smoking Gun,” [May, 2013]; Guns, “Gun Control,” and School Massacres (Part The Fifth) — “Four Dead in O-HI-O,” [June, 2013]}, is categorically demonizing globalization.  Why?

First, I had to find out what is the consensus definition of “globalization,” when did it begin, and what is its history.  Two paired books helped me do just that:  1) 1491, New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles C. Mann, Vintage Books, 2nd edition, New York, 2011, ISBN 978-1-4000-3205-1, and 2)  1493, Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, Charles C. Mann, Vintage Books, 1st edition, New York, 2012, ISBN 978-0-307-27824-1.  The two titles tell the reader a lot.  They sandwich the year before and the year after Columbus “discovered” America.  (Of course this language we learned in school discredits historical characters like Lief Erikson, and, worse, an entire people who migrated across the Bering Strait into the two continents of the New World thousands of years ago.)  Clearly they compare the “before” and “after” of the European discovery of the New World; the pair present a measure of the impact of that discovery, an impact that echoes across centuries to the present.  Mann’s major theme is that globalization as we know it today began with Columbus’ first voyage.

The year 1492 ushered in a world-wide exchange of cultures, knowledge, foods, diseases, wars, and forced labor in the form of slaves.  As technologies of transportation improved, worldwide trade and colonial exploitation integrated the planet Earth into a global market.  Projecting this sweeping historical view into the 21st century, Mann, in my opinion, suggests that the lesson of globalization is that trading with each other is better than exploiting and killing each other.  A rather obvious good lesson, I’d say.  So, why would anyone be against globalization as defined by these books?

Look again above at the grossly over-simplified list of what was and is being exchanged in globalization; not all of them can individually be labeled as “good.”  Sure, to take one many foods from South America that “saved” Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment Europe, the potato, the “spud,” became the basis of the diet of the poor, and, later, the middle class.  Yet also from the New World came venereal disease and to the New World came European diseases to which native Americans had little or no resistance.  European diseases were even more devastating to the New World people than the Black Death was to Europeans about 150 years before Columbus sailed westward. However, economies based upon world-wide trading were spawned, economies like which are expanding to this day.  For example, the gold and silver mined by the Spanish with native American slave labor in Mexico and the Andes went not only east to Europe, fueling many national economies, but also went west across the Pacific to the Philippines, where Chinese traders traded Chinese goods like silk for the precious metals; this westward movement fueled the economies of China and the Philippines, as well as that of colonial Spain.  Foodstuffs like the potato and corn (maize) also went west.  Black markets and pirate economies sprung up in the Caribbean and in the waters off China as a result.  Another example was the flow of furs and timber to Europe from colonized North America.

But human beings, especially those from Africa, became commodities of trade to work the sugar cane and tobacco industries in the New World, later followed by the cotton industry.  Tropical diseases, such as malaria, killed off European overseers so badly, sometimes slave populations literally disappeared off the plantations into the interior to form new, independent, and undocumented societies often of blended heritage from native Americans — societies of mulattoes and maroons for example.  Because of sickle cell anemia from Africa, more slaves survived the ravages of disease than did the Europeans.

These examples are but “the tip of the iceberg” found in Mann’s books, but they are enough to clearly show that globalization is a mixed blessing; its contributions to our species often came at a considerable price of human suffering.

The more I knew about the history of globalization, the gift of hindsight compelled me to say the price mankind paid was more than worth it, given how global trade of resources back and forth across the oceans made possible the worldwide improvement of life compared with that hundreds of years ago.  Much of this improvement, like the establishment of democratic republics and the march toward universal suffrage and social justice, the rejection of monarchies, and the rejection of slavery, centers around making sure the price paid for globalization is more humane than ever before.  Yet, ultra-conservatives speak of globalization as if they wished it had never happened, even while speaking in an environment filled with comforts and advantages made possible by globalization.

Could it be that conservatives don’t know enough history to appreciate what globalization has done for us?  Possibly, but there are lots of ultra-conservatives, like Steve Bannon of Trump administration infamy, who appear very smart and well-educated.  So, the question begs itself — why, when you know the effects of globalization throughout modern history, would you despise it so?  Why are so-called liberals pro-globalization while so-called conservatives seem anti-globalization?  Those conservatives who still prefer war over trade are getting fewer and far between, as they are symptomatic of vestigial colonialism and imperialism, which began disappearing after WWI and WWII.  So it is possible a conservative might be both anti-war and anti-globalization.

I suspect the answer to the questions in the previous paragraph is found in the phrase above containing the words “mulattoes and maroons.”  Ultra-conservatives equate globalization with the mixing of races, and, as a result, become usually political isolationists.  In a word, they are racists at the core; they are xenophobic toward persons not like them.  It is true, much mixing of races came with globalization; Spaniards and Portuguese with American Indians became Mexicans, Central Americans, and South Americans; Europeans with Africans became mulattoes; Chinese with Filipinos became Sangleys, or Chinese Filipinos.  It is no accident that even in “progressive” societies like the U.S., many family trees were produced by brides and grooms marrying “one of their own.” Not that all who want to maintain a strong connection to the “mother country” are racists.  Rather, that the attachment to the “mother country” is psychologically based upon a racist xenophobia for some of them.  Ultra-conservatives have politicized this racism and politically express their racist bias by opposing globalization.  Their economics resemble that of a long-past colonialist, imperialist overseer.

RJH

P.S.  Lest you, the reader, think my linking anti-globalization with racism is but fanciful whimsy or giddy rationalization, consider how a growing number of historians and anthropologists are agreeing that the concept of “racism” was not a concern in Western civilization until it was clearly possible European and non-Europeans would be living together in an ongoing situation; that is, until different races lived together to make interracial mixing possible.  In other words, racism was not a considerable problem in Western culture until very different groups were shuffled across oceans; racism became synonymous with globalization when globalization began such shuffling, when the New World was “discovered” by Columbus.

Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God

Development and application of perception theory (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016] & Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016]) has opened up for me seemingly unending possibilities of understanding better almost any aspect of human knowledge and experience.  Among my favorite areas of philosophy is ontology, the philosophy of being — what is existence?, what does it mean “to be?”, etc.  Modern existentialism has sprung from ontology, now armed with human psychology, cultural anthropology, and evolutionary psychology.  Perception theory thrives upon the notion that objectivity (the veridical) and subjectivity (the non-veridical) are not “at odds,” but, rather, exist in an evolutionary symbiosis via and upon our “world-view screen of perception” within our heads (See At Last, A Probable Jesus, [August, 2015] & Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]).  (Another way of thinking of this screen is that it is synonymous with the German Weltanschauung.)  What this work focuses upon is the light shed upon the question “What does it mean to exist?” provided by perception theory.

For anything to exist, there must be some perception, conception, or idea of that thing on the non-veridical side of the screen — in the human mind embedded in the human brain.  I recall several years ago finding agreement with a former friend and fundamentalist Christian on this universal premise of “knowing” anything — e.g. to know God is to have certain brain activity within your mind; to know anything else is to have different brain activity within your mind.  Not having worked out perception theory at that time, I only remembered the novelty of agreement between the two of us.  I now know this novelty was but an unrecognized feeling of the compatibility of the objective and the subjective; had the symbiosis between objectivity and subjectivity been clear to me back then, our discussion would have gotten much further than it did.

The definition of existence in the first sentence of the previous paragraph must not be mistaken for an affirmation of Bishop Berkeley’s ontological “proof of God” based upon “To be is to be perceived.”  The good bishop declared that God must exist because He is the Universal Perceiver keeping the world in existence around us, even when we are not directly perceiving it, such as when we are asleep.  Perception theory declares, on the other hand, that existence creates perception, not the other way around.  Existence is a processed quality actively attributed by the non-veridical upon both the veridical (empirical data bombarding the senses) and the non-veridical (ideas generated or processed by the mind using veridical data, other non-veridical concepts, or both).  All things perceived existent either in the outside world or in our heads must be non-veridical products, even though the genesis of all things perceived lies ultimately but indirectly in prior and/or present empirical data.

 

To demonstrate all this with examples, consider the existence of four non-veridical products — the idea of a rock, of a dog, of freedom, and of God.  In other words, how does perception theory describe the existence of a rock, a dog, freedom, and God?  Four ideas are chosen in anticipation of existence falling into four distinct categories.  Perhaps other ontologists using other theories would choose another number; perhaps other ontologists using my exact same perception theory would choose another number.  Moreover, the list of possible examples representing each category is virtually endless.  No doubt every single reader would come up with a completely different list than rock, dog, freedom, and God.

First, how do we know a rock exists?  Its existence is inferred by our minds from strong, direct empirical signals sent by our senses of primarily sight and touch.  If it is a relatively small rock, we can pick it up and collect even more empirical signals; we can, for instance, measure its size and we can weigh it.  A rock does not move of any volition from within; if broken apart, and if not a geode, it seems uniformly hard and dense throughout, etc. etc.  Each rock we investigate, even if only one in our entire life, contributes to an idea of a rock that becomes a non-veridical image on our perception screen in our head, an image reinforced by subsequent direct empirical experience of any particular rock “out there,” outside ourselves; typically this subsequent empirical experience could be our picking up a rock we’ve never seen before, or someone purposely or accidentally hitting us with a thrown rock, etc.  Finally, we know a rock exists because empirical data from other human beings having to do with rocks seems to correlate with the notion that their non-veridical perception of rocks is nearly the same as our non-veridical perception of rocks.  In fact, I have never seen a human holding a rock denying it is there.  This, despite the impossibility of our ever experiencing others’ non-veridical perception, due to the subjective trap (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]).  In other words, other apparent perceptions of rocks assure me I am not “making rocks up” in my own head, or “If I’m crazy to say rocks exist, then apparently almost everyone else must also be crazy!”  Beings like me also behave as if rocks exist.

[Here I pause to interject and define a useful “test” to aide in contrasting and comparing the four examples of existence (the first of which is the existence of a rock just discussed).  I am going to employ three sentences with blanks to fill in with each of the examples, one at a time. The three sentences are: 1) “_______ helps me to understand the universe better.” 2) “Wars over _______ are sometimes justified.” and 3) “I have a personal relationship with ________.”]

Let’s “test” the existence of a rock with the three sentences:  1) “A rock helps me to understand the universe better.”  That is hard to argue against (i.e. there is little or no absurdity in 1) about a rock.)  Contemplating a rock is “classic” starstuff interacting with fellow starstuff (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]).  One of my many favorite photographs of my elder granddaughter when she was a toddler is her sitting on the patio holding a fallen leaf with both hands and staring at it intently — if that is not starstuff contemplating fellow starstuff, I don’t know what is!  Just like my granddaughter left that patio so many years ago with “leaf,” apparently, as a new non-veridical concept in her brain, my holding and staring at a rock not only reinforces my catalog of non-veridical rock concepts in my brain, my understanding of the place of rocks in my universe, the universe I assume we all share, is enriched further.  So, yes, 1) about a rock seems to be clearly true.

2) “Wars over a rock are sometimes justified.”  This one seems totally absurd, as if it is a theme of a classic Monty Python skit.  There may have been a time at least a hundred thousand years ago when a group of early Homo sapiens attacked a neighboring group that had stolen the first group’s “sacred stone,” or some such, but to kill each other over a rock is today considered insanity.

3) “I have a personal relationship with a rock.”  Again, this reeks strongly Phythonesque, but at least no one is getting hurt, it is assumed.  One thinks of the absurd fad a few years ago of owning a “pet rock.”  Good fun, if one is not serious about it, but the ones who had the most fun were the sellers of pet rocks making deposits in their bank accounts.  Similar to the pet rock “relationship” is a person’s attachment to tools, equipment, houses, automobile, etc.  For instance, in the building projects I have done, I’ve grown “attached” to tools such as my Dremel-brand rotary multi-tool.  But, like a pet rock, these inanimate objects can be replaced if lost, stolen, or worn out; replacements give the same attachment as the tool they replaced.  Hence, the relationship is to any tool that can do a specific job, not to a specific one — to the idea of efficient and practical rotary tools; to emotionally attach to a worn-out tool that no longer does the job is absurd.  I “loved” the old Dremel I had to replace, but as soon as the new one “fired up,” I no longer thought about the old one — I immediately “loved” the new one.  However, I often fondly think of a 1966 red Ford Mustang I used to own and later on sold, but from the moment I sold it, I no longer had the personal relationship with that particular car — I had and still have a “love affair” with the idea of owning a red Ford Mustang, since I never replaced the one I sold.  3) speaks of a relationship with a particular rock, not with the idea of rocks in general.

Since 1), 2), and 3) for rock responses, are, respectively, “very true,” “absurd,” and “also absurd,” we can infer something about the type existence exemplified by the existence of a rock.  If I label this type existence as strongly veridically-based, as it always harkens and focuses back to the empirical, veridical source of the non-veridical concept of rocks in our heads (“rocks in our heads!” get it?……..never mind……) — namely, the universe outside our heads that we assume exists, else we would not behave the way almost all of us do and all existences conjured in the contemplation of the universe — again, anything outside our heads — is/are strongly veridically-based existence(s).  This means existing as science assumes existence to be; the existence of a rock is a scientific example of “scientific existentialism,” a basic ontological assumption of the philosophy of science.  Strongly veridically-based existence suggests that objects like the rock exist independent of our perceiving them.  We logically infer the rock existed before anyone alive today (unless it is a man-made structure like a brick recently kilned), and, long after we are gone, long after the non-veridical perceptions, conceptions, and ideas of rocks have ceased to exist inside our heads, the rock will continue to exist.  (Even if the rock erodes considerably, we normally consider it to be the same rock; we could conceive of its deliberate or accidental destruction, such as being thrown or knocked into the magma of a volcano, but most rocks seem to survive for eons of time.)  Strongly veridically-based (rock) is the first category of existence.

 

Second, how do we know a dog exists?  Most of what is said about the existence of a rock above applies to the existence of a dog, with at least one obvious difference.  That difference is the reason I chose the idea of dog as another existence example instead of lumping the canine with the rock.  That difference is best illustrated by an event that occurred not long ago in a favorite pub I frequent:  Early one afternoon in this establishment the lady co-owner walked through holding her newest family member — a puppy that looked like a wired-haired dachshund.  We all reacted as if she was carrying a new grandchild of hers; “how cute!” and similar exhortations abounded.  The evolutionary reasons we naturally respond to puppies is not germane to the point here, but imagining how different it would have been if she had walked through holding a rock is.  Had she walked through with a rock rather than a young dog, many would have not noticed at all; if they did notice, perhaps they would have dismissed the observation immediately as not noteworthy, or again if they did notice, would think it odd for the situation and would either ask her about the rock or say nothing.

It seems obvious that the difference is that the dog is alive (“quickened”) like us while the rock is not.  Being alive (being “quick”) and animate portends a brain, and a brain portends some non-veridical potential such as humans have.  (Clearly, though plants are alive, the life forms I’m here describing are animals.)  So the strongly veridically-based existence of a dog (We can empirically interact with a dog just like we do the rock.) is modified, tweaked, or nuanced slightly; it is a somewhat different kind of veridically-based existence.  I label this type existence as quickened & strong veridically-based.  Another ontological difference between a dog and a rock is that, like all living beings, there is no notion of extended prior or future existence; like humans, dogs have very limited, terminated existences compared to rocks; brains are very finite.  Quickened & strong veridically-based (dog) is the second category of existence.

1) “A dog helps me to understand the universe better.”  Again, for the same reasons as those of 1) for a rock, this seems very, very true.  Perhaps human understanding of the universe is furthered more by the dog than by the rock because we are physically closer related to dogs than rocks; a dog’s starstuff strongly reminds us of our own starstuff — both of us are mammals, etc.

2) “Wars over a dog are sometimes justified.”  Once more, unless we are talking about an imagined early, early time of Homo sapiens, this statement cannot be considered meaningful in our modern, civilized times.  Once again for 2), absurd.

So far, the three-statement test’s responses for the dog are just like the rock’s.  But a difference appears in 3):

3) “I have a personal relationship with a dog.”  Even if one has never owned a dog, one surely has observed dog owners and knows this statement has to be very true, and not absurd. We now know that just like perception theory describes a symbiotic relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, human cultural evolution now describes the symbiotic relationship between humans and their domesticated animals, especially dogs.  (Cat lovers undoubtedly would have chosen a cat instead of a dog in this work.  I have just as undoubtedly exposed myself as a dog lover.)

Summing up, 1), 2), and 3) for dog responses are, respectively, “very true,” “absurd,” and “true.”  This shows that the difference between strongly veridically-based existence and quickened & strong veridically-based existence is simply the difference between “alive” and “not alive.”  Strong veridically-based existence of these two slightly different types is firmly planted in empirical data focused upon by perception; the rock and the dog exist scientifically, or, as we say, “The rock and the dog exist.”  Anyone who seriously disagrees with this statement is a hopeless solipsist doomed to self-exile from the rest of mankind.  Also, most of mankind would find the dog more interesting and emotionally satisfying than the rock for obvious reasons; we ontologically have more in common with a dog than with a rock.  We naturally quicken the dog, not the rock.

Before we continue, keep in mind these two slightly different forms of existence, though veridically-based via being scientifically objective, have to be generated as all human knowledge — subjectively and non-veridically generated within our brains and attributed to the perceptions from our senses we label as “rock” and “dog.”  We are convinced non-veridically that rocks and dogs exist veridically.

 

Third, how do we know freedom exists?  There is nothing “out there” outside our brains that we can see, touch, smell, etc. and label it “freedom.”  There are plenty of symbols of freedom “out there” that fire our senses, to be sure, but we would never hang a giant “FREEDOM” sign around the neck of, say, the Statue of Liberty in the harbor of New York City and declare Lady Liberty equivalent to freedom; a symbol of freedom stands in for the idea, concept, or perception of freedom, reminding us what freedom is.  Freedom, then, is not only non-veridical in origin, like all knowledge and perception (and therefore a product of our imaginative, creative, and calculative capacities inside our brains), it never corresponds one-to-one to something “out there” outside our brains existing strongly veridically-based or quickened & strong verdicially-based (existing like a rock or dog).  Yet most astute observers think of freedom as a quality and/or constituent of the “real” world of the veridical.  Freedom, then, has to be linked to the veridical universe outside our brains, but not as directly as the idea of a rock or of a dog.

Perception theory suggests freedom resonates with the veridical universe outside our heads (a universe assumed, as science assumes, to exist independent of our perception) through not only objects designated as symbols of freedom (e.g. Statue of Liberty) but through observable actions and language (citizens deciding for themselves, and political speeches and books waxing long and eloquently about freedom — the latter of which are more symbols).  In other words, we say non-veridical freedom exists indirectly in the veridical real world by resonating with objects and actions that would not logically exist without the non-veridical concept of freedom in our heads, much like unseen moving air molecules cause seen leaves on a tree to move.  Remove the wind, and the leaves don’t “move in the breeze;” if freedom did not exist, we would not see different people respond differently, as if by “free choice,” to the same situation, and we would not have Thomas Jefferson’s words in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.  Freedom, then, exists as a resonating non-veridically based existence.  Resonating non-veridically based existence (freedom) is the third category of existence.

The example of freedom suggests all political, economic, artistic, and ethical theories are resonating non-veridically based.  The same goes for all scientific and mathematical theory; numbers are non-veridical constructs in our heads that resonate strongly (I don’t know an example stronger) with the veridical “real” world; mathematics is the “language of the universe;” the universe appears to us to behave mathematically, thanks to this strong resonance.  As anything non-veridically based, we make these theories up in our heads, but they are distinguished from strictly fanciful ideas by our ability to appeal to the real world of the universe and the human culture inside the universe (cite evidence, in other words) and point to objects and/or social behaviors that correlate logically with the theories in our heads, all leading to a necessary consensus in a majority of heads around us.  Without the consensus of others, resonating non-veridically based ideas remain eccentric musings, speculations, or hypotheses.  If the resonating idea did not exist, there would be no consensus evidence to cite.  The vehicle of this resonance of the non-veridical with the veridical might very well be Richard Dawkin’s “memes,” or bits of human culture that spread throughout humanity like genes or viruses or bacteria.

[We can now illustrate literally the three categories of existence so far listed.  Look at Figure 2 — A Model of the Subjectivity of Perception (The “Screen”) in Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016].  Rocks and dogs (processed, veridical, and empirical screen results) would be drawn in the figure in a solid font, while freedom (a subjective, non-veridical, and algorithmic screen result) would be written in the figure as the word “freedom” in a “dashed font,” if I could do such using Word.  Everything on the screen is non-veridical in origin (“made up” in our heads), but the “solids” are direct products of our senses in contact with the “real world,” and the “dashed” are indirectly but firmly connected to the “real world” (idea of a horse) or not connected at all to the “real world”(idea of a unicorn).  Again, in the world of Figure 2, rocks and dogs are solid, and freedom is dashed.]

Back to our ontological “adventure,” how do freedom’s 1), 2), and 3) read?

1) “Freedom helps me understand the universe better.”  There has to be agreement to this statement, even in disagreeing minds; leaders of democracies see freedom as something to be provided for the people and despots of all ilks see freedom as something to be denied the people.  The non-veridical concept of freedom is very useful and motivating in the real, veridical world.

Speaking of the really veridical, 2) “Wars over freedom are sometimes justified.”  So much of history screams for agreement to this 2) sentence.  No need to elaborate upon how much blood has been sacrificed in wars in which somebody’s freedom was at stake.

3) “I have a personal relationship with freedom.”  Plausibly, there would be a lot of agreement here too, even in disagreeing minds.  Citizens have a positive relationship with freedom, while despots have a negative one.

Interestingly, freedom’s three responses to 1), 2), and 3) are three resounding “true’s.”  a) Could it be that a general characteristic of resonating non-veridically based existence is the absence of “absurd” from the answers to the three questions?  (Same for other ideas like freedom?) b) Is the absence of “absurd” in the answers always characteristic of any kind of non-veridically based existence, not just the resonant kind?  Take the resonant non-veridical case of “love;” I suspect that “absurd” would probably be the logical response to 2) in the case of love (all types, including eros, philos, and agape).  Imagine the insanity of making war on a group because they refused to love your group, or, conversely, because you refused to love them!  Therefore, the answer to the a) question of this paragraph is clearly “no.”  When it comes to scientific, resonating non-veridical ideas, the answer to a) is also “no,” as fighting wars over a scientific theory (whose existence is definitely resonating non-veridically based) is as absurd as the craziest Python skit. [Imagine testing somebody’s new theory in quantum mechanics by rival, skeptical departments of physics of major universities attacking the claimant’s department instead of “hashing it out” at a conference of presentation of lab data.]  Probably it is just coincidence, then, that freedom’s responses are three “true’s.”  Perhaps the proper conclusion to draw on this matter is that responses for the resonating non-veridically based (freedom) are more varied than the responses for the strongly veridically-based (rock) and the quickened & strong veridically-based (dog).  Getting ahead of ourselves, the idea of a unicorn mentioned above is clearly non-veridical and suspiciously looks non-resonating.  Answers to 1), 2), and 3) for a unicorn must contain at least one “absurd,” if not two or three, so “no” also must be the response to b).  For all possible resonant non-veridically based existences, responses 1), 2), and 3) should be “True,” “True/Absurd,” and “True,” respectively.

 

Fourth, we come to the question of God.  I use the generic “God” to include all monotheistic and polytheistic views, in order to address the views of theists, agnostics, and atheists.  If God is used in the context of a specific religion or religious philosophy, I will naturally use the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, as this is the religious culture in which I have lived.  However, my tack in this ontological “trek” is to come up with as widely applicable conceptions as possible, so that I could just as well use “deity” instead of “God.”  So, how do we know God exists?

God exists, like the rock, dog, and freedom, as a non-veridical construct of our brain.  God is different than the other three in that God not only is not empirically verified in the “real” world outside our heads, God cannot “escape” our heads via resonance. (Symbols, words, and actions purportedly representing God’s presence can be sensed all around, but like symbols and actions for freedom, they are NOT God — if they become God to certain worshipers they are NOT ontologically God; they are idols and/or icons or rituals.)  That is, the concept of God is so epiphenomenal (a secondary, coincidental, and unintentional by-product of brain activity), there is no world-wide consistency and agreement among these symbols, words, and actions, as there are for freedom, love, or ethical behavior. The non-veridical creation of God does NOT resonate with the universe, because God is like an ultimate non-veridical heat sink or dumping ground in our minds of as much definition, blame, credit, love, mystery, origin, power, thought, etc. as we can bestow.  No resonant non-veridical existence, like the idea of freedom, is like that; resonant concepts are definitely defined and predictably correlated to specific objects and actions, not to just any and to just all objects and actions, as is the case for God.  God is said to be the answer for everything, which is absurd, as it says nothing.  God is said to be in everything, which again says nothing, as we have discovered something in everything (We call them elementary particles.), but do not worship elementary particles as God.  Therefore, the non-veridical existence of God does not resonate; it “bounces back” or loops back into the brain’s fanciful, imaginative, creative faculties.  God, then, exists as a looped non-veridically based existence, a concept perpetually defying definition out in the real world outside our heads.  God is epiphenomenalism run amuck.

God exists as Santa Claus, Satan, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, ghosts, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and fairies exist in our brains, and in our brains only.  (It is possible that some, perhaps not all the non-God listings in the previous sentence are resonant and exist as resonate non-veridically based, as will be shown below.)  Theists love and atheists despise the two words “God exists” near the beginning of the previous sentence; atheists love and theists despise the entire sentence. I would speculate that agnostics would be uneasy that theists and atheists could “sort of” agree upon something as “important” as God existing.  I just may have angered all three groups!  I’m not sure any of the three would be happy for me to join their group.

Things that exists as looped non-veridically based entities in the human brain, like God and Arthur Conan Doyle’s English garden fairies, remind us of our “imaginary friends” so many of us imagined as children.  Having imaginary friends probably evolved as culturally advantageous to psychologically deal with stressful loneliness, which is a life-long problem for such social creatures as we; hermits are not the normal examples for Homo sapiens.  The modus operandi of creating imaginary friends is related to attributing human characteristics to non-human veridical and non-veridical entities.  We call this anthropomorphism or personification of phenomenon.  Personification of looped non-veridically based entities in our head is a hallmark of our epiphenomenal abilities.  Thus, Santa Claus is the personification of the very veridical altruistic behavior of giving at Christmas time; Satan is the personification of the very veridical phenomenon of human evil.  In this sense, Santa Claus and Satan very “weakly” exist, or superstitiously exist — exist as psychological “crutches” to “handle” not-so-simple observations in the real world.  Santa Claus and Satan, as superstitious personifications, enjoy in our heads the ontological label of resonate non-veridically based, as the desire to give and human evil are both very real.  But God could be seen as the superstitious personification of everything and anything, the ultimate “imaginary friend,”  or “super-friend,” if you please.  And as a looped non-veridically based entity, God could also be an “all answer” friend, the “answer” to any and all unanswerable questions.  (Recall the analogy of the ultimate heat sink — actually, functioning like an imaginary “black hole” in our head.)  It is but a short step to God being “the” answer to all we see, to being the origin and Creator of the universe, as well as our super-friend.  This is exactly what theists do; they pray to God one moment and are speechless with pious awe the next as they stare into a telescope at the clear night sky.   What a trick we do in our heads — God is not only “with us,” he/she/it is simultaneously somehow controlling the entire universe!  At one extreme God seems close to being the same as the universe (pantheism) and at the other God seems to be the perfect “person” we wish we could be (wishful narcissism).  Effortlessly swinging back and forth between these theological extremes, we don’t have to think; we only need one answer — God.

[The only way God could be added to Figure 2 in Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016] would be the word “God” in dashed format; there would be no world-wide consensus on any dashed object that would represent “God.”]

Thoughts applied to this “whatever and everything” looping non-veridical entity form theology, which varies and correlates with the particular culture of the brains producing the thoughts.  “Looped” is another way of saying “faith-based,” so it is easy to see that theology is a “sitting duck” destined to become toxic due to faith-based epistemology as described in Sorting Out the Apostle Paul, [April, 2012], Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept. 2015], Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016], and Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016].

Now to sentences 1), 2), and 3). 1) “God helps me understand the universe better.”  Definitely not, as “the” answer to every question is no answer at all.  There is no definition, comparison, or contrasting possible with God.  Even most theistic scientists agree here.

2) “Wars over God are sometimes justified.”  Apparently so!  As the history of Europe and the Middle East (not to mention events today in the Middle East) attest.  However, this may be the response only for today’s theists.  Today’s modern atheists would definitely say “no.”  For lack of certainty, agnostics could not justify any “holy war.”

3) “I have a personal relationship with God.”  Theists say “You ‘bet-cha’!”  Atheists say “Hell, no!”  Agnostics say “Who knows?”  The looped non-veridically based existence of God placed into 3) may very well render 3) non-applicable or nonsensical.

So, for God, the three responses in possible theism, atheism, and agnosticism “triads,” are “No!,” “Yes/No/No,” and “Yes/No/?”  (Or, to correlate with the other three sets of responses, “Absurd,” “True/Absurd,” and “True/Absurd.”)  An astounding assortment of ambiguity, to say the least.  Ontology shows us, then, that God does not exist like a rock or a dog; nor does God exist like freedom.  God exists only in our heads; we have made he/she/it up, and he/she/it is so purely epiphenomenal that he/she/it becoming even weakly veridical (becoming resonant) seems impossible, even oxymoronic.

 

We can construct the following table of ontological results of this “adventure” for convenience:

CATEGORY OF EXISTENCE                       EXAMPLE          1), 2), 3) RESPONSES

Strongly Veridically-based                         Rock                   True, Absurd, Absurd

Quickened & Strong Veridically-based   Dog                      True, Absurd, True

Resonating Non-Veridically based          Freedom           True, True/Absurd, True

Looped Non-Veridically based               God      Absurd, True/Absurd, True/Absurd

Clearly, there are two main divisions of categories — the first two are veridical and the last two are non-veridical.  This is to be expected from perception theory with its assumption of “balance” between the objective and the subjective.  The veridically-based categories of existence indicate learning about the universe and avoiding war, while the non-veridically based indicate no definite pattern except being ambiguous on war and personal relationship.  Correlation between the two “veridicals” is strong, and correlation between the two “non-veridicals” is non-existent, or, at best, really weak.  Reliability, not surprisingly, seems to lie with the universe outside us, not with that within our heads — with the two “veridicals” and with the non-veridical that resonates with the real world.  Nor is it surprising to see that if you want to know about the universe, direct the non-veridical toward the veridical in your head (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]).  And, war is clearly a function of our heads, not of the universe.  In my opinion, war could also have more favorability with theists than with atheists or agnostics (Perhaps I’ve not met enough Quakers.).

The astute reader of perception theory might have noticed I’ve interchangeably used, pretty much throughout, the terms “mind” and “brain,” as if they are essentially synonymous.  They can be distinguished, but for the purposes of perception theory they obviously go together.  For completeness, let me mention their distinction:  perception theory is compatible with the idea that “mind” is an epiphenomenal by-product of the physiological complexity of the brain, mostly the complexity of those “johnny-come-latelys” of the brain, the  frontal lobes; the “mind” is an incidental effect of the complex brain, which originally evolved for survival of the species.  We needed to be cleverer than the animals competing for our resources and/or trying to eat us, so with the addition of animal protein from dead animals, our brains enlarged enough, on the average, to be just that — cleverer.  Human birth canals did not enlarge enough to “keep up,” so big-brained babies had to be born less mature than the babies of our primate cousins, chimps and gorillas.  This gave Homo sapiens a “long childhood” and child rearing to physical independence became a necessary part of developing human culture, contributing to the advancement of the “nuclear family” and necessarily cooperative groups, usually of extended kinship.  The imaginations of our “new” big brains had a long time to exercise in this long childhood — so much so, in my opinion, created imaginary concepts based upon veridical perceptions lead to a self-concept of “that which imagines,” or, the mind.  Our brains did not evolve “intentionally” to form a mind; they just happened to be complex enough to form a mind.

The astute reader also no doubt noticed that I described the looped non-veridical based concept of God in our heads as being epiphenomenal, a clear unintentional by-product of brain complexity — a product of our mind.  Perhaps I should have throughout the presentation of perception theory used the descriptor “epiphenomenal” with all non-veridical existence, both resonating and looped.  Our ideas and concepts exist as epiphenomenal products of our epiphenomenal mind.

As I began this “ontological adventure” of comparing the existence of a rock, a dog, freedom, and God as suggested by perception theory, I could see that the adventure had to end talking about theists, atheists, and agnostics.  Frankly, I did not at first see exactly where the adventure would leave me, a “perception theorist,” or “perceptionist” in relation to these three groups of thinkers.  Would I come down agreeing with one of the groups or two?  To my surprise, perception theory both agrees and disagrees with all three.  God exists all right, which makes the theists glad but the atheists furious (agnostics would not like this certainty of God’s existence), but God exists confined in our heads as, again, “epiphenomenalism run amuck” — a dashed word on the perception screen of our mind — as a Grand Answerer, or super-friend so super we don’t have to struggle with where we and the universe came from, as God also is the answer to that also; he/she/it is not only the Grand Answerer and Grand super-friend, he/she/it is also the Grand Creator.  God is all we need in one Grand Epiphenomenal Package, saving us from having to mentally struggle, think, and/or worry.  God only being in our heads infuriates the theists and delights the atheists (and again is too certain for agnostics).

Perception theory, then, in a way, makes the clashes, conflicts, debates, and ill feelings among theists, atheists, and agnostics seem rather silly.  The differences among them are interesting, but not worth fighting over.  Taking my cue from Arian Foster, NFL running back formally with the Houston Texans, who is the only NFL player I know to have the courage to “come out” in favor of freethinking amidst a locker room and overall profession teeming with theism, Arian says it is better to have friendly, respectful dialogue about religious beliefs than trying to convert each other.  He is, in addition to being a free agent as of this writing, in my books a perfect candidate for being called a perceptionist.

 

Finally, I want to establish that despite a lot of correlations with perception theory in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006, Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, New York, NY, ISBN 978-0-618-91824-9 (pbk.) or 0-618-91824-8 (pbk.)), I had developed perception theory before I read this book, and this book was written about a decade before my perception theory.  I am delighted at these independent correlations, as I’ve met Dr. Richard Dawkins personally and spent a few hours with him one-on-one, in which we did NOT discuss our religious positions.  I consider him a friend of casual acquaintance, but it is possible he has no recollection of meeting me.  I met him years ago as part of the cast of a BBC film featuring Richard that was part of the debunking of creationist fossilized “mantrack” claims along the Paluxy River near my home in Texas; my role was the “intrepid amateur paleontologist (with son),” among many amateur and professional scientists, who were showing evidence these claims had no scientific merit whatsoever. (See Creationism and Intelligent Design — On the Road to Extinction, [July, 2012])  I recommend all Dawkins’ books to the readers of perception theory.  The God Delusion presents the case for atheism very well for theists, atheists, and agnostics; I can only hope my presentation of the case for perception theory does something similar for all three groups.  I agree with Arian Foster: I hope in future to have meaningful, respectful, and friendly dialogue among all three groups, during which I’d love to renew my acquaintance with Richard Dawkins and start one with Arian Foster.

[Incidentally, the BBC film done along the Paluxy River, entitled “God, Darwin, and the Dinosaurs,” was so “controversial” in the U.S., it was never aired on TV’s “NOVA” PBS scientific series.  It was, however, shown in Britain (I think) and Canada.  I got to see it only because a Canadian friend of mine mailed me a VCR videotape copy he recorded off his TV!  I can only hope that public scientific sensibilities in the U.S. are now less “medieval” than then.]

RJH

 

The “A” Word — Don’t Get Angry, Calm Down, and Let Us Talk

Lots of issues draw emotional reactions whenever brought up in communication, but perhaps none more heated than the issue of abortion. Despite my experiences of angry lashings-back, of accusations or religious and/or moral consequences, and of frustrated resignation that there are no solutions to the impasse the issue creates to all forms of communication, I would like to propose we can have control over our emotional outbursts, we can conjure enough decorum and polite maturity to have civil discourse, and, consequently, we can actually carry on a calm, intelligent conversation about abortion.

To say I am trying to change the reader’s mind about the issue of abortion, or to say I am touting a view I dogmatically declare is the only rational way to reach a consensus on the issue of abortion is to assume wrongly before reading. I am merely saying we can without mindless anger calmly discuss abortion.

In my opinion, if we do not have deep, serious discourse about abortion, it has the potential to fester in our society as a divisive cancer of our own making. Ignoring it is futile, just as back in the 1960’s the issues of the Vietnam war, civil rights, and the women’s movement, all divisive in their own ways, brought questions for our nation that cried out for resolution. Without the resolution of these three issues, as gut-wrenching as they may have been, or still are to many individuals, our nation would have been torn asunder, perhaps irreparably.

An indicator of the need for dealing with the issue of abortion is clear when observing radical, pro-life, Christian opposition to abortion rights. The indicator is multi-faceted, from the overt murder of abortion clinic staff members to the covert redefinition of Christianity (similar to the redefinition of Christianity conjured by Christian anti-evolutionists — see “Creationism and Intelligent Design — On the Road to Extinction” [July, 2012]) based upon opposition to abortion. Communication on Facebook from a friend with whom I grew up was recently cut off (his “unfriendment” of me), in no small part because he could not discuss without irrational emotion his pro-life version of Christianity (see “What Did I Say or Write? WTF?!! (For Adults Only)” [Jan, 2013]). There are more such indicators than this, but just one is more than enough reason to have this discourse about the “A” word.

In addition, modern medicine has made possible for couples wanting children in the future options heretofore unanticipated. Many of these options directly or indirectly involve abortion. Ignorance of abortion or failure to enter upon rational discourse on abortion could limit the options for these couples, causing them avoidable and unnecessary pain and heartbreak.

I take the word “abortion” to mean any termination of the pregnancy of a mammalian female. (The exception among mammals is the egg-laying duck-billed platypus, so the definition does not apply to female platypuses; those mothers have no uterus in the traditional mammalian sense.) [There are, of course, other definitions, so, just to be clear, I am not talking about military missions called off due to unforeseen circumstances nor about some situation that was completely botched relative to the plans for that situation.] The evolution of mammalian motherhood has been ongoing for over 65 million years, so the emotional trauma of a terminated pregnancy for a female mammal is unavoidable; to want to bear a child, to want to be a mother, is deep within the human XX genes; mammalian mothers, whether of our species or not, that have consensually mated, willingly subject their bodies to a potentially threatening situation caused by a parasitic relationship (all fetuses “feed” off the mother’s body), with no guarantee of a successful termination and delivery birth — all in response to the genes whose origins go back to the earliest mammals.

Like all uterus-bearing female mammals, human females risk, during pregnancy, “natural” abortions; we call them miscarriages. The existence of a biochemically-based mechanism allowing the pregnant body to expel the fetus is part of mammalian existence for good reason — not all pregnancies, not all developments of a human-in-the-making are going to produce good results, are going to produce “normal” results. For the good of the species, miscarriages are necessary. The ability to miscarry is like “evolutionary life insurance” for the particular species; in addition to weeding out fetuses that have no chance of becoming a healthy, “normal” pregnancy brought to term, many mammals, especially “prey” animals to predators such as lions, have the ability to “panic abort” or “instantaneously miscarry,” in order that the mother can escape a lion attack by sacrificing the unborn fetus “on the run,” so that she can live another day to have another baby. Miscarriages are far more common, I suspect, than most of us realize — common across all mammalian pregnancies. Most of us humans as adults know by personal experience or by close association the emotional trauma and bitter loss of miscarriages; most of us are intimately acquainted with natural abortion. Though the sad blow of a miscarriage may not be softened by taking a broad biological view, it might be somewhat helpful if every couple or single mother suffering a miscarriage remembers that a miscarriage is the termination of a pregnancy for which something was biologically “wrong,” a pregnancy detrimental to the species, possibly dangerous to the life of the mother, and wasteful of the bio-energy being pumped into it by the mother’s body. A miscarriage, if alive at birth, almost certainly, would not be one the mother, if she could suspend her optimistic, hopeful XX emotions about giving birth, would not want under any circumstances; bluntly put, it would be a physical or a mental “monster,” or both.

(Incidentally, I like to point out that if all natural phenomena are seen as some kind of theistic manifestation — that is, if miscarriages are seen as part of the “will of God,” part of His Creation — then it seems logical that God is a divine abortionist; in fact, God must the be “Ultimate Abortionist.” I haven’t had much luck getting pro-life ministers and pew warmers to warm up to that “if-then” statement.)

Clearly, the biological outcome of both miscarriage and abortion is the same. Equally clearly, the issue of abortion we face today is not talking about natural abortions, miscarriages, but, rather, about non-natural, synthetic, man-made, deliberate abortions — intentional terminations of what otherwise might very well be healthy pregnancies on their way to term. And, the biological outcome of murder is almost the same as that of natural and un-natural abortions; murder is the termination of a human that is no longer biologically dependent upon the mammalian physiology of the mother in order to exist; miscarriages and abortions are terminations of humans-in-the-making, or potential humans, still dependent upon that physiology in order to exist.

Because killing others, murder, is detrimental to the species, we pass laws against it, citing consequences; “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” But, even murder is qualified, despite its disadvantages, such as in instances of war. We actually reward those who murder the “right” victims, the enemy; we honor soldiers who kill and risk their lives for their companions, especially in cases of close combat. I contend abortion is not detrimental to the species; we have overpopulation problems, not underpopulation problems. Therefore, abortion cannot socially and legally be compared to killing, to murder; there is no need for anti-abortion laws, for punishing those who perform or have abortions. This very stark legal difference arises from the very subtle biological difference between abortion and murder; terminate the physiologically dependent, it is abortion; terminate the physiologically independent, it is murder.

Deep motherly affinity, similar to the feelings we have when we see any baby mammal, like puppies or kittens, tends to make us call fetuses “babies,” as if they are already brought to term. All of us have no problem seeing the sonogram of a family member-on-the-way as a welcome new arrival, even if the arrival is several months away. If we were honest with ourselves, we would realize fetuses are not babies until they can live without the nourishment of the mother’s body, until they are delivered, premature or not, and are breathing on their own. “Fetus” seems too cold and detatched to many, especially to pro-lifers, and “baby” seems too emotionally charged and inaccurate, especially to pro-choicers, so I suggest instead of either fetus or baby a good scientific term, “proto-baby,” or baby-in-the-making, or baby-to-be. In the cosmological theory of the origins of solar systems, a glob of material growing in size via gravity pulling together countless chunks of rocky material is a “proto-planet,” and a growing glob under gravity pulling together an enormous sphere of interstellar gas, mostly hydrogen, not yet glowing by nuclear fusion, is called a “proto-sun,” or “proto-star.”

There is a moment in the evolution of a solar system when a proto-planet becomes just a planet, and when a proto-star becomes a sun or star — when the accumulated gas begins to generate light and heat energy through nuclear fusion (the “ignition” of the star), the same process as the basis of the H-bomb. I think there is a moment when a proto-baby becomes a baby, when the umbilical cord is cut, when the baby must live “on its own.” One moment the proto-baby lives because of the bio-chemical lifeline of the cord; the next, the baby lives because he/she is breathing air into his/her lungs. OK, maybe not as dramatic as the ignition of fusion in an unbelievably big sphere of the primal “stuff” of the universe, but to we humans, the successful cutting of the cord is as important to each of us as the energy we receive from the sun; we could not exist as we do without either.

The argument and conflict over abortion hinges on the question of when a human being ceases being a proto-baby to become a baby, to use the terms introduced above, which, hopefully, are devoid of vitriolic emotions. So hinges the rational discussion of abortion. It is possible for the moment of transformation to be as early as conception and as late as one or two years after birth, and the history of mankind has witnessed moral, social, legal, political, and philosophical definitions of the moment placed all along that time line. Catholics and radical pro-lifers have chosen the earliest possible definition, choosing words like “Life begins at conception.”, and primitive and/or warrior societies throughout history have chosen the latest possible definition with the practice of infanticide, especially the exposure of female infants to the elements and/or predators. In my opinion, reason and the biology of human birth suggest a moment somewhere in between; I think biology answers the question for us.

Already I have hinted above at the moment that distinguishes proto-babies from babies, a moment suggested by biology — the cutting of the umbilical cord. Note this definition of a baby does not put a necessary gestation period on the definition of a baby, given the survival nowadays of more and more premature babies. Among my many discussion buddies, with whom I talk about science, history, philosophy, and religion, are Dr. Jim Burns and Dr. Stephen Weldon, who recently thought biology does not suggest a defining moment. Their point was well taken; given premature babies and the human desire not to harm anything that looks human, even very young proto-babies, the time to define a baby seems arbitrary. But I still maintain the cutting of the cord is like a biological watershed, a point of no return, or a turning point — a climactic moment like no other in the span from conception to infanticide. A resolution to the “abortion problem” requires a defining moment, and the appointment of that moment has to be up to us; my friends are right to point out its arbitrariness, but I think biology comes closest to suggesting its own definition by requiring the severing of the cord in order for a symbiotic organism (the pregnant mother) to transform into two separate organisms (the mother and child). In my opinion, it is the most reasonable compromise definition of the beginning of a baby upon which moral and legal definitions logically follow.

With a baby defined by the cutting of the cord, then to terminate a proto-baby, to stop a pregnancy still “on the cord” is legal abortion; to terminate a baby, to kill a newborn whose cord has been successfully cut is illegal murder. The choice to bring a proto-baby to term or to abort the proto-baby has no legal consequences, but is, rather, an affirmation of one of the most important decisions made during our lifetimes. Whatever the choice, we as a species benefit; the joy of bringing a wanted and loved baby into the world will not change; the abortion of a proto-baby can, with the consent of the mother-no-longer-to-be, result in tissue donation for medical research — tissue with stem cells, for example — much like the donation of organs from deceased children and adults or like what is done with certain miscarriages.

I strongly feel the decision whether or not to abort is solely that of the mother and her physician(s); if she is married, the father is a third party in the decision; if she is a single mother, the father is not a third party, unless she wants him to be. It is not a matter that can be decided by her parents, by her family, by her friends, by her hospital, by her religion, by her State, or by her nation; nonetheless, she can ask for and accept or reject the counsel of any or all of these, if she chooses. If her physician finds the pregnancy endangers her life, or medical tests on the proto-baby reveal that if brought to term the child will have some congenital physical or mental disorder assuring the need for expensive medical and/or psychological care, she should be encouraged to abort, should a miscarriage not occur. In such cases, without a miscarriage, she has the right to ignore such encouragement, as long as she understands she will bear the full responsibility of bringing such special needs and burdens into the world.

Lest this sounds calloused toward the unborn proto-babies, advances in human reproductive science are well on their way to forcing greater consideration of abortion as a viable option for couples and single mothers — toward an option free of all guilt and moral stigmata. Sooner than we think pregnant couples or single mothers will all receive genetic counseling wherein genetic mapping of the proto-baby will give the prospective parent(s) so many choices, including: 1) bringing the existing package of genes to term, 2) repairing any existing genes that are defective and bringing the healed package of genes to term, 3) altering the existing genes closer to the idealistic tastes of the couple or single mother for purposes of bringing to term, 4) aborting because of detected defective genes whose repair seems improbable, or 5) aborting because the couple or single mother declare(s) the pregnancy an unplanned mistake that would produce an unwanted child.

My concern is that our education and moral counseling of today do not include the information for students in sex education classes, clerical consultation, or homemaking skills courses necessary to prepare future parents to reasonably make an informed choice among those like 1) through 5) above. If you believe that what I think is coming sounds too much like science fiction, reconsider. Already we have correlated certain defects and syndromes to specific gene sites on proto-baby chromosomes. Surgeries are becoming both healing and preventative, along with less intrusion, at an exponential rate. In less than a decade one major surgical procedure performed upon me was so updated and improved, that the recovery time now is about one tenth the time I had to go through. You can see these options coming for future parents, most of whom I fear are not going to be prepared to deal with them.

The continuation of the pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy seems hard sometimes to understand. Pro-choice seems the “no-brainer” of the two, as that stance makes no attempt to foist its position on the “other side,” as the pro-lifers seem to do. Any pro-choice advocate who “twists the arm” of someone to agree with him/her betrays the strength of the pro-choice position. Pro-choice calls for the right of everyone to deal with abortion in their own way; pro-choice advises a pro-life pregnant mother NOT to have an abortion, if that is her choice. Pro-choice respects the right of the individual to decide, asking that that right be protected and extended through time. Politically, pro-choice, therefore, must fight for abortion rights for all women, fight for the right TO have an abortion AND for the right NOT TO have an abortion.

For pro-lifers to claim God is pro-life is, to me, ludicrous. Pro-lifers push the definition of Christianity (or whatever is their religion) to a “must” inclusion of being anti-abortion, which smells of heresy. (See “An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 2” [Dec, 2012]) If they are theists, which they surely almost all are, then God, instead of being anti-abortion, logically is the “Ultimate Abortionist” because of miscarriages; that is an oxymoronic description of God. And all major religions, certainly including Christianity, were defined in a time when the issue of abortion was moot. Infant mortality was so high, with poor sanitation and poor nutrition added to miscarriages, unwanted children usually died from neglect of some form, with hardly anyone noticing; in addition, a potion-induced abortion could always be labeled as a miscarriage, again, with hardly anyone questioning that explanation. Only in recent times has modern medicine allowed fundamentalist-minded believers, like Christian pro-lifers, the ability to place an artificial moral judgement on synthetic abortions of proto-babies — a judgement named “God.”

Speaking of “moot” (perhaps it should also be “mute”), the verbal tact of a lot of pro-lifers will sooner or later include something like “What if you were aborted?” They ask as if that question is some profound point in their favor! If I was aborted? Clearly I was not! It is like asking “What if I was born female?” or “What if I was not born in the USA?” or “What if your children or grandchildren had been aborted?” or “What if the sky was not blue?” etc., etc. The only answer is “Then, things would be different, wouldn’t they?” And, in the end, no point has been made; nothing of substance has been said. Silly, if you ask me.

Finally, there seems to me to be great hypocrisy in the pro-life position. With grand religious zeal they will council a woman (say, a pregnant crack whore) to bring the proto-baby (probably destined to be already addicted to crack) to term (into a life of misery, pain, and destitution) unconditionally. That counseling only makes sense conditionally — if the pro-lifer(s) is/are willing to “foot the bill” in the raising of that potential child to, say, age 18, either through adoption or through a binding contract of meeting the child’s financial costs. Do they ever offer to do that? I don’t think so; after the birth they were responsible for bringing about, it is “out of their hands and into God’s;” suddenly the mother is responsible, as if she wanted to bring the proto-baby to term in the first place! Until the pro-lifers are willing to do something like this when they counsel and succeed, they should get out of the business of counseling mothers-to-be; they cannot afford it!

I hope I have presented a position respectful of all views, without forcing anyone to or preventing anyone from thinking or acting contrary to their conscience, and without “ruffling too many feathers.” If I have “ruffled” anyone beyond the “calm, intelligent conversaton” mentioned at the beginning, my bad — such was not my intention. At the very least, I hope I have demonstrated that meaningful and substantial content can accompany discourse on abortion. We must continue such discourse.

RJH

You Go, Girl! (II)

This is (II), which goes with (I here‎). Hopefully, this will ingratiate me back in good graces with the women I outraged as they read (I).

I’ve told Judy Roach that I am a reformed male chauvinist pig, not a cured one. (I) is probably a case in this point, but I like to think that it is more accurate to call me a feminist, a champion of women’s rights who happens to sport a pair of testicles.

Of the three prongs of the social revolution of the 60’s that helped shape Bill Clinton, so many of our generation, and me, the most successful prong, in my opinion, is the women’s movement. Congratulations, ladies! You’ve come a long way, baby! We still don’t have the ERA women deserve, so there is much left to be done, so, you go, girl!

My good friend Dr. Jim Burns recently reminded us that Obama is doing his part to further and protect the rights of women. It is a major reason to vote for him which I stupidly left off my list of reasons.

Nowhere does sexual discrimination show its ugly head than in the issue of control of reproductive rights. To this day, as we saw a Washington Republican/sexist organized panel consisting of all men testifying on women’s reproduction and contraceptives, it is amazing how the church, the government, and sexist men everywhere want still to control what goes on in the bedroom between men and women, and, moreover, want to make the bedroom a playing field tilted in favor of those of XY chromosome persuasion.

Let me ask, was there any social outrage when male enhancement drugs like Viagra and Cialis came out? Oh, let’s allow the men to expand their sexuality and live more fulfilling lives! But the women? Let’s fight contraception, abortion, and all manners of ways women can have to control their sexuality similarly as do men. After all, they are JUST women! The idiot Limbaugh, as my grandfather used to say “split his britches” when he tried to attack that young female law student testifying for the right to have women’s contraceptives covered by insurance, calling her promiscuous. Such hypocracy! Do you think men have trouble getting their Viagra or Cialis covered by insurance? Hell, no! The same could be said of the idiot Perry here in Texas, as he leads the fight to cut support for women. When I think of what should be done to the likes of Limbaugh and Perry, I think of what my granddad and uncles used to do to young boars with a pocket knife. But, admittedly, that is too barbaric, even for them, so, more realistically, I hope that young law student gets her degree(s) and goes after the discriminating words and discriminating laws against her sex.

Personally, I am proud to say I had in Cisco within my own extended family examples of strong, pioneering women who were “ahead of their time,” even before the revolution — a great aunt, an older female first cousin, and my mother. Since then one of the coolest social experiences of my life is meeting and getting to know strong women who remind me of these three. Many of these strong women, I’m proud to say, are former students of mine.

American Catholic women are showing the way for all females everywhere. According to one survey I heard, 98% of American Catholic women use contraceptives, despite the official positions of the Church and the Pope. Even if that number is exaggerated, this speaks volumes. To wit: American women of all religious and non-religious persuasions are acting upon a high moral principle: just like the men, women should have complete control of their sexuality. Contraception, abortion, and reproductive and sexual good health are not the concern of the church, the state, or the neighbors.

The bottom line of this moral principle is biology. Of all the anthropoid apes (gorillas, chimps, orangatans, gibbons, and humans) the human female is the only one not to show external signs of ovulation during the monthly cycle, except for one — the menstrual flow itself. This has evolved, the consensus goes, to fool the male into observing the woman as inviting and receptive for sexual intercourse for almost all cycle long. And, as a rule, the straight male buys into this charade with gusto! Why would women evolve this way? It is the essence of our pair bonding, the life’s blood of our species. In our deep evolutionary past, when some human females had swollen genitalia at ovulation, they got less protection from the males (remember, these were tough times, when it was not clear our species would survive the nights full of predators like leopards, and women biologically live and lived more in periods of vulnerability than do men, because of the effects of pregnancy) than did those women not so swollen. This is because the “mood” of women showing external sign was like that of other animal females — the swelling denotes limited receptivity. In other words, a woman not swollen is seen by the men as more receptive if she does not tell him to go to hell (Often, a swollen woman would tell a man to go to hell, if she was being selective in her mate.). The women who survived the night were the ones with a man alongside her with some kind of weapon to ward off the leopards, because he had deposited enough sperm in her for him to believe the child she will bear will be his. If she doesn’t display swollen genitalia, he gets month-long sex and she gets month-long protection; she is more likely not to conceive with each mating, and if she does conceive she has the ability to keep the father around and away from other women. Later, when clothes came along the fascade became easier for the girls.

This is the biological basis of what we call “falling in love,” or pair bonding. In time the “keeping of one man to herself” and “wow, she will do it all the time” combined into a couple loving each other for much more than for sexual activity. It became the basis of all romantic culture to this day. We say things like “I am incomplete without you” to the one with whom we bond.

Have you noticed something here, ladies and gentlemen? We are who we are primarily because of the women. Certainly, in the sexual sense, women run the show! And they always have. One of the ironies of human history is that societies are primarily patriarchal, not matriarchal. I would guess that is because pregnancy is incapacitating. It became more practical for women to let the men think they run the show. The outcome of that has, throughout history, been a long line of abuse and mutilation of women, unfortunately. Women do not deserve, nor have they ever deserved, the sexist discrimination and abuse they suffer to this day.

Here’s a goody: The “default” sex in nature is female. This was proven in humans when a mutation was discovered going back to the 18th century on an island in the Carribean, were a few little “girls” turned into boys at puberty! And I mean “turned” in every sense of the word: their female genitals morphed in a few weeks into male ones. Turns out, if we are born males, or XY, and in the womb we do not get our first shot of testosterone (the second comes at puberty), as the Carribean mutuation was apparently causing, we are born girls, complete with all the female equipment, as if we were XX! (Cases were documented in certain villages along certain family lines, when a little “Roberta” turned into a lilttle “Robert,” over a short period of time. Equally fascinating was that in most cases the village treatment of the changed child morphed along with the child. “Robert” was accepted, for the most part, as had been “Roberta,” who had disappeared.) I think the ramifications of this tidbit is worth another discussion sometime, but, for now, I can’t see how it favors the “male cause.”

As an aside, any biologist, MD, or pediatrician will tell you that the same tissue in the fetus will form either into male genitalia or female genitalia, depending upon which hormone surge occurs. That is, XX triggers a surge of estrogen to form a girl, and XY triggers a surge of testosterone to form a boy.

We are seeing sexual freedom in every sense of the word come to women as well as men. What social conservatives cannot stomach is: that means women are free from having to marry, having to have children, etc. etc. Finally, finally, we are seeing women achieve the status of true citizens. Conservatives tend to be a century or so behind; perpetuation of the species is a matter of pair bonding, not marriage, which is a mere social construct. In the long scheme of things marriage will wax and wane, with no negative consequences to us as a species; what is alive and well, and in no danger whatsoever of diminishing is pair bonding. Pair bonding is in our genes, not marriage.

I am an opitimist, and I look forward to women worldwide controlling not only their sexuality, but more and more power and money. I think that will be a world much better than the one today.

By the way, ladies, if you are looking for a religion that treats you better than the others, I recommend Christianity. Its historical record is better than the other major religions, even though it is still patriarchal, for the most part. As we learn more about the origins of Christianity and its teachings, it is exciting to see how women are “shaking off” the sexist reprisals the early Church hurled at the “weaker” sex. The essence of the Christian belief in love is the relationship of a son to His mother; Jesus was shaped, like any other boy who grew up with his mother, by a strong woman. Too bad the Catholics elevated her beyond her strength, her motherly humanity. But lo! Now we see the comeback of Mary Magdalene; she is called a “whore” in fewer circles, nowadays; the sham of the Church running a smear campaign against her is being revealed. She was as close to or closer to Jesus as any of his other apostles. See the March 2012 National Geographic? She is now listed (I think correctly) as an apostle along with the others; she was the first at the empty tomb; she was one of the first evangelists; she showed the “boys” how to witness. Now, I’m not talking The Da Vinci Code here — that is a novel. (Is there any part of the word “fiction” we don’t understand?). Everyone should look her up in the lost gospels.

And should any of you ladies not be looking for a religion at all, more power to you! You, go, girl!

In case any of you doubt I can get more controversial, how about this? Think about this, ladies. I think the depiction of the apostle John (the one who Jesus loved) to Jesus’ left in Da Vinci’s painting of “The Last Supper” is too feminine — it’s a woman! It’s Mary Magdalene! Don’t argue with me — take a close look at it. If that is not a woman, but a true rendering of John, then John must have been a “pretty boy,” if you get my drift. Way to go, Leonardo! You brush-stroked a blow for women everywhere for all time!

I leave you with something that has really helped me in recent years — evolutionary psychology. I am like most men, I think; we can’t figure out women! I have lived with the same woman now for over forty years, and she still baffles me! The thing is, I still baffle her. Evolutionary psychology says that we sexes are not supposed to understand each other, for, if we could, we would not get so crazy and irrational about each other when we fall in love. Or, in turn, our ancestors might not have made it as a species in those leopard-filled nights. If you have ever fallen in love, you know you cannot see the flaws all of a sudden in the object of your desire. Sylvia and I are so fortunate — we went “ga-ga” for each other at roughly the same time. Whatever might seem to each something undesirable if we were completely rational about the situation was ignored and brushed aside. That is the modus operandi of falling in love, of pair bonding. That we are married is, in a wierd sense, incidental, done so society doesn’t bug us about our relationship, as if our relationship was any of their business!

Thank God for women! I love every part of them; I wish I could fathom them a little more than I do, but, I think I just argued that that is wishful thinking. Thanks to all of you of the XX for making us all possible.

How’s that, ladies?

RJH

Post Navigation