< Back God Calling! David Cowles Jul 12, 2022 “I wrote the answers to life’s riddles on the cuffs of your shirts, and I encouraged you to cheat. And still…” God has something he’d like to get off his chest…and you’re not going to like it. Suffice to say, he’s not a happy camper! And who can blame him? What a mess! But that’s another subject for another day. We’ve got more than enough on our plates right now…and heeeeeere’s God: “I created heaven-and-earth (cosmos) and I endowed it (endowed you, homo sapiens ) with freedom, reason, and conscience. In your early days, I walked with you and gave you counsel. Later, when you had fallen under Pharoah’s yoke, I freed you from the bonds of slavery and husbanded you from Egypt to Canaan, the Promised Land. “I gave you 611 statutes designed to give you strength, health, long life, fertility, and prosperity and I guar….an….teed the results! 611 statutes. Wait, did I say 611? I’m sorry, I misspoke, hope I didn’t give you a heart attack; I meant to say two. To make things easier for you, I took the 611 statutes and added two more; but these two summarize the other 611. (Torah: 611 + 2 = 613) “I made a covenant with you (‘I will be your God and you will be my people’, Gen. 17: 7) and I reiterated that commitment on a number of occasions, all documented in scripture. “I might have expected that this would have been enough for you, but I know how weak free beings can be. I had a bad experience once before. Remember Lucifer, the ‘Light Bearer,’ my greatest creation, before you. Look at him now! Or don’t. At last report, he was hanging upside down, encased in a block of ice, at the nadir of Hell (check with Dante, Inferno ). I was determined that that would not happen to you! “So, I left study aids for you that even you could not ignore…and I don’t mean Cliffs Notes . I wanted to be sure that I would be in your face 24/7/365. Don’t worry; it’s for your own good. You’ll thank me later. “I wrote my will across the sky (cosmos), and I made sure that every entity within the cosmos reflected that cosmos (check with Leibniz, Monadology ). I encoded my will in the ‘signatures of all things I am (you are) here to read’ (check with Joyce, Ulysses ). And I embedded a copy of my will deep within your hearts (check with David, Psalms ). “So, who needs Cliffs Notes? I wrote the answers to life’s riddles on the cuffs of your shirts, and I encouraged you to cheat… “And yet…” Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Navigating Ethics David Cowles Oct 29, 2025 “Are there Values…that apply to everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance and in every possible universe?” Ethics is the science of ‘doing good’. Speaking both developmentally and anthropologically, our earliest encounter with the concept is rules based: The 613 mitzvoth of Torah The Code of Hammurabi English Common Law The rules Dad just posted on the fridge Our earliest concept of ‘doing good’ consists of nothing more, or less, than obeying orders, following rules: “The law of the Lord is his joy.” (Psalm 1: 1 - 3) Against this background various reform movements (in families and in society) have attempted to shift the moral emphasis from action to intention: “I didn’t mean to do it, it was an accident,” or “I was speeding but only because my wife was in labor.” An effort was made to find a simpler set of moral principles at the foundation of our ethical intuition. In that spirit, the Decalogue (10 Commandments) came to be regarded as a Cliff’s Notes version of the Torah. Later, the so-called Great Commandment designated two of the 613 mitzvoth of Torah as a summary of the other 611: Love God and love your neighbor! The Cliff’s Notes version of Cliff’s Notes. Then Jesus of Nazareth entered the fray: “I give you a new commandment: love one another.” (John 13: 34) Several modern humanists have proposed Be Kind as a universal statement of the ethical intuition. John-Paul Sartre , with some support from Pope Leo XIII, suggested Freedom as the ultimate value. But at the beginning of the 16 th century, Machiavelli stood Western Ethics on its head. (There’s a lot of head-standing in the Intellectual History of the West, e.g. Mark & Hegel.) He suggested that the Good lies not in conformity, nor in intentionality, but in consequences: ends justify means! The term ‘Machiavellian’ retains a slightly pejorative connotation even today, but the concept has long since been rehabilitated under the different-seeming guises of Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill), Liberalism (Adam Smith) and Pragmatism (William James). If we adopt Gregory Bateson’s meme ( a difference that makes a difference ) as our ontological standard, ‘good’ behavior is whatever produces, or is likely to produce, ‘good’ results: e.g. ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ (Mill), ‘the wealth of nations’ (Smith) or ‘redistribution of the means of production’ (Marx). Of course, this Enlightened sense of ethics assumes that we are able to distinguish ‘favorable’ outcomes from ‘unfavorable’ alternatives. By what measure? On what scale? Over what span? From whose perspective? ( Hint : We can’t!) It also assumes a certain causal, i.e. predictable, link between events: A leads to B or at least A makes B substantially more likely. Either way, the ethical content of an event now lies in its actual (or projected) consequences. Ethical systems based either on rules (Moses) or on results (Machiavelli) appear to constitute a spectrum ranging from Absolute Despotism to Eternal Utopia. As we now know all too well, the invisible hand of Adam Smith is no less heavy than the iron fist of Pharaoh. Consequences are commands viewed backwards. Wage slavery is just plain slavery, minus Spartacus. La Technique (Jacques Ellul) replaces Written Torah (613 mitzvot) and Oral Torah (Natural Law) with Mechanical Torah (now AI). This leaves us with just two alternatives: (1) an ethics that is focused solely on actions themselves (virtue is its own reward) or (2) an ethics grounded entirely in the subjective experience of others (or another ). Ethical systems broadly compatible with Triple-M (Moses, Machievelli, Marx) focus on the proximate : obey a command, weigh a consequence. Conversely, our alternative systems focus either on the hyper-immanent or on the totally transcendent . But first, are there Values, manifestations of the Good, that apply to everyone, everywhere, in every circumstance and in every possible universe? Elsewhere on this site , we have proposed Beauty, Truth, and Justice as Values that satisfy these conditions. I have even called them the Divine Values ; they are the essence of the Ineffable (God). Of course, no two people agree on what is beautiful, true or just: no matter! Everyone agrees, theoretically or not, that these are the values that characterize the Good, aka God . Everything any actor does is ultimately motivated by one of these Super Values, however distorted it may have become in the mind of its executor. This ethical system holds that any act is ‘good’ precisely to the extent that it creates, discovers, disseminates, or restores Beauty, Truth, and/or Justice, not as a remote consequence of the act (which are always alienated from the act itself), but as the act itself. For example, the actions of the Good Samaritan are just in themselves; in fact, they are Justice per se ( mishpat , understood as a verb: “Do Justice!”) Ironically, the alternative post-Machiavellian ethic also finds a home in this Parable . According to this interpretation, whatever we do to relieve the suffering of others is good . This concept of the ‘ethical’ links us with Mother Theresa and through her to the Buddha himself. In one parable we see both sides of the post-Machiavellian coin. Either Value is immanent in the act itself, regardless of its intent or consequence, or Value transcends both the act and the actor and rests entirely on the experience of the Other , the indirect object of the act. The ethical universe of the 3M’s is flat. Rules → Intentions → Actions → Consequences. The Good Samaritan flips the script. Now we look beneath the plane ↓ to focus on the acts themselves or beyond the plane ↑ to focus on those acts as they appear in the experience of others. Riddle : If a ‘good’ act is performed in the absence of an ‘other’, is it still a ‘good act’? Maybe, maybe not: If I spend three years studying for a PhD in psychology so I can better help my future patients? Then yes! If I write articles for a local newspaper in the hope that they will amuse, entertain, enlighten or console someone other than myself? Also yes! If I admit the existence of a ‘collective other’ (God, Gaia, or Geist), then yes again. But otherwise, no! So we have found that ethical systems tend to congregate around 4 cardinal points, the nodes of a diamond, and along two perpendicular axes: T ↑ R ↔ E ↓ I The horizontal axis is a continuum spanning Rules and Ends. Cause and Effect live here! The vertical axis, on the other hand, is perpendicular to the plane of ‘daily commerce’. It allows us to focus ‘off plane’ on acts themselves ( Immanent ) or on others’ experience ( Transcendent ) of those acts. From the perspective of Immanence acts are stochastic, airlocked, islands in the stream, knots in the thread of fate each act has its own independent moral value. On the other hand, from the perspective of Transcendence the moral value of acts lies ‘off grid’ in the experience of others . Remarkably, these radically different perspectives intersect, as witnessed in the concrete behavior of the Good Samaritan. When we foster Beauty (peace, harmony) we ‘lighten the load’ of the other. Likewise, when we discover Truth and correct falsehood (gnosis); and most dramatically of course, when we practice Justice (including charity, community, and mercy). We are striving to graduate from the ‘nursery notion’ of rules and results. Happily, we have found a new ethical home in the content of our actions per se and in others’ experience of those actions. *** Norman Rockwell’s The Golden Rule (1961) unites people of many races, faiths, and ages beneath the words “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Painted in luminous, realistic detail, it transforms a moral principle into a shared human moment of empathy and equality. By portraying kindness and respect as universal, Rockwell turns a private rule of ethics into a public vision of global goodwill. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

“The moral value of an event lies in the act itself, not in its conformity to a set of norms and not in its consequentiality…every event is its own end!” < Back Moses, Machiavelli, and Morality David Cowles Jul 15, 2024 “The moral value of an event lies in the act itself, not in its conformity to a set of norms and not in its consequentiality…every event is its own end!” Whether it’s a copy of the 10 Commandments posted on your classroom wall or a list of ‘Daddy’s House Rules’ stuck on your refrigerator door, when you’re a kid you learn ‘morality’ as a set of rules. In fact, the foundation of Western ethics, the Torah , looks like one giant rules-based moral code – all 4 books and all 613 mitzvahs . While Judeo-Christian ethics proceeded along several different tracks, a serious challenge to rules-based morality was not mounted until c.1500 CE when Nicollo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) proposed an alternative better suited to emerging ‘modern’ attitudes. In lieu of a system based on rules he proposed a system based on results: “The end justifies the means”. Note the sea-change: our focus has shifted from the past (experience, memory, custom, legislation, and revelation) to the future (technology, efficiency, productivity and profit). There’s at least one problem with this: the real future is nothing like the real past! We know what we know about the past in the ways that we know it. What we know about the future is different both in substance (content) and in form. And we know it in very different ways. We research the past; we predict the future. In ways I’m sure he didn’t imagine, Machiavelli played Chanticleer ; but instead of summoning the dawn, he summoned ‘the great darkness’ known as the Enlightenment. No wonder we were able to sell so many tickets to Game #8 of the 1956 World Series! By taking the ethical focus off the concrete event, the means , and shifting it to its ephemeral consequence, the end , Machiavelli provided a readymade, universal justification for every human engineered horror imaginable. Compare this to Moses: “Thou shalt not kill.” Ok, we can still fudge that with our convoluted doctrines of just war, death with dignity, reproductive freedom, self-defense, and retributive justice; but we can’t make it go away entirely. For that we needed Machiavelli: now the act of killing , like all acts, is itself morally neutral. Moral value comes from the results, the consequences of an act, not from any aspect of the act itself. That’s saying a lot! We’re not only throwing out the action per se but also its motive, its intent, and the method of its execution. So, we justify genocide, nuclear war, et al., based on imagined, long term, positive consequences. A bit hard to swallow but not to worry: 300 years later, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill would give Machiavelli a much-needed make-over. In the ‘spirit of the spin’, they reframed ‘the end justifies the means’ as ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Clever, but note that the focus remains on consequences rather than on acts themselves. Sidebar : Intellectual History is full of similar progressions. For example, Matthew and Luke ‘cleaned-up’ Mark to get the Gospel message ready for prime time . First year philosophy students don’t necessarily warm to Machiavelli’s rather dry presentation of his ethic. But when they hear the same message softened by Bentham and Mill and presented under its new name, Utilitarianism , they jump on board. In fact, when college students are first exposed to idea of Utilitarianism , their usual reaction is, “Of course!” This by itself should raise an eyebrow. Whenever an idea goes from inconceivable to irrefutable in a relatively short period of time, we should be en garde . We may be looking at a shift in the cultural paradigm rather than true intellectual progress. After the Bentham-Mill reformulation of Machiavelli’s ideas, acceptance spread quickly. Now Dostoevsky could say, “Now, everything is permitted,” as could Malcom X, “By any means necessary!” How did it happen that an ethic ‘unimaginable’ before 1500 became ‘obvious’ by 1800? The cultural phenomenon known as Renaissance , the ideological phenomenon known as Reformation , and the intellectual phenomenon known as Enlightenment , combined with the sociological phenomenon of Industrialization , to drag the Western world into its only true Dark Age (1700 – 1900)…the so-called Age of Reason . Hmm… Sidebar : Let me digress for just a minute to consider the Biblical tale of the Tower of Babel. Babel refers generally to the phenomena of urbanization (Cain) and industrialization, and it spotlights the adverse impact of these activities on language. Our language evolved organically out of the infamous ‘human condition’. It had to serve many functions simultaneously. Initially at least, Homo Sapiens did not have the luxury of specialized languages for different functions. The earliest languages had to be suited to interpersonal communication, philosophical reflection, and artistic expression, as well as industry and commerce. For example, many languages contain a syntactic variable we call Voice . OG Indo-European languages typically had 3 robust voices: An Active Voice well suited to the communication of information. A Passive Voice ideal for the expression of emotion. A Middle Voice suited to model the interpersonal aspects of life. Unfortunately, the Middle Voice has largely disappeared, and the Passive Voice has atrophied into a degenerative form of the Active Voice; et voila , humanity today! We’re very good at making things, period. To misquote George W. Bush, “We’re all ends, no means.” To oversimplify just a bit, Babel made the world safe for Machiavelli but Bentham made it safe for Bolshevism. How ever did we go so wrong? Turns out, the problem is not primarily an ethical issue at all; it’s an ontological one. It comes back to what we mean when we talk about an entity or an event . As our instruments have become more precise and our measurements more accurate, our notion of ‘an event’ is shrinking closer and closer to a singularity. We have stripped away motive, intention, tone, and even result from the event itself. We are left with a 4-dimensional canopy of point-like events, linked by ultra-thin filaments to form a causal web. That world exhibits a high degree of conformity, repetition and even redundancy. It is causal to the point of being deterministic . But we have so pared down the power and scope of ‘events’ that they hardly seem to matter anymore. Our focus is ‘on the big picture’ now – ongoing trends, not grand finales. But fortunately, this is not how the world works! Events are the building blocks of reality. Not that everything is an event, but whatever is not an event is ‘real’ only as it participates in an event. Events populate regions of spacetime (not necessarily contiguous) with internal structures and external relations, kind of like nation states. An even better analogy would be a human cell. Per se , it is an independent entity, but as such it supports a myriad of higher order (more general) entities like tissues, organelles, organs, the host organism itself, and who knows, the Genus Homo , Gaia or even Kosmos . Where did the morality of Machiavelli and Mill go wrong? The problem lies in a faulty conception of a consequence. If I throw a rock at a garage window and the window breaks, it’s reasonable to regard the broken window as a ‘consequence’ of the thrown ball, though the event actually encompasses the throwing gesture, the trajectory of the rock, and the breaking of the glass. We want the next moment to relate to the shattered glass in the same way the shattered glass relates to the thrown ball. But, again, that is not how the world works. Perhaps a dog will run through the garage and cut its paw leading to a trip to the vet, interrupted by an auto accident along the way. Or perhaps the ricocheting ball also knocked over a space heater causing a fire that destroyed 3 city blocks. Or perhaps nothing special happened after the window broke; under the right circumstances, it might not be discovered for weeks. We can reasonably say that the broken glass is an ‘effect’ (vary likely but not certain) of the thrown ball. We can also say that ‘accident’, ‘fire’, and ‘eh!’ are alternative, less likely effects of the broken glass. And because we got an ‘A’ in 3rd grade arithmetic, we want to be able to say that the thrown ball is the cause of the accident, fire, and eh scenarios…but we can’t. The Transitive Property (If A = B and B = C then A = C) does not hold in the real world. Put another way, causality is part of the ‘internal structure’ of an event but plays no role in its ‘external relations’. It’s impossible to know all the possible consequences, or even the one actual consequence, of any act. Every event is sui generis and causa sui . It seems that the famous Law of Cause and Effect should have broader consequences – but it doesn’t. Causality exists. The problem is that we can never specify with certainty any or all effects, or any and all causes, for any given event. That means that nothing causes any thing but everything causes every thing…which I think you’ll agree compromises the value of the concept itself. Furthermore, we would need to follow the chain of causes all the way back to the moment of Big Bang and extend the chain of effects all the way forward to Heat Death. Yet this is still not the real problem ! Now we need to create an algebra that assigns a scalar ‘value’ and a vector ‘weight’ to every event in the chain (above) and an operation that allows us to calculate a single, unequivocal Value for the consequence in question. That evaluation, in turn, allows me to conclude that this aggregate end does, or does not, justify the means that led up to it. Impossible! The notion of a specific, evaluable end is an illusion. Actions do have consequences, but we have no meaningful way to project those consequences or to evaluate their totality . Another way to look at this is as a ‘halting problem’: When is enough, enough? Can we ever say, “Ok, I’ve identified and evaluated all the significant consequences?” I don’t think so; and therefore, no act can ever be justified by its ‘ends’ because either (1) it has no end or (2) one and the same end is the omega point of every possible causal chain. If we reject Legalism and Utilitarianism in ethics, what’s left? The act itself. Actions are moral or immoral based on the act alone. Actions derive their value, neither from their obedience to a list of rules nor from their so-called consequences. Acts are moral or immoral on their own. But how? To grasp this core principle, we need to drill down our notion of what constitutes an event. The ever-contracting perspective of physical science is offset by the ever-expanding perspective of biological science. An ‘event’ begins as a reaction to a particular state-of-affairs. This reaction is powered by the objective, universal values that inform one way or another every event. Events are sui generis , self-aware, and self-modifying. Each event has a beginning, a middle, and an end. That end is not a ‘consequence’; it is the event itself, projected into the actual world of every logically subsequent event. The moral value of an event lies in the act itself, not in its conformity to a set of norms and not in its consequentiality. But an act is not a gesture. It begins with the first stirring of appetition and it proceeds through various phases of intent. It embodies aspects of the world it inherits, colored by its own subjectivity. Ultimately, every event is its own end! David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . purpose and devotion. Return to our 2024 Beach Read Share Previous Next Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

“And so they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were filled with awe, while those who followed behind were afraid.” < Back Mark’s Diary – Notes for a Screenplay David Cowles Sep 1, 2024 “And so they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were filled with awe, while those who followed behind were afraid.” Narrator : (Quoting Isaiah) “Here is my messenger whom I send ahead, a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare a way for the Lord; make straight his path’.” Direction : As the Narrator is reciting Isaiah, the words are captioned in white letters across a black screen. Scene #1 : John is baptizing pilgrims in the waters of the River Jordan. Jesus approaches and is baptized. Chorus (of 3): “This is my beloved son on whom my favor rests.” Scene #2 : Jesus is praying alone in the wilderness, wrestling with the temptations of Satan. Learning that John has been arrested, he enters Galilee, proclaiming the Good News to everyone, everywhere. Jesus : “The kingdom of God is at hand! Repent and believe the good news.” Scene #3 : As he walks along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus recruits his first apostles, Simon (Peter), Andrew, James, and John, fishermen and merchants from the local bourgeoisie. Jesus : “Come, I will make you fishers of men.” Scene #4 : On the Sabbath, Jesus enters the synagogue at Capernaum, the major city in the region, and teaches the rapt congregation with authority. (We don’t hear the specifics of the teaching.) As he is speaking, an obviously troubled man interrupts and exposes Jesus’ identity: Chorus : “I know who you are, holy one of God.” Jesus : “Silence! …Come out of him!” Direction : Jesus is piqued at the interruption and at the untimely disclosure and, knowing it to be the work of demons, Jesus cures the man just to silence him, but it’s too late. He’s created a stir! It’s early days but already, things are not going as smoothly as expected. Scene #5 : Jesus takes refuge in Simon’s house where he heals Simon’s mother-in-law as well as others from the town. Before dawn, Jesus slips out, hoping to pray alone, but Simon et al. soon follow. Scene #6 : Now Jesus and his tiny band roam the hills of Galilee, sticking mainly to byways and speaking only in rural villages. Along the way, Jesus meets and cures a leper, and swears him to silence. Jesus : “Show yourself only to the priest.” Narrator : “But the man went out and made the whole story public, until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town. He was forced to remain in deserted places, but the people continued to come.” Direction : The Gospel of Mark includes numerous instances of Jesus performing miracles, usually swearing his beneficiaries to silence that they often break. We have staged a few of these miracles but the Director should feel free to stage additional miracle stories from the Gospel as she sees fit. Scene #7 : Jesus and his disciples are walking through a corn field; it happens to be the Sabbath. The scene suggests Van Gogh’s Wheatfield with Crows . The apostles are picking, peeling and eating ears of corn. Chorus : “Why do they do what is forbidden on the Sabbath?” Jesus : “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Son of Man is sovereign, even over the Sabbath.” Narrator : “So the Pharisees began plotting against him with the partisans of King Herod to see how they could do away with him…Then Jesus went up into the hill country and called the men he wanted, and they joined him. In all, he appointed 12 to be his companions.” Scene #8 : As Jesus and his followers continued on their way, Jesus takes the opportunity to teach: Jesus : “Nothing is hidden unless it is to be disclosed, the measure you give is the measure you will receive…and more besides. The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed , the smallest of all seeds…Once sown, it grows taller than any other plant and forms branches so large that birds can settle in its shade.” Scene #9 , Narrator : “Once more, a crowd has gathered around Jesus so that he’s had no chance to eat. His family set out to take charge of him for people were saying that Jesus was out of his mind. When his mother and his brothers arrive, they remain outside and send a message into Jesus.” Chorus : “Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you.” Direction : Jesus is mortified at being summoned home for supper as if he were a little child. Angry, he looks for an opportunity to regain lost dignity. Jesus : “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?... Whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister, my mother.” Direction: But the damage has been done. Chorus : “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? Narrator: “So he could no longer work miracles there…he was taken aback by their lack of faith.” Jesus : Let’s cross over to the other side of the lake. Direction : Here for the first time a map of the region appears on the screen. As the film continues, the map reappears and Jesus’ movements are tracked. Map : Jesus travels across the Sea of Galilee from Bethsaida on the northern shore to the Decapolis, a group of 10 Greek speaking towns on the Southeastern shore. Scene #10 , Narrator : “As Jesus stepped ashore, a man possessed by demons, who cut himself with stones, came up to him.” Jesus : “Come out of this man!” Narrator : “Now there happened to be a large herd of pigs nearby. The demons went into the pigs and the herd rushed over the cliff, into the lake, and drowned, and the spectators begged Jesus to leave the area.” Scene #11 , Narrator : “So Jesus crossed back over to Gailee. Upon his arrival, Jairus, the leader of a local synagogue, approached him.” Jarius : “My little daughter is at death’s door. I beg you, ‘Come, lay hands on her, cure her, save her life’.” Jesus sets out but midway, messengers arrive. Chorus : “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Rabbi further?” Jesus : “Do not be afraid. Only have faith.” Narrator : “He allowed only Peter, James and John to accompany him to the leader’s house where there was a great commotion with loud crying and wailing.” Jesus : “Why this wailing? The child is not dead, she is asleep.” (Chorus laughs derisively.) “Get up my child,” and she rises. Scene #12 , Narrator : “They set off secretly by boat, searching for an isolated place. But when he came ashore, Jesus saw a great crowd.” Chorus : “This is a lonely place, and it is getting very late. Send the people off to the farms and villages to buy themselves something to eat.” Jesus : “Give them something to eat yourselves. How many loaves have you?” Chorus : “Five loaves, and two fish as well.” Narrator : “Jesus took the five loaves, looked up to heaven, said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to the disciples to distribute. He also divided up the fish. Those who ate numbered 5,000 and they ate to their hearts’ content. 12 large baskets full of scraps were gathered up at the end. “Then Jesus left this place and went to the territory of Tyre.” Map : Jesus route to Lebanon (Tyre), 50 miles northeast, a 3 day journey at that time. “He found a house to stay in and would have liked to remain there unrecognized, but that was impossible. On his return, he went by way of Sidon and the Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee…” Map : Jesus’ route through Lebanon, Syria and Jordan is incredibly circuitous. He ends up back at the Sea of Galilee but now he is back on the Eastern Shore. Emphasis should be placed on how much distance Jesus keeps between himself and his native Galilee. Scene #13 , Narrator : “…There Jesus fed another 4,000 pilgrims with 7 loaves and several fish; this time 7 baskets of scraps were collected.” Direction : The disciples are murmuring among themselves. They appear bewildered. Jesus : “Do you still not understand? Are your minds closed? When I broke the 5 loaves among the 5000, how many baskets full of scraps did you gather?” Chorus : “Twelve.” Direction : Here the map can morph or flip into a blackboard/whiteboard. As the Narrator speaks, the following image gradually appears on the screen: ‘5 loaves/5000 people →12 baskets’ Jesus : “And how many when I broke the 7 loaves among the 4,000? Chorus : “Seven.” ‘7 loaves/4000 people → 7 baskets’ Jesus (exasperated): “Do you still not understand?” Direction: Tensions are clearly on the rise. Jesus is testy, the disciples are squabbling among themselves, and everyone is growing restless. Chorus : “We have left everything to become your followers.” Jesus : “There is no one who has given up home, brothers or sisters, mother, father, children or land for my sake who will not receive 100 times as much… and eternal life.” Direction: But like Washington at Valley Forge, Jesus realizes he can wait no longer. He must act…or risk losing his followers. It’s now…or never! Jesus : “Now we are going to Jerusalem where the Son of Man will be given up to the chief priests and the doctors of the law. They will condemn him to death and hand him over to the occupiers. He will be mocked, spat upon, flogged and killed; but three days later, he will rise again!” Narrator: “And so they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were filled with awe, while those who followed behind were afraid.” Director’s Note: This scene should be staged to suggest Kerouac’s On the Road , Ken Kesey’s ‘Merry Pranksters’, etc. As they proceed, crosses may barely be seen punctuating the far distant skyline. Curtain David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at dtc@gc3incorporated.com Return to Table of Contents Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Dignity or Death David Cowles Jun 15, 2026 “There is nothing dignified about death… In fact, death is the antithesis of dignity.” Everybody talks about Dignity . Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas , repeatedly warns of AI’s potential to undermine ‘human dignity’. A month later, he doubled down in Madrid, “ Dignity takes precedence over all utility…every truly just society is built upon the recognition of the inviolable dignity of the human person.” On the other end of the spectrum, advocates for ‘physician assisted suicide’ often ground their argument on ‘the right to die with dignity ’. Nice work if you can get it, but… News flash : Death is the one universal condition and there is nothing dignified about it! This magnificent body that we’ve been curating lo these many years suddenly stops working and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t get it started again…much like an Opel Kadet I owned in the ‘60s. (No, my millennial friends, I did not know Lincoln; the War between the States took place in the 1860s .) Add to that the fact that death is usually accompanied by some or all of the following: Ø Acute trauma Ø Extreme pain Ø Cognitive decline Ø Incapacitation Ø Incontinence Where is the dignity in that? In fact, death is the antithesis of dignity! We are born to live and death isn’t that. 4 billion years of evolution have honed us to survive and procreate. To die is to fail (sic)…or retire. There is no dignity in dying. Death is the ultimate indignity and in any event the manner and circumstances of our death are almost entirely out of our control. Those who look for dignity in their demise are confusing the ‘how they died’ with ‘how they faced death’. It is our response to death that allows us to salvage a modicum of dignity. Our sages confirm this; they tell us how to face the inevitable heroically: From Homer’s warriors on the plains of Troy to Jesus, Stephen, and the Christian martyrs. But perhaps the best counsel famously comes from a 20 th century Welsh poet, Dylan Thomas: “Do not go gentle into that good night…Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Ultimately, there can be no compromise with Evil ( sed libera nos a malo ) and Death is its paradigm. “I set before you life and death…therefore choose life.” (Deut. 30: 19) But then again, life isn’t a heck of a lot better: I am reminded of the popular turn of the millennium meme, “Life sucks and then you die!” To wit, w e are born naked, helpless, and covered in mucus. We spend the next 18 years in survival mode, withstanding the abuse, neglect, and miseducation, known as happy childhoods . But not to worry, we have 40 years of wage slavery, known as successful careers , ahead. Worn out and less functional, we are finally ‘allowed’ (not to say ‘encouraged’) to retire into the marginal life of a ‘seasoned citizen’. Remind me, why did we make this journey in the first place? We did so because Leo’s not entirely wrong! There is a profound dignity attached to being human, but it’s not the dignity conferred by labor and certainly not by death, even if it is holy or heroic . We are not dignified by the World (fame, success, power); the World is dignified by us, and not by who we are but by what we do. And I don’t mean building castles of thin air, Ozymandias! We are the image and likeness of God and God is Good, not just ‘good’ but Good per se , and Good (God) manifests in our world as Beauty, Truth, and Justice (BTJ), and we are the creature uniquely qualified to recognize and propagate the beautiful, the true, and the just in our realm. Based on our reading of Genesis , we imagine ourselves the pinnacle of creation and we mistake species pride for dignity. Just how dignified are we? Let’s see. We let ourselves be hoodwinked by a snake, we traded Paradise for an apple, we hid from God in the garden like 5 year olds, we learned to be ashamed of our bodies, and we sank to the crime of fratricide. Some dignity! In fact, the mythological indignity of the primordial nuclear family became the launching pad for creation’s ongoing, heroic effort to recreate the Garden of Eden: Jesus’ Kingdom of Heaven, Revelation ’s New Jerusalem, Arthur’s Camelot, Marx’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Ezra Pound’s City of Dioce . Every entity, to the extent that it is good, is a member of the ‘set of all good things’. Lie quiet Russell, I mean that is Bertrand Russell . God is good… and God is Good. Therefore, every entity, to the extent that it is good, imitates God and subsists in God: “Through him, with him, and in him.” Domine non sum dignus. “Lord, I am not worthy.” Sed tantum dic verbo . “But speak just the Word ( logo ).” It is the Word of God, the logos , that orders the World in a way that supports the realization of eternal and universal Values (BTJ) in the spatiotemporal realm. It is the Word of God that makes human dignity possible. Pope Leo asks us to respect the dignity of all human beings because that is the teaching to the church; I would argue that we should respect the teachings of the Church because we have dignity. Dignity is primary. I’ll see Leo and raise him. But my dignity is reflected in and refracted by what I do, not in or by what happens to me. According to Thomas Aquinas, et al., from God’s eternal perspective, Value is simple…and singular: the Good . But just as white light refracts to generate a rainbow in spacetime, so Good manifests in specific contexts as Beauty, Truth, and/or Justice (BTJ). The Good is simple; it is the same for me as it is for you and it is the same for you as it is for God. I read the Book of Job as the hypothetical transcript of a case heard in Cosmic Court that confirmed once and for all the primacy and universality of Good. My dignity does indeed come from God but it comes, not as a perq of birth, but as a mission for life. Just as children imagine that there is dignity in imitating their parents, so we know that there is dignity in imitating God, i.e. in doing God’s work. And what is that work? To manifest Good, i.e. to realize Beauty, Truth, and Justice in our realm. So, theist, atheist, or agnostic, everything I do begins with a primal appetition for the Good, which is God and which manifests in our World as BTJ. In the 1950’s, our educators told us that our purpose in life was to know, love, and serve God. Not everything they taught us back then was right, but in this instance, t hey nailed it . I ‘know God’ when I seek Truth; I ‘love God’ when I foster Beauty; I ‘serve God’ when I restore Justice. In this, and only this, consists human dignity. Deo gratia! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

“I’m willing to bet there are some people out there (actually, a lot of people) who would literally love to spend their careers revealing the presence of God to others.” < Back Sacramental Priesthood David Cowles Apr 15, 2024 “I’m willing to bet there are some people out there (actually, a lot of people) who would literally love to spend their careers revealing the presence of God to others.” Prior to 1800, it was more or less taken for granted that human life had some sort of transcendent purpose or value. After 1800…not so much! Popes Leo XIII, Pius X, and John XXIII each made a valiant, but largely unsuccessful, effort to win back the hearts and minds of the ‘once faithful’. The high water mark of this renewal was Vatican II (V2), the Church’s 20 th century effort to reinvent itself. For all its good intentions and fine documents, V2 did not accomplish its objective. In retrospect, JP2 probably did more to make the church relevant . Today, the Church is adrift. Even a generally popular Pope like Francis seems oddly out of touch. The Church’s structural and institutional problems are serious and well known but they are not the root cause of this cultural schism. That goes to something much deeper: Christians believe… or are expected to believe, things that fly in the face of everyday common sense : that God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, is also a human being, born of a virgin to a working class family in first century Palestine; that he cured the sick, raised the dead, turned water into wine, wine into blood, and bread into his body; that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Non-Christians… believe in science. See the problem? Believers and non-believers do not just disagree about things like Abortion; they disagree about what the World is ! What the meaning of ‘is’ is! Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, science and religion coexisted, albeit uneasily. Science had its realm, religion had its, and never were the twain to meet. If this ‘two state solution’ ever worked, it certainly doesn’t today. Science strives to be a Theory of Everything (TOE) and, frankly, Theology should do the same, not excluding science, not co-opting it, but incorporating it. The scientific world view - logical, empirical, material and practical - has permeated every nook and cranny of civilian life. 8 year olds today are doing science that was unimaginable for 80 year olds a generation ago. It is hard to imagine a role for religion in such a world. However, we also know that the scientific world view is ultimately unsatisfying. Despite stupendous material progress, people are at least as unhappy today as they ever were. Stress, anxiety, depression, boredom, and self-harm are symptoms of an even deeper malaise – the loss of meaning and purpose. I mean a universe that comes into being spontaneously, evolves randomly, and vanishes without a trace is hardly reassuring. May I be excused for at least asking, “Could something else be going on?” I mean, if it turns out that everything is worthless and nothing has any meaning, then fine! But don’t expect me to go gentle into that no good night. Science offers no ultimate explanations; it can’t. It’s not in its nature. Now don’t get me wrong: science does an outstanding job of explaining things , one thing at a time, in terms of other things, one thing at a time. Any Best of Science highlight reel must include a shot of a billiards table. But why are there things to explain in the first place? Not a cue! (Oops, clue.) We have everything…we are nothing! Materialism has proven to be the first cousin of nihilism; so re-enter Christianity? Most Christians believe in science – deeply! It’s Nature after all. It’s the Mind of God. In 1000 CE, Pope Sylvester II was said to be the finest scientific mind in all Europe. In Jewish tradition, the Torah is thought to have been given twice: once as Written Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) and once as Oral Torah (nature, logos , the cosmic order). One law, two expressions! Science and religion don’t conflict…or even complement; they reinforce. A knowledge of science can and should lead to a deeper understanding of religion… and vice versa! But this is 2000, not 1000, CE, and it’s certainly not 500 BCE. Science reigns, religion is in exile. The priesthood itself, the scaffolding of the hierarchical Church, is an endangered species. There are no priests! And religious? Forget about it. What can a priest do? He (sic) can educate, heal, counsel, administer; he can perform the Works of Mercy…but so can others . A priest can ‘also’ facilitate the Seven Sacraments. These are 7 ‘moments’ or ‘stages’ in someone’s life that can bring a person into closer contact with the Transcendent. Generally speaking, this is something others can’t do! Beyond the 7 Sacraments, most of what the Church does can be laicized, subbed out, or snubbed out. Much can and should move to the public sector and/or to non-denominational charities. Where the Church wishes to retain a role, e.g. in education, there is no need for ordained clergy to be involved. Imagine a Church with two ‘tracks’: (1) the lay track for those primarily interested in public service, education, administration, charitable work; (2) the ordained track for those wishing to devote themselves to manifesting God’s presence through the Sacraments. We are all called to be Priest, Prophet, and King . Absolutely! But perhaps in our professional lives, we should be priest, prophet, or king. For example, reimagine the priesthood as a loose confederation of men (sic) welcoming newborns and converts, strengthening faith, hearing confessions, celebrating Mass (Eucharist), marrying couples, ordaining clergy, and easing the way for the sick and the dying. Not the worst job description! To whom could we compare such a ‘reformed’ clergy? To Robin Hood’s Merry Men, to Worker-priests, to Medieval troubadours, to Jack Kerouac’s Dharma Bums? Wait, I’ve got it, how about we compare the new priesthood to Jesus’ band of disciples (Gospel of Mark), wandering the border regions of Galilee, performing good works and manifesting the presence of God. In other words, the Church as Jesus and the Apostles lived it. How about that? Of course, in the process of carrying out these spiritual functions, priests would overlap with lay practitioners and even civil servants as the latter perform their material and/or social duties: caring, counseling, educating, et al. It could be no other way! Each Sacrament is not only an encounter with Christ; it is also an encounter with, and an unmasking of, the world ( Aletheia ). Sacraments strip away the world’s phenomenal veneer to reveal its noumenal essence. They hijack Parmenides’ Doxa and shine its ‘bright light’ on Aletheia . This is Neant without Etre , Dasein without Wassein , the unheard sound of a tree falling in a forest, the unheard sound of one hand clapping. Imagine officiating at these moments of sacramental epiphany…and doing it for a living! Doesn’t appeal to you? You’d rather shuffle papers? No problem. I’ve got plenty of work for you . But I’m willing to bet there are some people out there (actually, a lot of people) who would literally love to spend their careers revealing the presence of God to others. And if I’m right, Eureka! We have priests again! Maybe John Webster was right, “Better days are coming,” after all! David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Click the cover image to return to Holy Days 2024. Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back I'm Too Old for War David Cowles Oct 11, 2022 “So that’s it for me; I’m done. I’m too old for war now, period. Put me down on your list as…no longer compliant.” I’m too old for that! What child has not said this, or at least thought it, many times: I’m too old for time-out. I’m too old to be grounded. I’m too old to have a bedtime. I’m too old for a curfew. And, of course, in my day, I’m too old for ‘corporal punishment.’ “How old is too told” is rarely answered by theoretical argument. Most adults enter parenthood with some preconceived notions in these areas, but those notions are quickly revised, or even abandoned, once the heat of battle is upon them. We call it the fog of parenting . Believe me, it’s real! In the real world, a child becomes ‘too old’ for a particular discipline when one of three things happens: It no longer ‘feels right’ (to the parent, of course, who cares how snot-nosed children feel, right?). It’s too hard to enforce (“I can’t ground them – they have sports and stuff almost every day.”) The ‘child’ is no longer compliant with the overall regime. Just as all children at some point become “too old for time-out,” so, too, human society at some point should outgrow certain social structures. I have no wish to offend folks on the margin, but I think most readers will agree: We’re too old for cannibalism. We’re too old for human sacrifice. We’re too old for witch burnings. We’re too old for slavery, racism, sexism, etc. I would like to add a fifth ‘too old for’ to my list. I think we’re finally too old for war! I was born in the wake of WWII. I lived through Korea (barely), Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan… (My apologies if I left out your favorite war. It wasn’t intentional…but there have been so many!) As far as these wars are concerned, for the most part I was not a fan. But I could see that lines were drawn and that principles were at stake; I could even ‘take sides,’ virtually speaking – root for the home team and all that…or not. No more! With the 2022 war in Ukraine, the sublime has become ridiculous. We are killing each other, soldiers and civilians alike, in the most horrible ways possible, but we stop fighting just long enough for grain ships to leave Odessa, for refugees to leave Mariupol, for oil and gas to pass through pipelines, and, most of all, to keep Europe’s largest nuclear power plant safe and operational. As pre-teens, we imagined ourselves members of fierce tribes. We’d battle all afternoon, but we’d be home in time for dinner. Today, we’re too old to fight such mock wars, and now we’re too old for real war too! I’m just sorry we had to have this war to show the world that we have outgrown this social structure. With all due respect to those fighting and those dying, it all looks a bit silly from my perch atop Trump Tower. The Vietnam War, whatever you thought of it, never looked silly. Neither did Desert Storm. But these days you just can’t have a ‘good war’ anymore! Our lives are too complex and interconnected. Once upon a time, the world stood still while we slaughtered each other. Now, the exigencies of war are trumped by the exigencies of commerce. In much of the world, this deadly conflict is viewed as an interruption, an extension of the COVID-19 lockdown: “When do you think we’ll be able to get back to business as usual?” Things will never be the same for the people of Ukraine, but for the rest of us, we trust we’ll one day be able to pick up where we left off. War is usually fought with the expectation that there will be some sort of change as a result. Today, no one is even talking about change. Most likely, after the war, no matter the outcome, things will go back to being the way they were. Not only can you no longer ‘stage a good war,’ you can no longer imagine that such a war will produce real change. For all its horror, war has become irrelevant: “…a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Shakespeare) So, that’s it for me; I’m done. I’m too old for war now, period. Put me down on your list as a #3 : no longer compliant . Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back How and Why David Cowles Oct 18, 2021 Prior to 1600, to be accepted in the West, any new scientific theory had to demonstrate that it was compatible with the basic tenets of Christianity. Since 1600, every religious doctrine has been required to demonstrate that it is compatible with the discoveries of modern science. Prior to 1600, to be accepted in the West, any new scientific theory had to demonstrate that it was compatible with the basic tenets of Christianity. Since 1600, every religious doctrine has been required to demonstrate that it is compatible with the discoveries of modern science. While intellectually interesting, these efforts are fundamentally wrong headed. Truth to tell, for all their apparent intersections, science and religion don’t have a lot to say to one another. For one thing, they answer entirely different questions: Science answers “how” questions. It is skeptical of “why” questions (are they even meaningful, can they have an answer) and, at any rate, it is silent on the subject. Religion, on the other hand, is and should be silent on the “how” of things. Religion is all about the “why”; isn’t that enough? (In fact, major problems have occurred whenever religion has trespassed into the realm of the “how”.) Fundamentally, while science is all about observation and measurement, religion is the belief that what can be seen and measured is not the most important aspect of reality. Science operates in the spatiotemporal realm while religion is all about the eternal. Of course, we do not directly perceive the eternal aspect of things. We do, however, find intimations of eternity in hope and in love. But at the end of the day, the epistemology of religion is faith. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back The Concept of the Circle David Cowles Aug 31, 2025 “Imagine what it would be like to live in a world where circles actually existed! Perhaps that’s what Hell is.” Where would we be without circles? Well, I guess we’d have to make do with polygons. But that’s ok since a circle is simply a polygon (an n-gon) with n = ∞. So plane (Euclidean) geometry, from the lowly triangle (n = 3), the minimal building block of the material world (Plato, et al.), to the infinitely sided circle (n = ∞), is consistent. And solid geometry is just the projection of 2-dimensional plane geometry (d = 2) into 3-dimensional space (d = 3)…and so on (d’ = d+1). So what do all n-gons have in common? They divide a plane into two distinct regions: inside and outside. What is in is in and what is out is out and never the twain shall meet. Well, that’s not exactly true. Every ‘normal’ n-gon (including a circle) has an (n-1) dimensional border region consisting of points that can be considered both in and out (or neither in nor out), but those points are fixed. A point inside a circle is inside forever; a point outside is forever out. Imagine what it would be like to live in a world where circles (n-gons) actually existed! Perhaps that’s what Hell is. Since events often occur in the context of broader events (e.g. many battles in one war), our universe would consist of a nearly infinite progression of Russian dolls. Every ‘inside world’ would be a universe unto itself, entirely sealed off from, and unaware of, whatever might be outside it. On the other hand, an outside world could potentially experience the existence of an inside world, but only as an interruption, as a hole in the whole. But would a point in the outside world really experience the existence of an inside world or would the hole be imperceptible…like the ‘blind spot’ in humans’ visual field? Or the experience of a patient under general anesthesia who awakes unaware of any ‘hole in time’? Would we imagine a continuous plane? Does Swiss cheese even know it’s full of holes? If we lived in a world where circles (n-gons) were real, every definable entity (every object, event, experience, etc.) would be the functional equivalent of a ‘super black hole’: – a black hole because its event horizon, the circle, is a point of no return; what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Sin City is not part of the USA any more than Vatican City is part of Rome. – a super black hole because the circle would function as a ‘double event horizon’. In the case of a black hole, the outside world is unaware of anything inside the event horizon…but the inside world is still aware of whatever’s outside it. In the case of an n-gon, however, neither the inside nor the outside is aware of the other (except perhaps as a hole). Who’s afraid of a big black hole? Literally, everyone! And if you’re not, you darn well should be. Your body is ripped apart (spaghettification) and you are forever unable to communicate anything to anyone in the outside world. Hmm, sounds a lot like death! Now imagine a ‘super black hole’. You cannot communicate with anyone and no one can communicate with you. The outside world behaves like its own black hole from the perspective of the inside world. The universe would then consist of two black holes with a single, shared horizon which functions as a double-sided mirror; it precludes cross border communication, it precludes cross border awareness. Everything is reflected back on itself. Yup, this is Hell alright! Or call it Narcissus’ Paradise ? To see nothing but one’s own reflection for all eternity…I’ll pass on that, thank you very much. Alleluia, Alleluia, thanks be to God, we do not live in a world with n-gons. Ok, that sounds crazy: I can see 100 polygonal objects from my desk chair. Of course, n-gons exist in our world! Except they don’t. We’ve developed a massive series of hacks that allow us to model the world using n-gons while escaping the implications of total isolation. These ‘hacks’ allow us to imagine that we live in a polygonal world when in fact we do not. Take the biological cell for example; it’s the basic structure of all life on Earth. Every cell is ‘separated’ from its environment by a cell wall resulting in a closed geometric shape. But cell walls are not ‘walls’ at all; they are membranes that allow molecules inside the cell to migrate out and molecules outside the cell to migrate in. Ok, but is this cross border traffic anything more than a trickle? Not unless you call a billion molecules per second a ‘trickle’! If the walls of cells were not permeable, no cell could live more than a few seconds and all life on Earth would vanish in a matter of minutes. Who needs nuclear annihilation when sclerotic cell walls could do the trick so much quicker? But that’s organic chemistry. Flunked that class anyway. What about the inorganic world? Surely functional n-gons exist there, right? Sorry, no! First, “things fall apart.” (Yeats) Even inorganic matter ‘decays’. The polygonal books on my shelves are deteriorating, albeit imperceptibly; they are obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Second, inorganic matter consists of subatomic particles but these so-called ‘particles’ have no hardwired location. They enclose nothing and they are enclosed by nothing. In fact, it is impossible to determine the precise location of any particle at any moment. Every particle is a field and every field is cosmo-spanning. Position is a function of probability, not locale. Well, black holes then. Surely they have impermeable event horizons! I mean, we just said so (above). But we were ‘speaking loosely’, as my grandfather used to say. In fact, event horizons are never impermeable. Stephen Hawking proved that all black holes radiate mass (Hawking Radiation)! Does this mean that we must give up the dream of a geometry that approximates real world phenomena? By no means! We just need a different geometry, one that eliminates the bifurcation of the world into insides and outs. But how do we accomplish that? Step #1 : Add a Mobius Strip to our model. Any space that includes a Mobius Strip is ‘non-orientable’: (1) surfaces are ‘one sided’, (2) objects have no inside or out. Step #2 : Remove the Archimedean Property from our model. This property limits us to the set of Real + Complex Numbers. It specifically excludes infinite and infinitesimal quantities. Without the Archimedean Property, regions cannot overlap. C can be embedded in B (or vice versa)…or B and C can be disjoint. B and C can, in turn be embedded in A. But when B and C are disjoint subsets of A, a common metric across all three regions is no longer required for coherence. Each space is measured by its own metric. The size of a region measured internally need not be the same as the size of the same region measured from an external vantage point. In the long running BBC series, Doctor Who , there is a certain phone box/booth, the TARDIS, whose interior is vastly larger than its exterior. So, the volume of B (and/or C) and/or the volume of (B + C) can be greater than the volume of A...even though B and C are subsets of A. There is a region of A called X that is not part of B or C; in some cases the volume of X can actually be negative. If (B+C) > A, then X < 0. The Archimedean world imagined in our traditional geometries is a mere shadow, or surface, of the non-Archimedean world that underlies it. Think of the shadows in Plato’s cave ( The Republic ). Or think of the ‘skin’ that sometimes forms atop a liquid. If B and C are disjoint subsets of A, then B and C can impact A and A in turn can impact B and C. Influences flow freely and reciprocally between parts and wholes, but never directly between parts. B and C retain their autonomy at all times, but that does not mean they are locked in separate supermax cells. Step #3 : Remove the Axiom of Foundation (FA) from set theory. FA prohibits any set from being a member of itself. Step #1 eliminates the concept of inside/out. Step #2 allows entities to be embedded and to influence one another without compromising their independence and integrity and without lapsing into solipsism. Step #3 makes it possible for us to acknowledge that every set is a subset of itself. Combining these tweaks allows us to build a model that better resonates with the phenomenal world. It enables us to account for the permeability of the cell wall, the entropic decay of ordered systems, and the existence of cosmos-spanning fields (e.g. EM and Gravity). It accounts for Karma – “What goes around comes around”, for the Great Commandment – “Love your neighbor as yourself’, and for Newton’s Third Law of Motion - “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” Language is Logic’s fraternal twin. Orientable, Archimedean Geometry and the Axiom of Foundation are well suited to a language of active/passive verbs and subject/object nouns…like ours, for example. Of course, this language is just as unrepresentative of reality as its logical counterpart. But is it even possible for a language to model a non-orientable, non-Archimedean universe with no Axiom of Foundation? You bet it is! In fact, Indo-European used to be just such a language. Our active/passive voices are corruptions of a single reciprocating voice, the Middle Voice . The Middle Voice redefines ‘subjects and objects’. Now every subject is its own object (reflection) and every object its own subject (recursion). Bonus : Middle Voice allows us to talk about ‘what we talk about when we talk about love ’. (Raymond Carver) And as we all know, Love is what makes the world go round. ( Carnival ) No one knows better than lovers the gulf that separates a loved one’s objective exterior from their subjective interior. “Lord, we don’t need another (Archimedean) mountain…what the world needs now is love sweet love.” (Jackie DeShannon) But to realize that vision, we first need to overcome our addiction to mythical enclosed spaces, like circles. *** William Blake’s The Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed with the Sun (1805–10) stages a vision of beings locked inside their own enclosing arcs of wings and shadow, a painterly hell of circles within circles that mirrors the isolation a true n-gon world would impose. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Pronouns David Cowles Jul 23, 2021 Today, we are all about our pronouns. This incidental part of speech has suddenly replaced the noun and the verb as the focus of popular, and linguistic, attention. Growing up in the ‘60s, we were accustomed to asking one another, “What is your sign?” Now, 55 years later, “What are your pronouns?” has become the ice breaker of choice. Even some business colleagues of mine have embedded “my pronouns…” into their electronic email signatures. Today, we are all about our pronouns. This incidental part of speech has suddenly replaced the noun and the verb as the focus of popular, and linguistic, attention. Growing up in the ‘60s, we were accustomed to asking one another, “What is your sign?” Now, 55 years later, “What are your pronouns?” has become the ice breaker of choice. Even some business colleagues of mine have embedded “my pronouns…” into their electronic email signatures. 100 years ago, someone else was focused on pronouns. Jewish theologian and existentialist philosopher, Martin Buber. His seminal work, “I and Thou”, understood the world as a network of relationships. He divided those relationships into two categories: ”I – it” and “I – Thou”. I – it relationships are all about the I, the subject. The it is pure object. We usually have an I – it relationship with the canned goods on a supermarket shelf. Unfortunately, we often extend that relationship to the human beings who work in that supermarket. Imperialism and colonialism are paradigms of I – it relationships. Derek Chauvin had an I – it relationship with George Floyd. An I – Thou relationship, on the other hand, eliminates the subject-object duality. It posits the absolute equality of the I and the Thou. In fact, it requires that we see ourselves in the other and that the other sees him/herself in us. Buber made a great contribution to Western philosophy, but I would go much further. “My pronouns” are it and Thou…not I or me. That’s because when I enter into an I – it relationship, it immediately becomes an it – it relationship. The object of the relationship (e.g. canned goods) transforms the subject of the relationship (me) into an object, into an ‘it’. Conversely, when I enter into an I – Thou relationship, I am immediately transformed into a Thou. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Barry Goldwater David Cowles Jun 11, 2024 “When people show you who they are, believe them.” – Maya Angelou If you’re not as old as me – how could you be? – you might not remember Barry Goldwater, Senator from Arizona (1953 – 1987) and Republican nominee for President (1964). You may be forgiven. While we are used to presidential elections being decided by margins of less than 3%, Goldwater managed to lose by 23%. After a bruising but successful primary campaign, Senator Goldwater walked into San Franciso’s ‘Cow Palace’, buoyant with optimism, preparing to proclaim a new era in American history. Goldwater brought the convention to its feet with a message that will live forever in the annals of political rhetoric: Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice… Moderation is the pursuit of Justice is no virtue! The nation’s founding documents celebrate as divinely conferred the rights to ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’. Nowhere in these documents will you find reference to any qualifiers, such as: … But don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (Don’t mess with success…or Texas), And never, ever tip over a money changer’s applecart. Yet, since the Gilded Age, the Populist critique of US culture has focused on the ‘extra-constitutional’ role of the State in the preservation of the socio-economic ‘status quo’ ( aka ‘inequality’). It’s ok to nibble around the edges with various schemes of social reform, designed to shore up support for the system ; but it’s ok only to the extent that such lofty ideals don’t compromise society’s actual guiding principles, as personified by money changing geese. Somehow, Goldwater missed the memo! Taking a page straight out of Jesus’ revolutionary handbook ( aka the Gospels), he strode into San Francisco’s Cow Palace and proclaimed a Jubilee (i.e. a redistribution of economic power)…this time in America. I said earlier that Goldwater’s electrifying speech brought the Republican Convention to its feet. I neglected to mention that about 1/3rd of these feet were headed for the exits. As soon as the Senator delivered his iconic lines, Nelson Rockefeller, then Governor of New York and subsequently US VP, led a delegate walk-out. From that point on, Goldwater’s candidacy was effectively doomed. We didn’t realize it at the time, but he would never fully recover from Rockefeller’s bovine theatrics . But what’s interesting here is not so much the vagaries of U.S. presidential politics, but the unstated, yet clearly implied, ideology of the peripatetic dissenters: Liberty should be defended… And Justice should be pursued, Both in moderation. “When people show you who they are, believe them” – Maya Angelou. By their actions, Rocky’s Roadsters (and the many others who doomed the Goldwater campaign) betrayed what was most literally a pact with the devil. How so? Liberty and Justice, along with Beauty and Truth, are Divine Values. They constitute God’s essence. They’re what it’s like to be God. While these values are often compromised in our everyday lives, such compromises can never be ‘justified’. Call them what they are: ‘accommodations at the expense of Liberty and Justice’. 1964 saw the public proclamation of a new, apparently successful, social ethic. Liberty and Justice were ‘reclassified’ as preferred states of affairs rather than absolute imperatives. They are now just two factors, among many others, to be considered in the formation of public policy. ‘Liberty & Justice’ (Goldwater ’64) must never be allowed to replace ‘Peace & Prosperity’ (Eisenhower ‘52). Is this ringing any bells? Does it call to mind any other times in the life of this nation when absolute Liberty was considered too extreme and true Justice could only be pursued incrementally ? Abolitionism in the 1850’s? Civil Rights in the 1960’s? Today, we are so obsessed with the vilification of all things ante-bellum that we miss some key points. Pro-slavery politicians weren’t against either Liberty or Justice per se – far from it! They simply believed that these Values needed to be ‘understood in context’ and ‘realized gradually’. True, we cannot reasonably expect total Liberty or perfect Justice prior to the Eschaton. However, that does not relieve us of our responsibility to advocate and defend these values without compromise. There is no Scriptural or Constitutional sanction for any waiver . Torah does not say, “You shall not kill unless it is convenient.” So what’s the upshot of our little morality play: Goldwater’s campaign crashed and burned, as noted, and the country descended into a second civil war. But Phoenix (Arizona, get it?) rose from the ashes. In 1980 Ronald Reagan, who had played an important role in Goldwater’s 1964 campaign, was elected president – in a landslide! In fact, 1980 nearly flipped ‘64 on its head. And whatever you may think of President Reagan, you will agree that the country has not been the same since. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back The World According to Whitehead David Cowles Jan 5, 2023 “In the technical jargon of academia, the mashed potatoes are lumpier than we would have expected.” Since the beginning of speculative thought, human beings have been struggling to create a map of reality. Happily, we are not concerned here with Mercator or Polar Projections. We draw this map using the Ontological Projection . 20th century British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead (c. 1930), was perhaps the last Western philosopher to attempt such a map. How come? As usual, the London media tells the story two different ways: Whitehead Nailed it! Philosophers Give-up! According to Whitehead, the world consists exclusively of actual entities (aka events ). Outside actual entities, there is nothing; but actual entities themselves have a rather complex internal structure. Each actual entity consists of (1) the actual world it inherits, (2) the eternal objects that qualify ( characterize or define ) it, (3) the subjective aim that motivates it, (4) the propositions (‘proposed superjects’) that translate motivation into praxis , (5) the subjective forms under which material from the actual world is prehended and integrated into the emerging entity, (6) the satisfaction that the actual entity ultimately enjoys, (7) the obverse side of that satisfaction, the superject , which the actual entity projects into the world and which will be (8) that entity’s objective immorality , i.e., its ultimate contribution to the actual worlds of other entities. Before (logically) there can be an actual world ( nexus ), there must be a multiplicity of unrelated superjects - pure disjunction ( kaos ). Each novel actual entity converts the multiplicity into ‘an ordered set’, its own unique actual world ( nexus ), assembled specifically to further the entity’s subjective aim. An actual entity dismisses those superjects it deems irrelevant to its project. The remaining superjects are either negated because they are at cross purposes with the subjective aim, or appropriated because they support the entity’s drive to satisfaction. Each such prehension (positive or negative) contributes subjective form to the actual entity: How do I love thee (or not)? Let me count, both ways! Each actual entity synthesizes the multiplicity into a nexus that is that entity’s unique actual world : one world – one entity, one entity – one world. Figure is not the negation of ground; the relationship is much more dynamic. Figure modifies ground and ground modifies figure, both in support of the subjective aim . This is an example of the famous ‘non-linearity of being’ that philosophers and scientists from Plato to Einstein have noticed: in the technical jargon of academia, the mashed potatoes are lumpier than we would have expected. The process of concrescence, by which an actual entity comes to be, is powered both by the entity’s positive prehensions (‘attraction’) and by the entity’s negative prehensions (‘repulsion’). Newton’s ‘equal and opposite reaction’ is Whitehead’s ‘equal and similar reaction’. Concrescence is driven by the entity’s subjective aim, the ‘idea’ (usually not conscious) that it has of itself, i.e., its idea of how it will contribute a novel synthesis (its objective immortality ) to the actual worlds of other actual entities. In the language of Viktor Frankl, it is purpose, the anticipation of meaning, that motivates every concrescence. But what about ‘time’? The multiplicity consists of superjects, settled matters of fact; they are timeless - the objective immortality of other entities. Likewise, the eternal objects (the values) that guide the entity’s concrescence are timeless. An actual entity inherits its actual world ‘from time’ and it projects its superject ‘into time’, but the process of concrescence itself happens ‘outside of time’. The selection of eternal objects is guided by ‘propositions’, images (again, usually not conscious) that an actual entity has of itself. A proposition pairs a nexus of superjects (the ‘subject’ of the proposition) from the entity’s actual world with a nexus of eternal objects (the ‘predicate’ of the proposition). If an actual entity were a movie, the world would be the hulks and husks that still haunt the long-abandoned set. They constitute part of the movie’s objective immortality; they will rest inert on set until they are recycled for the production of another film. Each actual entity is a function of order ( logos ) but that order is architectonic, not temporal. As with quantum processes in particle physics and the Feynman Diagrams that illustrate them), an actual entity’s process of concrescence has a duration equal to zero, it occupies no territory on the timeline. Contemporary Italian philosopher, Emanuele Severino, wrote: “Everything is eternal, according to its own distinctive mode of existence.” Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.