< Back The Myth of The Middle Class David Cowles Oct 22, 2024 “I would argue that there are really four classes in the United States, not three, and that none of those classes is what is historically referred to as middle class.” In America, everyone is ‘middle class’. My parents drilled it into us! They did so when we were borderline ‘poor’ and they did so when we were borderline ‘rich’. Over the course of my childhood, my parents traversed 80% of the economic spectrum, but we were always and only middle class . According to American folklore, there are three classes: Poor, Middle, Rich. Unfortunately, poverty in the United States is persistently above 10%. At the other end of the spectrum, even people in the 90th percentile don’t consider themselves rich. Today, rich is a term normally applied only to so-called one percenters , but that is probably too narrow. Presenting no evidence, I would suggest something like a 15-80-5 breakdown. If I’m right, 80% of Americans self-identify as middle class . But I would argue that there are really four classes in the United States, not three, and that none of those classes is what is historically referred to as middle class . IRL, the 80% who identify with the Middle Class actually fall into one of two other classes: Lower Middle (LMC) or Upper Middle (UMC). ‘15-80-5’ is in fact ’15-60-0-20-5’. No wonder our politics are so interesting. But this is not mere sophistry! Neither LMC nor UMC exhibit the behaviors and values legendarily ascribed to the mythical middle class (MMC). It is more than just ironic that in a country where most folks consider themselves middle class , no such class exists. It is said that ‘politics makes strange bedfellows’. Our analysis confirms this. Sometimes rich and poor battle as they did in Les Miserables , while other times rich and poor make common cause, as they also did in Les Mis . Looking at class this way shines an important light on American politics. If you identify as UMC, you probably have a four-year college degree, a white collar job with some management responsibility, a 401k, and a home you co-own with the bank. LMC…not so much. Tragically, the poor in America form a semi-permanent underclass. Some of this is a function of history, some is the result of misguided social policies, and some, sadly, is self-inflicted. Either way, Jesus was right when he predicted, “The poor you will have always with you.” Folks in this class have a unique interest in public policy and tend to vote in blocks. The rich may be considered ‘satisfied’ – not with their marriages or their ‘krazy kids’ but with the quality of life in general. Yes, more is always better, but first, don’t lose what you’ve got. And make no mistake, threats are everywhere: from rapacious politicians to disruptive innovators to ambitious middle managers. UMC on the other hand is ‘satisficed’. Life is still full of stress and worry but ‘we’ve made it’…at least for now. UMC is focused on extracting as much value and pleasure from life as possible and supports public policies in line with that objective. These are the soccer moms, voting to increase teachers’ salaries, modernize library facilities, etc. That leaves LMC, the wild card here…as I’m sure you’ve realized by now. And the fact that 60% fall into this category gives this class extraordinary political power. For LMC life is a perpetual struggle just to stay afloat! LMC are keenly aware that their share of the economic pie is disproportionately small; they aspire to be rich, but would settle for UMC, and some of them will achieve these goals. On the other hand, they already have just enough of the pie to be fiercely possessive. An analysis of class in America needs to consider not only class structure but also ‘class flow’. LMC dreams of being rich as they dread becoming poor. There’s a disproportionate focus on circumstances that do not yet and probably never will, but still might, apply. To make matters even more complex, the focus is not symmetrical. The LMC political agenda may be understood as inspired or demonic; in fact, both characterizations can apply. Simply put: dig a moat between you and the poor while building handholds on the climbing wall to prosperity. Ugh! What an image! Just like the quarterback who says, “Losing is not an option!” and so banishes negative thoughts from his mind, LMC ignores the prospect of poverty: It’s unthinkable! They are focused on the climb, not the fall, and they are surprisingly committed to making sure the brass ring will still be there, untarnished, when they get there. LMC are suspicious. What if we put in all the work and make it out of Dodge only to find that someone has moved the goalposts? LMC are largely alienated from the political process. They don’t believe that public policy impacts their daily lives. On the other hand, they are aware that government has the power to bridge their moat and/or to grease the handholds on their climbing wall. Surprisingly, when LMC votes, it votes less as an interested party and more as self-appointed guardians of the American dream. And what about the Mythical Middle Class? Comfortable and secure. Hardworking but not greedy. Thrifty but generous. Family focused but tolerant. In other words, the Andersons and the Cleavers, not the Kramdens or the Bunkers. If you know any of these ‘typical Americans’ can you please let me know? (I have a team of anthropologists, with their go-bags packed, waiting on the tarmac.) Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to contact us on any matter. How did you like the post? How could we do better in the future? Suggestions welcome. 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 Mass Shooting Epidemic David Cowles Jun 14, 2022 People who perpetrate mass shootings are searching for answers, for meaning in life… June 12th’s edition of Face the Nation included an interview with Dr. Jillian Peterson and Dr. James Densley: “Yeah, I think a lot of people are searching for a profile of a mass shooter…Who are these perpetrators? So, we built a database that includes 180 perpetrators, who killed four or more people in a public space, going back about 50 years. And we coded each of them on over 200 pieces of life, history, information to try to look for patterns in the data…And we, instead, saw a pathway to a mass shooting, and we outlined that pathway in our book called The Violence Project … Mass shooters are in crisis. These are individuals who are not living their best selves, they are questioning their place in the world…people who perpetrate mass shootings are searching for answers, [for] meaning in life… ” Sometimes we make light of folks who say, “I don’t know who I am. I’m trying to find myself,” but we do so at our peril. According to Peterson and Densley, the people most likely to engage in mass shootings are people who feel a lack of personal identity, purpose, and meaning in their lives. In Man’s Search for Meaning (1946), Victor Frankl drew on his personal experience in Nazi concentration camps to argue that ‘purpose and meaning’ are essential elements in a healthy human psyche; they provide the spiritual foundation we need if we are to survive life’s disappointments, minor and major – from being ghosted by a BFF to being unlawfully and unjustly imprisoned. In days gone by, the culture provided folks with a sense of personal identity, purpose and meaning, but to our post-Enlightenment ears, these values sound “churchy,” and we can’t have that! (I had a good friend who would not listen to any classical music for just this reason.) At the end of the first millennium A.D., belief in God (theism) was at the foundation of all intellectual activity; by the end of the second millennium, atheism (or at least agnosticism) had replaced theism as the price of admission to the academy. Truth be known, over the past 400 years, we have been involved in a collective effort to ‘God-proof’ our world. Intellectual activity, once aimed at ‘proving God,’ is now dedicated to ‘God proofing.’ Of course, I am not suggesting that folks who do not believe in God are destined to become mass murderers; I am saying that the ‘God Hypothesis’ entails three corollaries relevant to this discussion: identity, purpose, and meaning. And what of culture? Well, it’s been pretty well ‘God proofed’ too. From Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, to Wittgenstein and Ayer, to Camus and Derrida, modern philosophy has been dedicated to ‘de-mystifying’ existence. We are all ‘ontological democrats’ now. We don’t need to think about ‘bigger issues.’ Any thoughts we might have on those issues have been pre-labeled, “meaningless, childish, old fashioned, anti-scientific, etc.” But suppressing humanity’s innate thirst for meaning comes at a price. Langstone Hughes (1951): “What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore – and then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over like – like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it sags like a heavy load… Or does it explode?” ( Harlem ) Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine and is published every Tuesday and Thursday. Subscribe today in the option below and never miss a single Thought. 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 Happiness David Cowles Apr 13, 2023 “If we somehow manage to convince ourselves that the purpose of life is our own personal happiness, then we are in for a world of hurt.” Today, everyone is looking for the meaning of life, its purpose, what, if anything, makes life worth living? The consensus (not unanimous) of western philosophers is that the purpose and meaning of life is ‘personal happiness’. This is an oxymoron . When we say something has purpose or meaning, we are connecting that thing to something outside it; but happiness is not ‘outside’ the happy person, so the concepts of purpose and meaning can’t apply here. X cannot be the meaning of X; otherwise, ‘meaning’ would have no meaning . The meaning of X can only be found somewhere in ~X. Personal happiness refers only to X. If we somehow manage to convince ourselves that the purpose of life is our own personal happiness , then we are in for a world of hurt: “… Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself (love). Happiness must happen…” (Victor Frankl) “Happy? Anyone can be happy. What’s the purpose of that?” (Bob Dylan) How could things have gone so wrong? The divine values, Beauty, Truth, and Justice are values that everyone in every life circumstance is free to pursue to the best of their ability. Happiness, on the other hand, is often dependent on fickle circumstances. We may find it hard to ‘whistle a happy tune’ in the face of crushing poverty, chronic disease, unrequited love, or personal tragedy. It would be nice if we could smile our way through life’s vicissitudes…but it’s unrealistic. The ‘happy slave’ is, for the most part, ‘bourgeoisie fiction’. If anything is the purpose of life, realizing it should not depend at all on things beyond our control. Rephrased: if the proposed ‘purpose of life’ is something outside our control, then that cannot be a purpose . A purpose can only be a purpose if it can be achieved; otherwise, it’s just a fantasy. Beyond this, there is a cultural element at play. In our culture, children no longer have any intrinsic value! They exist for the enjoyment of their parents. They exist to be loved; what can possibly be wrong with that? Not so long ago, things were different. Couples conceived explicitly to produce offspring that could be an economic asset. Kids were raised to help run the house, the farm, the ranch, the store, or the loom. Every child had a purpose! Hopefully, they were also loved. Today, at least in the Atlantic community, children have no short term economic value . Ask any parent managing the cost of daycare, summer camp, groceries, and college tuition… As good parents, and of course, we are all good parents, it’s easy to make our children’s happiness Job One. Who then can blame a child then who, upon graduation, continues to steer her ship solely according to that beacon? I have lived a full life. I married, had children and grandchildren, built a successful business that created jobs, enhanced the wellbeing of tens of thousands of customers, provided a comfortable living for my family, and left me with plenty of playtime! Looking back, I see that playtime , such a source of happiness for me at the time, is the least important part of my story. I don’t regret it per se , but I see it now from a different perspective. Caring for others and helping to smooth their way in the world still seem like a worthy ‘purpose’; enhancing my short-term personal happiness does not. It would be nice to think that I was motivated by the opportunity to care, and that I used my playtime merely to recreate . It would be nice…but then I’d be writing about another man. The minute I put the tuba down, the music stopped. What happened to all that happiness? Is it stored-up somewhere in a vault? Can I make periodic withdrawals of principle? Oh well, I have the memories…at least for another few years, I hope. How I treated others, good and ill, will reverberate through the universe until Big Freeze; how much I enjoyed the foie gras at Biba in 1990 will not. As pupils in a parochial (Catholic) elementary school in the ‘50s, we did not have this problem. Every September, we’d take our seats on the first day of class and that day we would learn just two things: God is the supreme being who made all things. God made us to know him, love him and serve him. First grade? Eighth grade? Same lesson! No reference to personal happiness or ‘self-actualization’. The alleged Death of God has made such catechetical memes unintelligible to my grandchildren. I don’t worry about them now, they’re fabulous; but I do worry about where they’ll be when they finally decide to put their own tubas aside. Will they look back at all that’s left undone in their lives, and say with me, “Gee, I could have had a V8?” 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 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.

What books does the editorial board of Aletheia Today mogazine recommmend? Check out what we're reading this summer. Additional Reading What a re we reading? Check out additional reading about philosophy, theology, science, and culture for young and old alike. For the young and hungry for knowledge... Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link 1/1 For the young at heart and still learning... Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link Go to link 1/1

< Back Prayer for Restoration Hadassah Treu "I long to see the nearing restoration..." I need you in the ruins of my heart, In all the wounded, desolated places, Where darkness comes in as a flood, I need your tender, healing grace. Restore the ruins of my life Search out all the cracks and gaps, Invade them, filling them with light, Erase all paths to pain, all maps. I long to see the nearing restoration, To see it coming like the rising sun To hear it calling every ruin to alteration, Preparing them for the life to come. When all the broken becomes a space, Completely ruled by love and grace. Amen. Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. Return to our Summer 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back After Parmenides What to "Western philosophy is the history of our effort to understand the silence of Parmenides, or to break it." David Cowles What doesn’t belong and why? Philosophy, Science, Literature, or Social Studies? Philosophy, of course. In the other disciplines, new information and new interpretive schema are constantly emerging, endlessly enriching their subject matter. Not so, philosophy! In fact, here the reverse is true. Arguably, philosophy’s greatest achievements lie in its distant past. Parmenides of Elea is generally regarded as the Father of Western Philosophy. Of course, he had precursors (e.g. Thales, Pythagoras, Anaximander), but our knowledge of their teachings is sketchy at best. From what we do know, it seems as though these OGs were narrower in their focus than Parmenides – somewhat like philosophers today. Indisputably, Parmenides was the dominant intellectual influence in the 5th century BCE, the golden age of Greece. He did not win that honor by default. He lived in ‘interesting times’, sharing the intellectual stage with political leaders, Leonides and Pericles, playwrights, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Aristophanes, and fellow philosophers, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Zeno. We can say this much for sure: the oldest substantially intact work of systematic philosophy in the Western World is Parmenides’ ontological poem, On Nature . Happily, the Father of Western Philosophy did not pussy foot around; he asked the big questions: What is reality, really? How is it that appearances appear? How are what-is and what-seems-to-be related? Can you honestly say that we’ve moved beyond these issues 2500 years later? 20th century philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato. Whitehead was half right. Western philosophy can be read as footnotes on Plato but only if Plato is read as footnotes on Parmenides. Parmenides divided his poem into three sections: First, a short prologue; then Aletheia (Truth); finally, Doxa (Appearances). The prologue sets the poem in a narrative context and makes it clear (to me if not to all) that no account of the World can be complete without accounting for its dual aspects of Aletheia and Doxa . Aletheia models the world as noumenal, Doxa as phenomenal; and regarding the relationship between the two…silence, uncomfortable, enigmatic silence. Western philosophy is the history of our effort to understand that silence, or to break it. First, there are those who deny the silence: “Parmenides must have spelled out his ideas; we’ve just lost that portion of the manuscript.” Then, there are those who have graciously offered to ‘correct’ Parmenides’ oversight. i.e. to fill in the blanks . Present company excepted, few have been willing to take Parmenides’ silence at face value in an effort to understand it. There are roughly 20 intact fragments of On Nature , each independently preserved by ‘a trusted source’, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero, Simplicius, Clement, and Eusebius – just to drop a few names. From these fragments, it is possible to reconstruct a coherent text. It is ludicrous to assume that Parmenides’ curators somehow failed to retain the one fragment of text that would have explained the entire work and unlocked its hidden meaning. So we can turn our attention to Parmenides’ editors – well meaning folk who have volunteered to add what Parmenides obviously meant to say to what he actually did say. Thanks but no thanks! However, in their zeal to correct Parmenides’ oversights, these philosophers left a trail of breathtaking ideas that constitute what we study when we study Western Philosophy. 20th century philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato. Whitehead was half right. Western philosophy can be read as footnotes on Plato but only if Plato is read as footnotes on Parmenides. No doubt, Socrates’ disciple is Parmenides’ best known editor and commentator; but he was far from the first and possibly not the most important. In fact, Plato’s grasp of pre-Socratic philosophy was ‘incomplete’…at best. I could say more…but I don’t wish to appear impolite. Three 5th century philosophers should primarily be credited with continuing Parmenides’ great project: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Zeno. All three played at ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ but in their defense, what else is a neo to do? On the plus side, their emendations preserved the spirit of Parmenides’ work. I’m not sure that he would have endorsed all their formulations but I think he would have recognized them as valid extensions of his own thought. Speaking of which, in Fragment #1, the goddess tells our pilgrim, “It is right that you should learn all things, both the steadfast heart of persuasive truth and the beliefs of mortals…how things that seem had to have genuine existence, permeating all things completely.” For the ‘persuasive truth’ we turn to Fragment #8: “…What-is is ungenerated and imperishable, whole…and complete. Nor was it once nor will it be since it is now all together, one, continuous…Thus coming to be is extinguished and perishing not to be heard of. Nor is it divisible since it is all alike.” But regarding ‘the beliefs of mortals’, Fragment #8 continues: “To come to be and to perish, to be and not to be, to change place (motion), and to exchange bright color.” This is the realm of Doxa . If order is your thing, you’d have loved the Big Bang. That is the moment when order in the Universe was at its maximum. Not so surprising when you consider that all energy was concentrated in a singularity – at a dimensionless point or perhaps in a Planck-sized Space. If only my desk were so well ordered. Entropy (S) is how we measure disorder. S was at its cosmic minimum at Big Bang and it will be at its cosmic maximum at Heat Death. Knowing this, you might be less surprised when I share my view that European philosophy reached its pinnacle in the 5th century BCE… before Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. This was the century of Parmenides, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Zeno. Not to mention Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Aristophanes… or Leonides and Pericles. Who says there’s no such thing as a Golden Age? Someone sharing my view of Intellectual History might think that Hebrew theology peaked with Torah and Christian theology with the writings of John and Paul. It is certainly possible to understand the balance of the Old Testament as ‘commentary on Torah ’ and all of Christian theology as ‘commentary on the New Testament’. So, why not treat the corpus of Western philosophy as commentary on the pre-Socratics? (20th century British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, said that all Western philosophy was commentary on Plato; but he was wrong. Plato himself was a commentator on the pre-Socratics…and not an especially good one.) Each of the major pre-Socratics contributed a unique perspective to the burgeoning science of cosmology. Heraclitus, for example, is known for Panta Re (“everything flows”). Anaxagoras is known especially for his trademarked meme, Pan in Panti Hot Link (‘everything in everything’). Anaxagoras’ universe begins as the undifferentiated entirety - pure energy in the Big Bang model. Nous (mind/soul) injects a quantum of rotation which propagates throughout the whole. This circularity could be understood as the first flicker of recursion, a precursor of consciousness. Gradually, this rotation triggers a wave of centrifugal force. The undifferentiated mass begins to separate, like attracts like, and soon sub-regions emerge, each with its own signature mix of properties. “Signatures of all things I am here to read.” (Joyce) Eventually, these sub-regions will become what we know as ‘events’, i.e. actual entities. Anaxagoras’ genesis is different from that of other philosophers. Each actual entity retains a trace of every element buried in the original mass. Entities are distinguished, not by their elements, which are the same in every case, but by the signature variation in the concentration of those elements in each entity. If Parmenides was the apostle of stability and Heraclitus the prophet of change, Anaxagoras was the oracle of solidarity. He understood that a stronger bond among entities was needed to preserve the integrity of a universe in flux. When it comes to Universe, the problem is not so much explaining its diversity as it is accounting for its ultimate unity. Anaxagoras achieves the requisite solidarity in two ways. First, as noted above, everything interpenetrates and shares elements with everything else. In fact, every entity contains the ‘seeds’ of all entities. Theoretically, if the entire universe were reduced to a single organism (cell), genesis could begin again with barely a pause for a methane rich breath. This model is remarkably close to the modern science of genetics. The RNA/DNA molecule may have synthesized only once on Planet Earth. It is likely that every cell contains genetic material descended from that original DNA molecule. But DNA is as inefficient as it is powerful. Likely, it is so powerful because it is so inefficient! The genome of a common fern is 50 times longer than the human genome. On the other hand, some bacterial genomes are 5,000 times shorter than human DNA. But size does not matter! Less than 2% of our genes code for proteins (the primary function of DNA) anyway and less than 20% are ‘expressed’ in any one organism (cell). However, unused genetic material is not useless; it can always be accessed if environmental changes favor a different combination of phenomenal traits. Tens of thousands of years of evolution can be by-passed by visiting ‘the stacks’ in the vast and ancient ‘library’ of your DNA. As climate change gets real, we may be glad for our airconditioned library. Second, Anaxagoras’ universe is scale agnostic. Patterns repeat up and down the ladder, from the infinitesimal to the infinite. We are mesmerized by scale. The vastness of it! There are c. 60 orders of magnitude from Planck scale to Uni verse. But Anaxagoras shows that scale is a local phenomenon only. From a global perspective it just endlessly repeats, and it is impossible to distinguish any one stage from any other. Scale is a relative measure, not an absolute one. So Anaxagoras could be known as ‘Father Fractal’. In an Anaxagorean universe every macro pattern is made up of congruent micro patterns. Each macro pattern is in turn a micro pattern in an even larger macro. And, of course, every micro pattern is a macro with respect to other micros. Pan in Panti. Every entity includes the ‘seeds’ of every other entity and is in turn included as a ‘seed’ in each of those other entities. As with our DNA model, the entire entity is encoded in the seed. Every entity is a pattern which reflects the patterns of the micro entities that constitute it and is reflected in the pattern of the macro entities it constitutes. This odd cosmic topology is not found only in Anaxagoras. Are you familiar with the New Testament? Part of the genius of early Christianity is the doctrine of Incarnation – the idea that God, Being per se , locus and creator of Universe, is incarnate as a quantum being (Jesus Christ) in that Universe. That’s solidarity! Pan in Panti . But this topology is not limited to the Incarnation per se . Every day, it is repeated in the celebration of Eucharist. Jesus, human and divine, body and soul, under the appearance of bread and wine, is consumed by the communicant who is immediately ‘uploaded’ into Jesus’ mystical body. Pan in Panti . In Romans (8: 26), Paul tells us that when we pray (to God), it is actually the Holy Spirit (God) who searches our hearts and intercedes for us ‘with inexpressible groanings’. In First Corinthians (15: 24-29), he tells us that all creation flows up to Christ who hands it on to the Father ‘so that God may be all in all’. Pan in Panti . In the so-called Age of Reason, Leibniz resurrected Anaxagoras for his Monadology . Briefly, Leibniz’ universe consists of monads, each one reflecting all others: Pan in Panti . Finally, in the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead created what may be the last great philosophical system of our era. Process and Reality is full of ideas that would have felt at home in 5th century BCE Greece: The universe consists solely of one class of ‘things’: Actual Entities ( aka Events). Each actual entity configures the common Multiplicity of past events into its own unique Actual World. Each actual entity executes judgment on that actual world (‘the gods of Egypt’ - Exodus 12: 12) as it ‘prehends’ all other actual entities (or to use Whitehead’s terminology, ‘as it feels them’) and acts to bring the elements closer to an ideal pattern. In Whitehead’s model, every ‘trajectory’ connects God’s Primordial Nature (conceptual values) with God’s Consequent Nature (concrete entities). As with his contemporary, Robert Frost , Whitehead’s ‘roads diverge’…but end up at the same destination. Whitehead’s model sets up a kind of universal reflexivity. Every event is ‘in God’ and God is in every event; therefore, every event is in every event. Every event is even an element of itself. How’s that for recursion? With this topology, how is it the Universe does not just seize-up at birth? For that answer, we needed to wait for Jacques Derrida in the latter half of the 20th century. Every event includes itself as an element. A’ є A. But A’ is not strictly speaking equal to A. A and A’ are separated by what Derrida called differance , an infinitesimal difference. Differance is the origin of process, Proust’s uneven cobblestones. Every event consists of the same members, uniquely configured. The cosmos, then, is God’s Kaleidoscope . A limited number of elements generate innumerable unique patterns…and we have a pre-Socratic to thank for this insight. 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 Groundhog Issue 2025 Previous Next

< Back The Theology of Science-Fiction Bob Kurland Can AI have soul ? Theological Objection : “Thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think." Rebuttal to Objection: “It appears to me that [The Theological Objection] implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul.” Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence . INTRODUCTION Let's start off on a light note. A long time ago when computers were still new (yes, it was that long ago), when I was at my first academic assignment, the head of the division dealing with computers gave a talk on artificial intelligence for computers. One of the humanities faculty in the audience put a question after the talk " Would you want your daughter to marry one [i.e. a computer]?" Legend has it (I wasn't there) that he answered, " Yes, if she loved him. ” When we inquire about the souls of computers/robots we assume that computers/robots have a mind/self-awareness/consciousness. That some sort of programmed intelligence can be conscious (self-aware) is a hotly debated proposition. A book would be required (many have been written) to explore this notion. We don't want to write that book here, so let's suppose, as do science fiction (SF) authors, that consciousness is possible by some means or another for computers and robots and see what SF has to say about them having souls.* I WANT TO BE A COMPUTER WHEN I DIE As a transition to considering machine intelligence, let's examine how SF treats the transfer of human intelligence/personality into computers or robots. Note that one theoretical physicist, Frank Tipler, in his book, The Physics of Christianity , posits that heaven will consist of personalities transferred to software as the universe reaches its end in an " Omega Point " singularity. Since it is a black hole type singularity, time is slowed down and the intelligences transferred to software thus have essentially an eternity to enjoy their virtual life. Among the many SF stories that deal with transferred human intelligence, there is one that especially focuses on the question of soulhood, Deus X , by Norman Spinrad. Spinrad treats the question with respect, although his attitude to the Catholic Church is somewhat less than reverent (there is a female Pope, Mary I). Below is a summary of the plot, as given in McKee's excellent survey, The Gospel According to Science-Fiction : “...thousands of people exist in an artificial afterlife called 'Transcorporeal Immortality', having copied their consciousness onto a worldwide computer network called 'The Big Board'....Catholic theologian Fr. Philippe de Leone argue[s] that this creation of an artificial soul, which cannot have true self-awareness, dooms the actual soul that is copied to damnation. Pope Mary I, hoping to settle the controversy, orders Fr. DeLeone to have his soul copied upon his death, so that his consciousness can argue against its own autonomous existence from the other side.” Superficially, Pope Mary's plan seems to contain a paradox. If the downloaded Fr. de Leone changes "his" mind and says "yes, I am a real soul", how can we trust what an artificial soul might say? The solution to the paradox is that all of Fr. de Leone's beliefs have been downloaded to his program. If these beliefs are changed, it means that the entity in the computer has free will, and is thus autonomous and a real soul. In the story Fr. DeLeone's soul is "kidnapped" (how do you kidnap a program?) by a group of downloaded personalities that wants to convince the Church, via Fr. de Leone's download, that they have a real soul. As McKee points out in his synopsis, there is a reverse Turing Test applied here. Fr. de Leone does change his mind, the downloaded personalities declare him a deity ("Deus X") and a new controversy arises: Church officials declare how could this blasphemy come about. To still the controversy, Fr. de Leone sacrifices his downloaded personality (dies), Pope Mary declares him a saint and recognizes that the downloaded souls are "real". THE CHURCH AND AI--"GOOD NEWS FROM THE VATICAN" There are many SF works in which the Catholic Church plays a role. In some, the Church and its teachings are treated with respect; in most, not so much. As Gabriel McKee points out in The Gospel According to Science Fiction SF, arising as it does from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment, is critical of religious institutions. SF frequently argues that if organized religion is to be a positive force in the future of humankind, it must change drastically to meet the spiritual challenges of the future. (p. 183 ) One such drastic change is envisaged by Robert Silverberg in his story Good News from the Vatican . In his story there are robot priests and robot high Church officials. One such, a robot Cardinal, is elected Pope after a deadlock between two human cardinals. The story ends with the newly elected robot pontiff rising into the air from the balcony before the assembled masses in St. Peter's Square and, as he goes up " ...his shadow extends across the whole piazza. Higher and higher he goes until he is lost to sight." Does Silverberg, with a sense of irony--the shadow cast over the piazza, and the Pope lost from sight--predict the eclipse of humanity and human values? Or am I reading too much into this ending? A more sympathetic view of how the Church might interact with artificial intelligence is given in Jack McDevitt's fine story, " Gus "**. In this beautiful tale, the newly installed rector of a Catholic Seminary interacts with a computer simulation of St. Augustine of Hippo, purchased (the simulation, that is) to help students understand St. Augustine's teachings. The Rector, Msgr. Chesley, is at first greatly displeased with Gus's (the program's) dicta: "' The thing must have been programmed by Unitarians' Chesley threw over his shoulder. 'Get rid of i t'" ("Gus" in Cryptics , p. 373). The relationship between Chesley and Gus becomes warmer with time, as they discuss the problems of being a Catholic in today's world: “'Why did Augustine become a priest?' Chesley asked. 'I wanted,' Gus said, with the slightest stress on the first words, 'to get as close as I could to my Creator.' Thoughtfully, he added, 'I seem to have traveled far afield.' 'Sometimes I think,' Chesley said, 'the Creator hides himself too well.' 'Use his Church,' said Gus. 'That is why it is here.' 'It has changed.' “Of course it has changed. The world has changed.' 'The Church is supposed to be a rock.' 'Think of it rather as a refuge in a world that will not stand still.'" (op. cit., p. 382) Gus' sayings to the students become so unorthodox (he decries the doctrines/dogma of the infallibility of the Pope and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) that other faculty decided he should be downloaded to storage and traded in for a computer simulation of Thomas Aquinas (plus business software). Gus asks Msgr. Chesley to hear his Confession and then destroy him, so he can have peace: "'I require absolution, Matt.' Chesley pressed his right hand into his pocket. 'It would be sacrilege,' he whispered. 'And if I have a soul, Matt, if I too am required to face judgment,what then?' Chesley raised his right hand, slowly, and drew the sign of the cross in the thick air. 'I absolve you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' 'Thank you...There’s something else I need you to do, Matt. This existence holds nothing for me. But I am not sure what downloading might mean.' 'What are you asking?” 'I want to be free of all this. I want to be certain I do not spend a substantial fraction of eternity in the storeroom.' Chesley trembled. 'If in fact you have an immortal soul,' he said, 'you may be placing it in grave danger.' 'And yours as well. I have no choice but to ask. Let us rely on the mercy of the Almighty.' Tears squeezed into Chesley’s eyes. He drew his finger- tips across the hard casing of the IBM. 'What do I do? I’m not familiar with the equipment.' 'Have you got the right computer?' 'Yes.' 'Take it apart. Turn off the power first. All you have to do is get into it and destroy the hard disk.' 'Will you—feel anything?' 'Nothing physical touches me, Matt.' Chesley found the power switch...He found a hammer and a Phillips screwdriver. He used the screwdriver to take the top off the computer. A gray metal box lay within. He opened it and removed a gleaming black plastic disk. He embraced it, held it to his chest. Then he set it down, and reached for the hammer. In the morning, with appropriate ceremony, he buried it in consecrated soil." (op.cit., pp.388-389) Even though I am moved to tears when I read this, do I believe that a computer program will have a personality, a soul? Not likely***. DOES DATA HAVE A SOUL? For those who aren't Trekkies, Data is the android navigator in the second Star Trek series, Star Trek: the Next Generation . He aspires to humanity and sometimes reaches and even surpasses that state. However, there is a problem in asking whether Data has a soul. The question is never considered in any of the episodes, possibly because the word "soul" (in its theological, not musical sense) is anathema to writers and producers of popular entertainment. So, in the episode, " The Measure of a Man ", the question "Is Data a sentient being" is asked, rather than "Does Data have a soul". The question is addressed in a trial , to see if Data, as a "sentient being", has the right to refuse to be disassembled for study and refitting. Captain Picard acts in Data's behalf and Commander Riker, under duress, as the prosecutor. Riker attempts to demonstrate that Data is a machine by switching him off: [Riker is doing his duty in the courtroom] Commander William T. Riker : The Commander is a physical representation of a dream - an idea, conceived of by the mind of a man. Its purpose: to serve human needs and interests. It's a collection of neural nets and heuristic algorithms; its responses dictated by an elaborate software written by a man, its hardware built by a man. And now... and now a man will shut it off. [Riker switches off Data, who slumps forward like a lifeless puppet] Commander William T. Riker : Pinocchio is broken. Its strings have been cut. ( The Measure of a Man, Quotes ) [Captain Picard gives a stirring defense, arguing that the question of whether Data is conscious--self-aware--has not and can not be settled any more than whether one can be certain that another person is conscious except by external behavior. And finally the question of soulhood is addressed minimally:] " Captain Phillipa Louvois [The Judge] : It sits there looking at me; and I don't know what it is. This case has dealt with metaphysics - with questions best left to saints and philosophers. I am neither competent nor qualified to answer those. But I've got to make a ruling, to try to speak to the future. Is Data a machine? Yes. Is he the property of Starfleet? No. We have all been dancing around the basic issue: does Data have a soul? [emphasis added] I don't know that he has. I don't know that I have. But I have got to give him the freedom to explore that question himself. It is the ruling of this court that Lieutenant Commander Data has the freedom to choose." [notice the shift from "it" to "he"] ( ibid ) And so Data is left free, and the question of whether he has a soul, undetermined -- as in the Scottish verdict, "Not Proven”. AND SO? In his book, " Our Lady of the Artilects ," Andrew Gillsmith raises fundamental questions about these basic articles of faith: good versus evil, who (or what) can have a soul and what constitutes a soul. The book is ranked 2nd by readers in the Good Reads survey of Catholic science fiction, right after that classic, "A Canticle for Leibowitz." In a review of the book on Catholic Stand I’ve discussed how Gillsmith addresses these issues, so I’ll refer the reader to that article. As a concluding comment, I’ll quote the last paragraph of that review: Philosophers and scientists have debated whether it be possible to create artificial intelligence that is conscious and self-aware (See “ Can Computers Have a Soul, ” and Chapter 6, A Science Primer for the Faithful. ) I vote for no. Nevertheless, science-fiction (speculative fiction) has used this device (and will presumably continue to do so) for parables defining the human condition. That knowledge, per se, is not enough for us is the message. Although the two wings of faith and reason are supposed to carry us humans to the truth, reason by itself is not enough to answer questions such as “why are we here?” Instead of hobbits, orcs and elves, Andrew Gillsmith, has used synths and humans in a moving and captivating story to illustrate this human condition and to suggest what God has in mind for us. Bob Kurland is a retired physicist with a colorful and diverse background. Known for his wit and candor, Kurland embarked on a remarkable journey that spans academia, spirituality, and community service. After a distinguished academic career, including earning his Bachelor of Science "with honor" from Caltech in 1951 and obtaining his Master's and Ph.D. from Harvard in Physics and Chemical Physics respectively, Kurland delved into the world of theoretical science. His contributions to the field are perhaps best exemplified by his seminal work, the "Kurland-McGarvey equation," a groundbreaking achievement that continues to influence scientific discourse. In 1995, Kurland experienced a profound spiritual transformation, converting to Catholicism. This newfound faith became a cornerstone of his life, guiding his actions and imbuing his endeavors with a sense of purpose. He dedicated himself to serving others, volunteering at federal prisons and hospitals, embodying the principles of compassion and empathy. In addition to his scholarly pursuits and philanthropic efforts, Kurland is a talented musician, proficient in a variety of instruments including the bass clarinet, alto clarinet, clarinet, bass, and tenor bowed psaltery. He generously shares his musical gifts as a member of the parish instrumental group and local folk group, enriching the community with his passion for music. Though retired from the academic arena, Kurland's inquisitive spirit and unwavering dedication to knowledge continue to inspire those around him. With his characteristic blend of intellect, humor, and compassion, he leaves an indelible mark on both the scientific and spiritual realms. Click the cover image to return to Spring 2024. Previous Next

< Back Holy Moments David Cowles Nov 28, 2023 “You were made in the image of God; act accordingly!” In an earlier edition of Thoughts While Shaving , we contrasted Matthew Kelly’s concept of a ‘Holy Moment’ with Jean-Paul Sartre’s ‘Perfect Moment’. A perfect moment is an effort to create (or recreate) Paradise, using artifacts from the material world. Utopian political systems are examples of perfect moments. But laws are required only where humanity fails…law turns out to be a poor substitute for love. Memo to Marx: Love is the ‘withering away of the state’. A holy moment , on the other hand, is an action we undertake to project God’s values into the world. The ‘anti-political’ system that ‘governed’ Israel for c. 250 years between the death of Joshua and the coronation of Saul was ideally suited to facilitate such moments. The Book of Judges can be read as a compendium of holy moments that occurred during that period. How can we create our own holy moments ? There’s no definitive list, but here are a few ideas: Treat every person we meet as if they were Jesus in disguise. Ask yourself, ‘what would Jesus do (WWJD) in this situation’. Honor Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works (holy moments?) that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them .” Do what you prayerfully believe God is calling you to do. “Here I am, Lord!” Take life one holy moment at a time. Always ask yourself, “What is possible in this moment?” Always ask yourself, “Is this the best version of myself?” When I was but a wisp, The Baltimore Catechism taught that ‘God made us to know him, love him and serve him…' What else is a holy moment but a way to know, love, and serve God? Now, if these 300 words have convinced you to make Holy Moments your new life’s work, here are some things you would do well to keep top of mind: Our hunger for Goodness comes from God; it is God: ‘God with us’ - Emmanuel . “Character is destiny” (Heraclitus) and virtues are the building blocks of character; in fact, virtues are reflections of God’s character, his essence. What matters is what you do next: ‘today is the first day of the rest of your life’. Holy Moments are not something you do (active voice) or something that is done to you (passive voice); they are collaborations ( middle voice ). One seemingly insignificant holy moment may generate a tidal wave of goodness. Moments are plastic. You have the power to deflect them toward the Holy…or not. The Holy Moments campaign is the stepchild of Matthew Kelly, but its ‘biological’ father is none other than Jesus himself. What are the Beatitudes but an anthology of holy moments? Plus, every holy moment is a transfiguration ; it opens a window onto what’s possible. Bobby Kennedy: “I dream of things that never were and ask why not.” The Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert talk of two hungers: ‘the little hunger’ (for food) and ‘the great hunger’ (for meaning). Job preferred knowledge/meaning to wealth, health, and life itself. Jesus counseled us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” (little hunger) and “Forgive us our trespasses…lead us not into temptation…deliver us from evil” (great hunger). Victor Frankl, writing after the Holocaust, echoes Job: Meaning is more important than Happiness! Or perhaps you are not yet convinced. You say, for example, “I don’t have time for this Holy Moments nonsense; I’m out to change the world.” Well, God bless you; “we’d all love to change the world” (Beatles); you have a lot of deck chairs to rearrange, so best get to it. In reality, Holy Moments are the solution to the world’s problems…Unholy Moments got us into this mess, and only Holy Moments will get us out. Matthew Kelly offers a single meme to summarize Holy Moments Spirituality: “You were made in the image of God; act accordingly!” 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 AI and the Quest for Humanity’s Answers Josef Flintlock, AT responses by Editor-in-Chief David Cowles "AI will virtually obliterate the barrier between what can be known and what is known." The dawn of the artificial intelligence era has cast a spotlight on the tantalizing prospect of discovering answers to humanity's most profound questions. As ChatGPT and other AI technologies advance, the question arises: will these digital marvels truly hold the keys to unlocking the mysteries that have puzzled philosophers, scientists, and thinkers for centuries? AT : It is unlikely that AI will move the border separating what can be known from what is fundamentally unknowable. But AI will virtually obliterate the barrier between what can be known and what is known. This essay embarks on a journey through the realms of knowledge, humor, and philosophy to explore whether ChatGPT and AI are destined to become the ultimate oracles of wisdom. In a world where Google knows our favorite pizza toppings before we do, the allure of ChatGPT having the answer to every question is both mesmerizing and hilarious. AT : The centuries old mystical doctrine of Kabbalah distinguishes Understanding (Binah) from Wisdom (Hokhmah). Understanding shades over into knowledge (Malkhut) so I expect AI to vastly expand our understanding of most everything; whether it will demonstrate or confer wisdom is something else again. However, even in the age of AI, the notion that these digital entities will hold all answers is akin to believing that wearing a cape will make us superheroes. AT : What would make us superheroes? The complexity of human inquiries, infused with nuance, context, and cultural intricacies, presents a challenge that even the most advanced algorithms struggle to master. AT : True today, but the attraction of AI is the possibility that it will eventually be able to mimic humans’ capacity for nuance and that it will adequately integrate context and cultural norms into its process. While AI might provide extensive data-driven insights, it remains an evolving tool rather than a universal panacea. The Dance of Subjectivity and Philosophy Imagine asking an AI to resolve the age-old question: "What is the meaning of life?" ChatGPT might earnestly reply with an eloquent response, citing philosophical treatises and scientific theories. However, the beauty of this query lies in its subjectivity—a concept that AI struggles to encapsulate. AT : If AI is to fulfill its promise, it must be able to mimic human subjectivity. Pre-AI, algorithms are objects. The challenge for AI is to behave in a way that convinces us that it is its own subject. (Turing Test) Re the meaning of life, it’s true, I wouldn’t expect much from today’s AI. But then again, how well has Non-artificial Intelligence (NI) done with this question? The multifaceted nature of existence, tinged with personal experiences, emotions, and interpretations, evades AI's binary world. AT : Is there a world that is not at some level binary ? A motion picture is made up of static frames. Could the same not be true of every apparently continuous phenomenon? Calculus was supposed to have proven the ‘reality of continuity’; in fact, it only provided us with a tool that allows us to ‘treat’ stochastic phenomena as though they were continuous. In this dance between the objective and the subjective, humans stand as the choreographers, utilizing AI as a partner to enhance the performance but never completely define it. The Comedy of Errors In a whimsical twist, the comedic potential of AI attempting to provide definitive answers to humanity's grand questions cannot be overlooked. Picture an AI offering advice on matters of the heart or rendering artistic critiques—it's like asking a potato to compose a symphony. AT : I have no doubt that AI could do a better job for the lovelorn than either Dear Abbie or Anne Landers! Whether AI can recognize and/or create Beauty is an open question addressed elsewhere in this issue. Hot Link And in defense of our much maligned spuds, please don’t overlook the Lyonnaise Polonaise . The inherent limitations and occasional misunderstandings of AI can lead to responses that are hilariously off the mark. AT : Yup, “Kids say the Darndest Things” (Art Linkletter) That’s how we learn…and how AI will learn too. While AI's missteps are a source of amusement, they also emphasize the uniqueness of human cognition and the importance of embracing imperfection. AT : Perfection is a myth (at least in spatiotemporal systems) and unhelpful as a measure of value. An element of ambiguity is what makes the strongest algorithms what they are (‘fuzzy’) – and that’s how our minds work as well…especially after a night spent drinking ‘adult beverages’. The Uncharted Seas of Discovery As technology progresses, AI's role in uncovering insights cannot be denied. AI's capacity to sift through vast amounts of data and identify patterns has contributed to scientific breakthroughs and innovative discoveries. AT : Our brains have been curated by natural selection for over a half a billion years; as a result we are pattern generation and pattern recognition machines. That said, AI will soon blow past us…if it hasn’t already. Patterning has conferred enormous selective advantage on all sentient life forms and AI will take this to a whole new level. Some contemporary cosmologies understand the Universe as nothing other than a hierarchy of patterns: e.g., fractals, holograms, The Matrix . Yet, the act of seeking answers extends beyond factual information—it encompasses the exhilarating pursuit of knowledge, characterized by curiosity, experimentation, and the thrill of the unknown. In this regard, ChatGPT and AI can act as guiding stars, offering directions in a limitless universe of exploration. The notion of ChatGPT and AI possessing all the answers to humanity's greatest questions tantalizes us with visions of a digital sage with boundless wisdom. AT : Is there nothing new under the sun? How about the Oracle at Delphi? Hal 9000? However, this vision is a blend of comedy and philosophy, highlighting the intricate interplay between AI's capabilities and the uncharted depths of human inquiry. As we navigate the landscape of knowledge, we find that while AI augments our journey, the thrill of discovery lies not in having all the answers but in the pursuit of questions that lead us to new horizons of understanding. AT : AI can save us from the tedium of data determination and interpretation (Binah, Understanding); will it free us up to focus on the meta-patterns (Hokhmah, Wisdom), the meaning of it all. So, let us welcome AI as a companion on this profound expedition, embracing the laughter, the wisdom, and the mysteries that lie ahead. A connoisseur of both AI technology and the intricacies of human inquiry, Josef’s writing seeks to bridge the realms of science and philosophy in a way that both informs and entertains. When not penning essays, you can find him lost in a book or simply enjoying the laughter that accompanies life's absurdities. He has written for Honeywell, Medium, and Elephant Journal. 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 . Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Punctuation David Cowles Jul 26, 2021 Classical Western languages (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and Latin) for the most part lacked anything we would recognize today as ‘punctuation’. When marks did appear in texts, they were merely to guide actors and orators in their declamations. The same is true of Medieval languages (e.g. Old English, Old French and Old Norse). Classical Western languages (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and Latin) for the most part lacked anything we would recognize today as ‘punctuation’. When marks did appear in texts, they were merely to guide actors and orators in their declamations. The same is true of Medieval languages (e.g. Old English, Old French and Old Norse). What we recognize as punctuation today, marks in the service of meaning rather than rhetoric, did not become widespread until the invention of the printing press. Ever since then, punctuation has been the bane of every schoolboy’s and schoolgirl’s existence. Today, most writing happens on a cell phone or tablet. The typewriter’s single keyboard gives way to the multiple keyboards (screens) characteristic of electronic devices. The inclusion of punctuation marks in a text is no longer a seamless process; it requires the writer to switch screens which is inconvenient and time consuming. I predict that in a generation or two our written language will revert to the punctuation poor style of the ancients. The intrinsic value of every being lies in its potential to enter into an I – Thou (or Thou – Thou) relationship. The extrinsic value of every being lies in the actual Thou – Thou relationships it enters into. It is not obvious that beings in a cosmos would automatically have the potential to form Thou – Thou relationships. Such relationships are only possible in the context of transcendence and eternal values are only possible in the context of such relationships. Thomas Aquinas offered 5 proofs for the existence of God (transcendence). The only one that is still of interest to modern philosophers is the fourth, a proof based on the existence of values in the world. Aquinas was on to something! 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 Causality & the B-Gita “Because every event is sui generis, no event causes any other event! That said, every event contributes to the Actual World of every subsequent event.” David Cowles In an earlier article Cause and Effect , we spelled out a ‘new’ theory of causality , based in part on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. According to this model, every ‘act’ ( aka Actual Entity) begins with the conversion of the disordered multiplicity that is Universe (“Universe is plural” – Buckminster Fuller) into a uniquely ordered nexus, an Actual World. Each Actual Entity (event) has its own Actual World: one world, one event; one event, one world! However, it is important to note at the outset that the Actual World does not in any way cause or determine its Actual Entity; rather every Actual Entity determines its own Actual World. The first stage in the concrescence of any Actual Entity is a single process with three aspects: (1) conversion of the Multiplicity (Universe) into a nexus (Actual World), (2) evaluation of that nexus in terms of objective eternal values, and (3) formation of intent (‘subjective aim’), not necessarily conscious, based on that evaluation. Expressed this way, these three ‘aspects’ seem to suggest a sequence; however, that is a trick of language. In fact, they constitute a single act with three simultaneous aspects. In the real world, process is multi-valent, not simply vectored through time. This initial stage is motivated and guided by transcendental values (‘eternal objects’), like Beauty, Truth, and Justice, that logically (not temporally) precede Universe and subsist in God’s Primordial Nature. The final stage in the concrescence of any Actual Entity is also a single process with three simultaneous aspects: (1) satisfaction, (2) objective immortality, and (3) superject. These aspects are denotatively identical but connotatively distinct. Here the three-in-one phenomenon is a bit more apparent. ‘Satisfaction’ is the realization of the ‘subjective aim’ as felt by the Actual Entity itself; ‘objective immortality’ is that satisfaction seen from the perspective of the Multiplicity; and ‘superject’ is that objective immortality felt by other Actual Entities, including God’s Consequent Nature. The function of every act is to convert intention into satisfaction. This is the act itself and the process is called ‘concrescence’ (Whitehead). In the process of concrescence, the subjective aim usually undergoes substantial modification. The event ends as a ‘settled matter of fact’ (objective immortality) projected (superject) into the Actual Worlds of all future Actual Entities. The ‘subject’ of the action, the Actual Entity itself, is responsible (1) for its intention (subjective aim), (2) for its objective immortality (superject), and (3) for the way (‘subjective form’) that the intention is reflected in the satisfaction. Style counts! Every event is sui generis , it ‘causes itself’. Is this Nihilism? Or Solipsism? The very opposite! Every event begins with an evaluation of ‘everything that is’, and the formation of a complex intention that reflects that valuation and the relevant values it seeks to realize. On the other hand, no event is responsible for the way it is received by and integrated into subsequent Actual Entities. That is entirely the responsibility of those subsequent entities. Because every event is sui generis , no event causes any other event! That said, every event contributes to the Actual World of every subsequent event. This model of reality is not new, not to me, not even to Whitehead. In fact, I discovered a similar concept of causality in a 2000 year old Hindu scripture, the justly famous Bhagavad Gita . Let’s set the scene: We are on a field of battle but Arjuna, commander of one of the armies, is having second thoughts. He recognizes his kinship with the warriors on the other side and he is loath to kill them: “I foresee no good resulting from slaughtering my kin in war…for if we killed these murderers, evil like theirs would cling to us…The wrong done by this destruction is evident… Nor do we know whether it would be better for us to vanquish them or to be overcome.” In just a few words, Arjuna raises three cogent arguments against ‘activism’: (1) ‘karma’ from committed acts blows back on whoever commits those acts; (2) the acts that duty calls us to perform may be immoral per se (for example, killing other human beings); (3) there is no way to know anything about the long term consequences of our actions. Fortunately, however, Arjuna is best buds with the divine Lord Krishna and this ‘Handsome Haired One’ sets the ‘Strong-Armed Warrior’ straight: “Your concern should be with action, never with action’s fruits.” Lord Krishna swats away Arjuna’s weighty reservations with the flick of his supple wrist. In the process, he exposes the unstated premise undergirding both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment: i.e., that future events ( ends ) are ‘caused’ by prior events ( means ). Krishna exhorts Arjuna to detach himself from the fruits of his actions and to focus exclusively on the actions themselves. This is not an appeal for Quietism. Rejection of the fruits of action is not the same thing as rejection of action itself: “Not by not acting in this world does one become free from action… Not even for a moment does someone exist without acting… In order to maintain the world, your obligation is to act… Should I not engage in action these worlds would perish, utterly…” Today, we know that the cessation of all activity is synonymous with Absolute Zero on the Kelvin Scale; 0°K defines Big Freeze , the end of Universe. Krishna was ahead of his time. Non-action is an illusion. To be is to act. The question is how : “Scripture is your authority for what to do and not to do. Understanding its injunctions, you are obliged to action…These actions, though, should be performed without attachment to their fruits…” By Scripture, the Gita is referring to the Hindu Vedas and the Upanishads. Scripture plays a comparable role in Judeo-Christian theology. Here though, we are referring to the Torah, the Midrashim, the Talmud, the Semon on the Mount, etc. “All actions are undertaken by the qualities of nature though one deceived by his ego imagines, ‘I am doing this’… Qualities act on one another.” In other words, God, the conduit of all values into the world, acts through us, his mortal agents. Per Whitehead, all action is motivated by qualities (values). Actual Entities are the loci of acts but the acts themselves are pure expressions of values. The ‘subject’ is merely the mechanism by which those values are realized in the present and projected into the future. “Better to do one’s own duty ineptly than another’s well.” Here, The Gita calls to mind Paul’s contemporaneous Letter to Ephesians: “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God had prepared in advance that we should live in them.” (2: 10) We do not determine our duty. We divine it and we perform it…or we don’t! Duty is dictated by the ‘eternal objects’ ( aka ‘transcendental values’) that constitute God’s Primordial Nature. Nor is Krishna (God) exempt from these laws ( dharma ): “In order to protect the good…and to establish righteousness, age after age, I come to be.” God too is a manifestation of ‘qualities acting on one another’. Good is what constitutes God and it is God who projects Good into Universe. No Good, no God! No God, no Good! This is a radical form of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Medieval theologians noted that some entities are ‘more good’ than others. They reasoned that there must therefore be something that is ‘ most good ’, and that whatever is ‘most good’ must exist, because it is better to exist than not. That ‘most good being’ is what we call ‘God’. The Gita arrives at the same destination via a somewhat different route; Krishna says, “Know me as one who never acts.” - i.e., as one who selflessly lets qualities act through him. Speaking of qualities, “Of lights, I am the radiant sun…of stars, I am the Moon…of beings, I am consciousness…of waters, I am Ocean…of mountains, I am the Himalayas…of mortal men, I am the king…of rivers, I am Ganges…of creations, I am beginning, middle, and end…of speakers, I am the discourse…of secrets, I am the silence, and the knowledge of those who know…” Anslem of Bec never wrote like this! But a Medieval Irish poet ( St. Dallan ) came close: “Be Thou my vision…my best thought…my light…my wisdom…my true word…my treasure...” Like Dallan, Krishna defines himself in terms of essential qualities: “I am water’s taste, Arjuna, I am the light of the sun and moon…sound in the air, manhood in men. I am the pure fragrance of earth and the radiance of fire; I am the life in all beings…the mind of the intelligent, the splendor of the radiant. I am the might of the mighty…” “And know that states of being…proceed from me – however, I am not in them, they are in me…Here behold all the universe…standing as one in my body.” “I am that which is the seed within all beings, Arjuna – without me nothing can exist.” The Gospel of John applies this same insight to Christ: “All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be.” (1: 3) Finally, Krishna makes clear to Arjuna that he neither controls nor is responsible for the course of events in the world: “Those warriors arrayed in lines opposing your men, even without you, will have perished…I have destroyed your enemy already: serve as my tool, O Ambidextrous Archer! (Arjuna)” “Who sees himself as the sole doer, does not see…even after slaying these people, he neither slays, nor is he bound…” Arjuna is responsible for discerning his duty, perhaps with a gentle nudge from Lord Krishna, and then performing that duty to the best of his ability. That will be his legacy, not the outcome of some battle now barely visible through the fog of history. So how is any of this different from the traditional Western view of causality? I’ll grant you the distinction is subtle…but important! We tend to focus on intent, motive, ‘what was he trying to do’. The model we are proposing here includes the formation of intent but also the execution of that intent. Our judges put great emphasis on the dismount. We focus on ‘settled matters of fact’: what did he do! We are not concerned, however, with what happens next. What use future Actual Entities make of Arjuna’s Objective Immortality is between them and their God. Leave Arjuna out of it. He is not to blame for the Great London Fire (1666) or for Johnny’s poor performance on this morning’s algebra exam. So, in the spirit of Voltaire ( Candide ), “Tend to your own patch!” 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 . Return to our Harvest Issue 2023 Share Previous Next