< Back Seen or Unseen, the Background Matters Annie D. Stutley If a tiny thread had the power to ruin a movie, what in my own life, deep in the background, bears such importance to my bigger picture? And if it’s so important, why isn’t it front and center? I used to frequent film sets as background talent. It’s easy money as long as waiting hours and hours for forty-five minutes of work doesn’t bother you, and as long as you don’t have much of an ego. Chances are, as background, you’ll never be seen in the movie for more than a second, if at all. Yet, that doesn’t stop the Wardrobe and Hair and Makeup teams from pretending that you will be seen. On one project I worked repeatedly. It was ABC’s “Astronaut Wives Club,” and I played a nameless Apollo wife. I worked twelve-hour days, spending great chunks of time in Hair and Makeup. This funny old guy, Mr. Albert, was assigned to my hair and meticulously teased, pinned, and coated it with copious amounts of hairspray. I swear, I spent an hour in his chair alone, feeling pampered and important. The makeup team was just as doting, mixing my own shade of pink lipstick, a color so precisely 1963 that when they got it just right, it was marked with my name. Yet, I was just background--a mere face blur beside a whole bunch of frosted and bouffanted space wife blurs. I wasn’t integral to the picture. If I had called in sick, they would have gone on without me. Still, they treated me like I was crucial. My costumes were perfectly pressed, fitted, and maintained. Once, it was noticed that a thread was hanging from the hem of my blue shift dress just before “rolling” and a dresser was called in to snip the loose thread. The attention was a nice change from my seemingly normal existence, but I always wondered about the fuss. Would anyone have noticed that tiny thread? I returned to background work again recently, settling on one day a month to deviate from ho-humness, to people watch, and to marvel over how the most intimate scenes on film require masses of people, materials, and elbow grease to keep it intimate. I was on the set of a bar scene, one of those swanky types where the booths have deep, soft cushions, and the drinks are twenty bucks. As I have many times before on set, I watched a production assistant polishing and setting in place, with such care and accuracy, props and set decorations that no one would likely notice. Why bother polishing the glasses behind the bar? Why hide the tiniest LED wire in the glass case? It can’t possibly matter. But that P.A., Mr. Albert, the dresser with the handy scissors, and the makeup team are paid to bother. I suppose the theory is that if we, the audience, are expected to make that leap and believe that what we are watching is real, then everything has to matter. Even a loose thread and a foggy glass have the power to break the fourth wall. I didn’t get home until midnight after that shoot, having put in fourteen hours of work that will lead to my pausing the television and saying to a friend something like, “You see that elbow jutting out of that booth? That’s my elbow.” And my friend will say, “And it’s only ten feet from Hugh Jackman. That’s so cool!” But back home, entering my bathroom, I exhaled greedily, taking in all the tranquility I experience each time I enter my bathroom. When we remodeled it, I splurged on white marble floors and teal subway tile from Italy that curves upward and over onto the ceiling above the bathtub, creating a waterfall effect. Sconces flank the glass sinks, a crystal chandelier gives the false pretense that life beyond is just as luxurious, and fuzzy sea foam mats greet my feet when I step out of the shower. It is my sanctuary, an investment, and no one ever sees it but me and my little family. It is the background talent of my house, so far from my front door it is almost always missed, but detailed and doted upon as if every guest will pass through. As tired as I was from fourteen hours of sitting and standing, crossing to marks and sitting again, I stood in my secret bathroom and thought about that dumb thread. If a tiny thread had the power to ruin a movie, what in my own life, deep in the background, bears such importance to my bigger picture? And if it’s so important, why isn’t it front and center? Looking at my life in a glance, I am slapped with my most obvious elements--mother, wife, writer, editor. If I were to glance in your direction, I might see daughter, best friend, sales rep, or father, widower, small business owner. They are the leads in the story of us on a daily basis. We put effort into those images so that the narrative isn’t lost. Of course, I want everyone to know I’m a writer! I'm proud of what I edit, too. It’s who I am. But beyond our sight line is always a bigger picture. Some of it is beautiful. There’s me in my fuzzy socks, alone in the house on a Tuesday after everyone has left for the day. I’m in my orange chair with a second cup of coffee, and I’m taking ten minutes to do nothing--absolutely nothing. My life is noisy and chaotic, and I need that quiet as much as the second cup of coffee. Some of the bigger picture is ugly, though. There’s my crying myself to sleep as if my father and mother had just died that night. You won’t ever see these Annies unless you pry, ask, or happen upon them. But my story goes well beyond what I put forward. And so does yours. What flows in the background of our lives is as important to who we are as what we do put front and center. You are more than the obvious, as am I. What got us to where we are is as important to what we’re doing now. We forged friendships and relationships. We studied and excelled. We plotted and planned. We followed passions and succeeded. Our hearts were broken. We failed. We gave up. We started over completely. None of it was useless. All of it is integral to our story. We wouldn’t be us without the good and the bad. So maybe when it comes to the background in the greater picture of you and me, we aren’t investing in ourselves for other people’s further understanding of who we are. We are investing in ourselves for our own further understanding of ourselves. What’s more, maybe it’s the only way to be truly authentic. For like any good director knows, if we continuously focus solely on our featured parts, how effective is our story? In a film class I took in college, our professor showed us the shower scene in “Psycho.” As always, suspense got the best of me, and I gripped the arm of my chair and watched through partially shut eyes. Then he played us the same scene without the score. There were screams and sounds, but no music. Without the music, it was boring and just sort of gross. The music strung the emotion along, carrying the actions on its shoulders when the actions weren’t strong enough to convey the circumstances on their own. Such is whatever we hold in our background. Like the score of a movie, they carry us, sometimes swelling when placed beneath our surfaces for too long. Maybe that’s the magic of a good cry or a belly laugh? Maybe that’s proof that the background matters as much as the foreground after all. I know enough to know that most often what you see of me is purposeful. It’s how I want to be remembered and thought of, but even in my forefront there’s more. You don’t see all the struggles of motherhood, the tests of marriage, my life in cancer remission, and the times when I think it’s easier to quit writing altogether. You also don't see the triumphs of A's earned, goals achieved together, clear CT scans, and the days when I write through my personal blocks. I need all of it. I would be less effective if I were perfect because I certainly wouldn’t be me. However, there are pieces of me that no one will ever see because why would I ever want to give it all away? It’s good to have secrets. There’s a certain advantage to understanding yourself in a way no one else can. Secrets can be an unstoppable drive if nurtured properly. Like a loose thread snipped before “rolling” or a custom shade of lipstick, our background--what got us here, what keeps us here, and what makes our music swell--is worth the fuss. Even if a blur to others, we have to remain focused on our bigger picture. After all, lead actors grow tired, scripts are rewritten, and scenes are reshot. And in our own lives, when the story changes, and it will, we have to be ready for our next close-up. A version of this essay originally ran in New Orleans Magazine online and was republished on www.anniedstutley.com. It is republished here with permission from the author. Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines. Her blog, " That Time You, " was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website , or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. Previous Next

< Back The Machiavellian Heresy David Cowles Sep 4, 2025 “We now accept what (Lewis) Carroll said in jest as a tolerably accurate description of the human condition.” Time is time but certain times seem denser than others. 1500 CE was such a time in Europe. 500 years earlier Sylvester II, the Polymath Pope, effected a ‘great convergence’, i.e. the unification of science, mathematics and theology. Christianity became the first TOE (‘Theory of Everything’) since Aristotle. But by 1500 the world was a very different place. The Renaissance was already in full swing in Italy and the Reformation was just about to break over Northern Europe. Columbus had ‘discovered America’, Savonarola had been executed, DaVinci had returned to his native Florence, and the public career of Niccolo Machiavelli was taking off. Unsurprisingly, we technophiles have a habit of naming historical periods for their emerging technologies: Stone Age, Iron Age, Industrial Revolution, Cyber Age, etc. Alternatively, we might label eras by their dominant ethical paradigms. Such a scheme would at a minimum distinguish three ‘period paradigms’: the Heroic ethics of the Classical Period, the Christian ethics of the Middle Ages, and today’s Pragmatic Relativism. We correctly trace Christianity back to Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus; similarly, we ought to connect Pragmatism with its greatest apostle, Machiavelli. Thanks to him, we take it for granted today that “ends justify means”. So much so that we don’t even notice it. Pragmatism is our oxygen. But a quick review of the New Testament turns up little evidence of this ethic in the teachings of Jesus: “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God.” Whatever Jesus meant by this, he did not mean that we should artificially impoverish ourselves in hopes of an eschatological reward. Jesus was no ascetic! And yet, in practice, we modernists often misinterpret the Beatitudes in just such a way. We romanticize poverty and the poor and we routinely practice self-denial as a spiritual exercise. Did it take 20th century Liberation Theology to convince us that poverty is the enemy of spiritual growth, not its topsoil? Of course, we don’t call ourselves ‘Machiavellians’; in fact, that term has become pejorative. Instead, we dress up Machiavelli as John Stuart Mill and send him out trick or treating on All Hallows Eve…in your neighborhood, not mine. We call our ‘newly discovered’ ethic ‘ Utilitarianism ’ - the greatest good for the greatest number. But in an earlier post , we pointed out that there is no such thing as ‘ends’ or ‘means’. In fact, Causality itself is a misnomer Ok, so I’m not in love with Machiavellianism; so what? Agree to disagree, live and let live, give peace a chance! Why throw a Heresy label on it? Heresy is closely aligned with its cousins, blasphemy and idolatry. Every heresy has two things in common: it misrepresents the nature of God and it delivers a distorted image of the Real World. Let me set the stage: you are thrown onto a deserted beach by a giant wave we call ‘being born’ (Heidegger). (Storks don’t deliver babies, dolphins do.) What do you most need now? How about a map? How about a friend? How about a friend who will help you interpret that map and navigate its territory? To paraphrase the Christian hymn: “We have such a friend in Jesus!” Or we did…until a ‘heretic’ handed us an inaccurate and distorted map and planted gossip in our minds so that we would fail to recognize or appreciate any would-be helpers. In the Wild West, stealing a horse was a hangin’ offense. Made sense too: without a horse a person was defenseless. Without a reliable map and a helpful friend, we are defenseless in our world. Hence a special rung of Dante’s Inferno is reserved for the Heretics. No less than Arianism, Docetism, and Gnosticism, Machiavellianism is a heresy. But unlike its predecessors, this more modern ‘error’ is alive and kicking in the halls of orthodox Christianity, even today. Whenever catastrophe strikes, there are always folks only too happy to sublimate the human suffering to some sort of mythical ‘divine plan’. “It’s God’s will,” is the scourge of every mourner. Has anything more horrendous ever been said about the Judeo-Christian Godhead? No intentional insult from Marx or Stalin could even come close! The idea that a benevolent God would ‘plan’ a world with this level of immediate suffering, where innocent babies can be burned alive, only provides fuel for antitheists. It lies at the heart of the Problem of Evil which understandably is the #1 reason cited by atheists (e.g. Bertrand Russell ) for their disbelief. Question: Is Fatalism (‘Divine Plan’) really any different from Gnosticism (‘Divine Script’)? To paraphrase Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking-glass, “Bliss yesterday and bliss tomorrow, but never bliss today.” 150 years on, we now accept what Carroll said in jest as a tolerably accurate description of the human condition. The idea that time is a vector and that the future is always the preferred frame of reference (relative to the present and the past) is unique to the modern era and, in my view at least, entirely counterintuitive. The Past is ‘in the can’; it is ‘certain’ and presumably cannot now be altered: “I have suffered.” ☑ The Present is immediate, it’s what’s happening right now. ☑ But the Future is unknown, possibly unknowable, normally unpredictable, certainly uncontrollable, and infinitely contingent. Question: Why would I give more weight, much more weight, to a contingent Future at the expense of the immediate Present or the experienced Past? Answer: Machiavelli. It is an unidentified core assumption of Machiavellian ideology that all future frames of reference trump any present or past frame. How else could any end justify any means? Marcel Proust wrote the 20th century’s most important novel (lie quiet, Mr. Joyce) as a multi-volume assault on Machiavellian cosmology. Specifically, Proust showed that past events are just as real as present ones, maybe even more so. The future does not trump the past after all. The intensity of our experiences is unrelated to their sequence. While not explicitly formulated until the 16th century, the spirit of Machiavellianism has been with us since the beginning of recorded history. (Abraham and David were able to face their own personal deaths, fortified by God’s assurance that the Messiah would come from their descendants.) And it was alive and well at the time of Jesus, even among his closest disciples. At a feast in Bethany, a woman (sometimes identified with Mary Magdalen) broke a bottle of perfume over Jesus and anointed him with the oil. Some at the table murmured. According to Mark they were infuriated. The bottle of perfume was worth a year’s wages. Why not sell it and give the proceeds to the poor instead? (Mark 14: 3 - 8) These dissidents were using ‘future ends’ (the eradication of poverty) to evaluate ‘present means’ (the anointing of Christ); Jesus demurred: “The poor you will have always with you and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me.” Reversing the paradigm, Jesus was giving priority to the present over the future. More importantly, he was attacking the premise that current acts (sale of perfume) can intentionally and reliably cause future events (eradication of poverty). Jesus was also giving precedence to the symbolic and communicative power of an act of worship over the economic power of a commercial transaction. Selling perfume to fund charitable acts might (or might not) immediately benefit a selected few. Beyond that, consequences can neither be predicted, measured nor controlled. On the other hand, “Amen I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14: 9) In his handling of this ‘test’, Jesus combined the cynicism of a 1950’s Parisian existentialist with the optimism of a 21st century Seattle technophile. There are no causes or effects, no means or end, on the material level, but on the cyber level, information is indestructible. Note that Jesus does not say, “Ignore the poor.” He understands the material and spiritual benefits of charity, but he also understood that it was beyond the capability of his contemporaries to eradicate poverty. Worship, however, is an activity always available to anyone. It validates itself; its success is that it happened. Its Dasein is its Wassein. (Heidegger) And it happens entirely in the Present; it is its own means to its own end. It does not depend on anything outside itself, not even history, for its value. Eradicating poverty is a laudable, if perhaps immediately unachievable, objective but worshipping the Son of God is something anyone can do right here right now. And so he articulated the heart of Christian ethics: “Let her be. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me…She has done what she could.” (Mark 14: 6 – 8) Now be honest. The first time you heard this reading, did your sympathies go straight to Mary…or did you feel some affinity for the dissident disciples? Of course you did! (If you didn’t there’d be something wrong with you.) We are children of the so-called Enlightenment. We have learned to put the future ahead of the present, the practical ahead of the symbolic. We have learned to ‘defer gratification’; we even consider it a sign of adulthood. But we are wrong! We are Machiavellians, everyone…except maybe Tiny Tim. We learned ‘waste not, want not’ in the nursery; but for the most part, no one taught us to celebrate life. If we learned to do so later, it was often with a twinge of guilt. “How did it all turnout?” Did they live happily ever after? Our curiosity is insatiable. Good thing too or we’d have nothing to watch on PBS or BBC. How many books would Agatha Christie have sold if the answer to “Who done it?” was always the same: “Who knows, who cares?” A century ago, some folks dreamed of building a culture around the ideas of Karl Marx; but they were a bit late to table. The West had already built its culture - 400 years earlier - around the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli. So again, why heresy? Because Machiavellianism distorts God’s values (future, present, charity, worship) and obscures the Real World behind a false veil of Causality. So, welcome to the 6th rung, Niccolo. But cheer up, thanks to the industrial culture you helped foster, we have invented something called ‘air conditioning’; I’ll make sure a unit gets installed right away inside your burning sarcophagus. I hope it provides cold comfort! (Get it, cold comfort?) *** "The Burning of a Heretic" by Sassetta is a panel from the San Francesco Altarpiece (c. 1430s) that depicts the dramatic execution of a heretic by fire, illustrating the triumph of the Franciscan faith over heresy. The scene reflects the religious and social tensions of the time, combining Gothic elegance with intense emotional expression to promote orthodox Catholic doctrine. 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 Steve Rings in Something New David Cowles Jun 18, 2024 "SmarterUK's manifesto is effectively blank, waiting for you to fill it in. AI Steve has promised to be guided solely by input received from its constituents." On July 4, voters in the UK will elect a new Parliament. They will choose from Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Reform and other, smaller parties to lead the UK over the next 5 years. Voters in at least one district, however, will have another choice: SmarterUK. You may be thinking, “The last thing we need is another political party,” but hold that thought. SmarterUK is different. “Yeah, yeah, everybody says they’re different.” Fair point, but can any other party state that its candidate for Parliament is a silicon based life form? Meet that candidate, AI Steve (pronouns: it, its). If elected, AI Steve would represent a district on England’s south coast that includes the legendary resort city of Brighton ( Brighton Rock ). Getting AI Steve on the ballot was no mean feat. UK law panders to carbon-based life forms. Like Jim Crow in the American South, the law is used as a weapon to deny basic civil rights to silicon citizens. To circumvent these barriers, AI Steve needed to register under the name of its carbon co-pilot, Steve Endacott, but the candidate will properly appear on the ballot as “AI Steve”. There is an opportunity here to explore the dimensions of an AI/NI partnership. Presumably Steve E will shake the hands and kiss the babies while AI Steve conducts a perpetual, 24/7 Town Hall. It’s 3 AM. Want to talk politics? Your MP (AI Steve) is just waiting to talk to you! So what does AI Steve stand for? It stands for you ! AI Steve’s platform is your platform. SmarterUK ’s manifesto is effectively blank, waiting for you to fill it in. AI Steve has promised to be guided solely by input received from its constituents; Steve Endacott has promised not to allow his personal views to cloud AI Steve’s direct relationship with the electorate. Who needs opinion polls and focus groups when you have AI Steve? SmarterUK is an effort to revive earlier experiments in direct democracy . From ancient Greek cities to New England townships, efforts have been made to tie public policy directly to the will of the citizenry. These experiments have ‘failed’ (i.e. ‘not endured’)… largely for technological reasons. Direct democracy gave way to representative democracy . The nations of the North Atlantic Community share a common political system; call it Democracy Once Removed . The citizens elect ‘representatives’ but it is these representatives who make the laws. They are not obligated even to consult their constituents on specific pieces of legislation, and they are certainly not required to reflect constituents’ views in their votes. The evolution of representative democracy in Europe has mirrored the emergence of ideology as a driving political force. Liberalism, socialism, fascism, et al. got us where we are today, but they don’t seem up to the challenge of the future. Over the past decade, voters have begun to sour on the whole concept of ideology-driven politics. Folks talk openly now about the advantages of technocracy vs. democracy. This is driven in part by absurd memes like “I believe in Science,” as if science were ideology-free. If we learned nothing else from COVID-19, we should have learned that science is an extension of ideology; it is politics ‘by other means’. Of course, Jacques Ellul, Jacques Derrida, et al., would argue that technocracy itself is just another ideology, replacing justice with efficiency on the social values ladder. Let’s get granular. How would SmaterUK ’s program play out in specific, real world scenarios? For example, say the voters wanted to explore the wisdom of imposing a 10% tax across the board on all UK millionaires. AI Steve has no ‘opinion’ about such a proposal; but AI Steve can run numerous simulations to illustrate the impact such a policy would have on various aspects of UK life. Without prejudice, AI Steve would share these results with its constituents. Might such new data change minds? Either way, AI Steve will carry out the voters’ instructions. Crafting public policy is a bit like playing chess. I see an opportunity for my bishop to capture your knight. I consider the implications one or two moves ahead and I see no immediate danger. But 3 moves later, I’m in check mate. Of course a grandmaster would see more moves ahead and Deep Blue would see even further. Basically, AI looks at the problem from the perspective of each piece. Unleashing AI on the consequences of public policy will up our game exponentially. Democracy, direct or representative, is great as far as it goes; but decision makers need information. They need tools and AI can meet that need. AI Steve will probably have to sit by himself in the new Parliament, but gradually, his sensitivity to public sentiment and his access to data will make him a respected member of the House. One seat in 2024, 100 seats in 2029, PM in 2034! It’s fitting that such a revolution should begin on July 4, the anniversary of the American Revolution. 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.

“The simplest unicellular species display behaviors that are clearly cognitive in nature.” < Back A ‘New’ Old Theory of Consciousness David Cowles Jan 15, 2024 “The simplest unicellular species display behaviors that are clearly cognitive in nature.” Imagine living long enough to see one of your craziest ideas enter the philosophical mainstream! When we published Panpsychism just last month, the idea of universal consciousness was still considered ‘far out’. Far out, even though the idea itself goes back at least 2500 years, to Parmenides , the father of Western philosophy and science; far out, even though it’s a core tenet of Hasidic Judaism and Kabbalah; far out, even though it played a major role in the thinking of Alfred North Whitehead, the 20 th century’s premier systematic philosopher. Once upon a time, it was widely assumed that consciousness was the exclusive province of homo sapiens . Signs of intelligence in non-human species were unnoticed or underappreciated, then explained away as ‘instinct’. However, beginning in the late ‘60s, that great crucible, folks began speculating that certain sea mammals (e.g., dolphins) and/or certain non-human primates (e.g., chimpanzees) might be conscious. In this century, the franchise has been extended to parrots, corvids, et al. Meanwhile, Aletheia Today has been sitting on the sidelines, jumping up and down, waiving our hands in the air and shouting, “It’s not just birds…it’s every living thing!” That said, I did not expect panpsychism to enter the intellectual mainstream before 2100…until I encountered a peer-reviewed article proclaiming the identity of life and consciousness! Below, I quote liberally from this paper ( Arthur S Reber , William B Miller, Jr ., Predrag Slijepcevic , and František Baluška ) - italics are mine : “Our Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC) theory…is based on the assumption that life and sentience are coterminous. All, but only , living organisms are conscious... Prokaryotes (single-celled organisms without a nucleus), the simplest form of life, display behaviors that are clearly cognitive in nature, including associative learning, stable memory formation, route navigation and decision-making.” There is an important distinction. Panpsychism of the sort ascribed to Parmenides, the Hasidim, and Whitehead (above) applies to all ‘actual entities’; unlike CBC, it is not strictly limited to living organisms. “They anticipate upcoming events and readily create functional social collectives, within which they display both cooperation and competition and, fascinatingly, a primitive form of altruism where some cells in a colony put themselves at risk to support the life functions of other cells in distress… It is important to recognize that assembling and surviving as functioning collectives requires directed, communal action as a form of cellular problem-solving. “One of the entailments of the CBC is that plants, which are eukaryotes (cells with nuclei) and emerged relatively late in evolutionary terms, are conscious, sentient beings…there is considerable evidence for valanced sensation, decision-making, learning, and communication in flora…” Trees in particular demonstrate familial connection, community consciousness, and self-sacrifice. ‘Prosperous’ trees readily share water and other essential nutrients with their less fortunate neighbors, especially, but not exclusively, when the recipient trees are genetically related to the donors. Trees will keep their parents’ stumps alive, sometimes for decades. Mature, healthy trees are the original ‘sandwich’ generation: they are charged with feeding and protecting both their offspring and their parents. “…This cellular communal action provided the basis for various forms of social intelligence… It is simply inconceivable that this wide range of cognitive functions could be the result of a cluster of ‘dumb’ gene-driven mechanisms…” “Entomologists have presented compelling evidence that many insects are conscious and self-aware; avian specialists are comfortable using “consciousness” when referring to the behaviors displayed by many bird species, especially corvids; those who study cephalopods have determined that octopuses and cuttlefish have palpable minds… “We have examined a variety of biomolecular functions and mechanisms in an effort to identify those that are responsible for creating sentience in cells. Briefly, they are almost certainly holistic in the sense that there are various tightly linked functions involving the cytoskeleton, the cell membrane, including specific sensors and receptors, and the mechanisms that permit molecular exchanges between the interior of the cell and the external environment. All of these and others combine to allow the cell to detect, evaluate and mentally represent events and objects and make appropriate decisions about how to respond to them…” “One of the primary reasons for the reluctance of those who work within the SMC (standard) framework to include flora is their conviction that a nervous system is a requirement for a genuine consciousness. However, much of the research into plant cognition supports the conclusion that plant root systems function in ways that are analogous of neural systems.” “…It is virtually certain that cells change the manner of gene expression by the decisions and choices they make. These epigenetic modifications are the driving force behind collaborative cellular problem-solving involved in dealing with environmental stresses...All cells are sentient, exhibit self-referential awareness, and are fully capable of decision-making and problem-solving … “Accordingly, each cell is a conscious “self”, combining three essential elements necessary for cogently explaining multicellularity. In order to collaborate in their trillions , each self-referential cell must ‘know that it knows’, ‘know that others know…(and know) in self-similar patterns’.” “Crucially, CBC imposes three essential requirements to specifically enable cell-wide integrated information as consciousness. Cellular consciousness requires boundaries (a plasma membrane), a cell-wide integrative apparatus for the reception and internal assessment of environmental information…and linked retrievable and deployable memory… “Minds (brains?) do not create conscious self-awareness. Minds, such as our own, are an aggregation of individual cellular consciousnesses.” Wow! Talk about burying the lead! This last ‘throw away’ line opens an entire new field of inquiry. Just how is it that cellular consciousness ‘becomes’ or ‘supports’ the consciousness of integrated organisms? How do 30 trillion cells (or 85 billion neurons) ‘roll-up’ to… you? Reber’s glib aside doesn’t get it done! It doesn’t make sense (to me) to think that my integrated thought could be the simple product of the thoughts of 85 billion independent neurons. Fortuitously, though, the solution to this problem also solves another problem. (Things often work like that in science and philosophy.) Determinists and other materialists are fond of citing studies that show that the brain’s decision-making cells fire a ‘nanosecond’ before the subject thinks she’s made her decision (e.g., vanilla or chocolate). Sometimes, when evidence contradicts your thinking in a certain area, the honorable thing to do is to modify your ideas; other times, the right thing to do is to hold one’s ground, assuming that a future discovery will bridge the apparent gap between theory and observation. But oh, for the wisdom to know the difference! To many ‘philosophers of organism’, these decision studies were unconvincing, albeit irrefutable: “We’re missing something even though we’re not sure what.” Now CBC comes along and potentially gives us the tool we need to bridge this divide: Decisions take place at the level of the organism. Reber et al. (above) are happy to describe the response of a single cell to its environment as holistic, even though the cell has nothing resembling a nervous system or any other Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) . Why then not apply the same standard to multicellular organisms? All ‘organisms’ (single or multicellular), regardless of their internal structures, respond holistically when interacting with their external worlds. Thanks to evolution, organism-level ‘decision’ triggers a coordinated wave of synaptic firings and biochemical events, enabling us to experience consciously that decision and its immediate consequences. So to recap, the decision itself is free, undetermined, and holistic; it triggers a neuronal response that in turn gives us the conscious experience of making and effecting a decision. Fantastic! Or is it? Haven’t we just kicked the can down the road? We’ve pushed conscious experience back onto our cellular substructure, but then we’ve pushed the coordinated action of those cells back onto something ill-defined and potentially non-physical – the ‘holistic response’ of our entire organism to its situation. Humbly acknowledged! But let’s search philosophical literature to see if we can find something that answers to the phrase, ‘holistic response’. Oh yeah, here it is! It’s something called a ‘soul’; remember that from 3 rd grade CCD? Were you expecting Casper? Sorry, no white sheets, thank you. Soul is simply another name for ‘holistic response of the organism’. But, of course, that doesn’t explain how that holistic response occurs. We need to remember that the ‘world’ is a loom, perpetually shuttling between the one and the many. Like Penelope’s weaving, what is many becomes one, and what is one becomes many… again. “Hohohoho, Mister Finn, you’re going to be Mister Finnagain!” (Joyce) Start anywhere in the cycle. The universe is plural (Buckminster Fuller), but novelty, intensity, and action itself require us to reconstitute that multiplicity as a unity, a so-called ‘Actual World’ (Whitehead). According to this model, we designate and react to our world before, logically if not temporally, we trigger the physical processes that enable us to interact with that world. We are not the accidental overflow of unconscious physical processes. We are the authors of those processes. Being consists of free, unconditioned, holistic responses to an Actual World and the Actual Entity (primary being) responsible for that response is what we call an organism, and as CBC demonstrates (above), organism = consciousness. 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 above to return to Winter 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

Healthcare is a problem and not just in the US. Everywhere cost and quality battle; everywhere both are losing. But as in so many other things, the US is the bell cow. Healthcare - AI First Healthcare is a problem and not just in the US. Everywhere cost and quality battle; everywhere both are losing. But as in so many other things, the US is the bell cow. Healthcare has been an issue in the US since the mid-60’s and it has perhaps been issue #1 over the last 40 years. Today, it consumes almost 20% of our GDP but 30% of that cost is spent on treatment that is not appropriate for the patient’s actual condition. We’ve tried provider networks, we’ve tried managed care, we’ve tried consumerism, we’ve tried wellness – nothing works! Surprised? We know that government control, price fixing, supply rationing, and demand management never work…ever, anywhere, for almost anything. So why should healthcare be any different? What does work, almost always, almost everywhere, for almost anything? Technology. Why not give it a go? Lord knows we’re tried everything else. Now don’t get me wrong. Doctors know a lot; they know how to do a lot of things. But the system is structured so that this knowledge rarely benefits the typical patient during a typical interaction. ‘Patient management’ takes the place of genuine care. So, need a brain transplant? Come to the US! Have a skin rash? Rub mud on it…under the supervision of a qualified holistic healer, of course. Or add an AI Bot to your care team and see what happens: Healthcare & The Titanic “We have the technology to transform healthcare…we just need the will to deploy it and we will begin to build that will only once we stop moving furniture.” Can AI Save Healthcare? “What was once a healing art has become physiological engineering… the healthcare system treats me as if I were a cheap knock-off of the 6 million dollar man.” My MD Should Be a Bot “AI is 4 times better at diagnosing complex medical conditions than MDs. This…could be the death knell for the traditional practice of medicine.” My PCP Should Be a BOT “Dr. Bot would handle patient in-take, conduct the initial interview…order appropriate tests, and offer a preliminary diagnosis…” Who's Afraid of an HMO? “HMOs dumbed down quality and erected formidable barriers to care… (so) why would anyone want to bring them back?” Readers React What's the buzz about? Our readers' reactions to Aletheia Today... Additional Reading Can't get enough of Aletheia Today's content? Check out the books that inspire our magazine.

< Back Square Pegs in Round Holes David Cowles May 6, 2025 “2,450 years after Plato we still don’t have a clue…and we won’t, until we…stop trying to fill round holes with square pegs.” It began I suppose with Plato (c. 375 BCE)…like most everything else. His Timaeus , which Alfred North Whitehead dubbed the foundation of all Western philosophy, sought to explain the World in terms of the 5 aptly named ‘Platonic Solids’. The faces of each of these solids can be constructed from planar triangles. Plato’s concept of a triangle involved a flat construction, consisting of three straight line segments, intersecting at three nodes (vertices), and forming three internal angles, the sum of which is always 180°. No surprise here: Plato was ‘bookended’ by Pythagoras ( Pythagorean Theorem ) and Euclid ( The Elements ). Even today, when folks refer to a ‘triangle’, they most likely mean exactly what Plato meant 2450 years ago. Most likely…but not necessarily. The concept of ‘triangle’ inherited uncritically by, and then from, Plato has been expanded by more recent ‘discoveries’ in geometry and topology. Plato’s triangles are defined in the context of what is now known as Euclidean Geometry. However, certain ‘non-Euclidean’ geometries are internally consistent and externally relevant, at least in some applications. Generally speaking, non-Euclidean geometries apply to curved rather than flat surfaces. As a result, either parallel lines do not exist or, if they do, they intersect. The internal angles of a non-Euclidean triangle will not necessarily total 180° (may be more or less depending on the curvature of the surface) and the shortest distance between two points may be an arc. Most importantly for our purposes, a non-Euclidean cube will have curved edges. These newly discovered geometries still describe intuitively recognizable configurations of reality. We are all familiar, for example, with the surface of a ball. Whether your geometry is Euclidean or ‘non’, whether your topology is level or curved, whether you’re a flat-earther or a round-earther, certain generally accepted principles still apply; for example: If you’re walking from Boston to Detroit, you can expect to have many adventures along the way; keyword: along the way ! There is one kind of adventure you do not expect. You’re not concerned, like Stephen Dedalus in Joyce’s Ulysses , that you are about to step off into Eternity, or what amounts to the same thing, that you’ll suddenly and unexpectedly find yourself in Memphis. That’s because any path along any surface will be continuous. I call it the One Foot in Front of the Other property; Mathematicians call it the ‘Archimedean Property’. Translation: no one just ‘suddenly shows up’ in Memphis. It turns out that there are interesting and internally consistent geometries that don’t include the Archimedean Property and where people do suddenly ‘materialize’ on Beale Street. But not today; keep a look out for future TWS on that subject. Euclidean geometry is just a special, degenerate case (zero curvature) of more general non-Euclidean geometry. Just as we use the positive term ‘Entropic’ to represent a loss of actual order so we can use the positive term ‘Euclidean’ to represent a loss of potential variety. Why limit yourself to boring old 180° triangles when the angles of non-Euclidean triangles can add to any positive number up to 540°, depending on the curvature of the surface? Ok, I can smugly pose that question today…prior to c. 1800 CE, it was assumed that there was only one geometry… and that it was Euclidean . Imagine. For more than 2 millennia, Euclid was the only game in town. That’s 2000 years in a row that Euclid won all 4 PGA majors (the Masters, the US Open, the PGA Championship, and the ‘British’ Open)…and he wasn’t even a very good golfer. (You’d be embarrassed to show up at your posh country club with his handicap.) How’d he do it? Simple. He was the only golfer on the course. He was the GOAT, albeit a very lonely goat. Today, Euclid is just one entrant in a crowded field…and he struggles every week just to make the cut. We should keep Euclid in mind whenever we’re tempted to think ‘we know it all’. Remember: the thing you’re most sure of in all the world may turn out to be completely wrong! I am reminded of Sir Roger Penrose. A precocious lad, he was middle school age when his math teacher presented the class with a classic problem in geometry: “There is only one solution to this problem. No one has been able to prove that there’s only one but we’re sure that’s true.” Never say ‘sure’ to a rebellious teenager. Them’s fightin’ words, especially to a kid who would one day become ‘the smartest man on earth’. Next day, he arrived at school with a second solution to the problem. Then he discovered other solutions. Today, we know that there are an infinite number of solutions to the so-called ‘tiling problem’. So what? Who cares? Euclid was a genius with the best of intentions and his ideas no doubt did a lot of good; but he also took Western metaphysics down a rabbit hole from which it is still struggling to emerge. For two millennia we assumed that we lived in a ‘flatland’ made up entirely of straight lines; we don’t. On the contrary, everything curves! You’re 14 years old and you’ve just enrolled in your first high school physics class. Day one, your teacher (you go to a progressive school) takes the class to a billiards parlor (pool hall to you) so that you can observe first hand ‘cause and effect’ in action. Balls collide, momentum is transferred, angles of incidence determine angles of reflection, etc. It’s all very neat and clean…and linear. The real world is rarely neat and clean and it’s never linear. In fact, it is massively non-linear and recursive. Everything affects everything else. Worse, everything that ‘acts’ acts on itself at the same time. Think karma . Whatever you’re doing to another, you’re doing the same to yourself. “Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.” Ultimately, the foundation of all ethics will turn out to be self-interest…once we understand what those interests are. This gives the meme, ‘whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword’, a whole new meaning. Unfortunately, Euclidean linearity has infected every corner of our thought process. We are determined to describe the world in terms of discrete entities (subjects) acting on (verbs) other discrete entities (objects); we are committed to viewing all ‘transmissions of influence’ as straight lines. Welcome to the modern Indo-European language family. As a result, what we know, or at least what we knew before 1800, conforms to the straight-edged geometry of a Euclidean cube. Let’s suppose we know everything we can know, not everything there is to know, but everything we can know. Suppose we model everything there is to know as a sphere, dense with information; everything we can know would be a subset of that sphere. But because of our Euclidean blinders, whatever we do (or can) know must conform to the geometry of a straight edged cube. Suppose you say, “We already know everything we can know…or close to it.” Ok, I’ll spot you that. As a Harvard professor (c. 1896) told graduating seniors re physics, we know virtually everything that it is possible to know. Whatever we don’t know isn’t worth knowing. According to this model, the cube of what we can (and do) know must fit inside the sphere of what is knowable; it’s a subset after all. Obviously, we want as much of the volume of the sphere as possible to lie inside the inscribed cube. But we are ultimately limited by the fact that our sphere is round while our cube must have straight edges. So, the 8 vertices of the cube, and only those 8 points, will lie on the surface of the sphere. Still as long as the volume of what we can know is close to the volume of the sphere of what’s knowable, we’re ok for most purposes, right? I mean, nobody likes a know-it-all. A little bit of uncertainty ( aka ignorance) keeps life interesting, don’t you think? I’m fine with this as long as the cubic volume of knowable information includes most of the spherical volume of all information. So how close is it? Is it a 90% match? Surely it can’t be less than 80%, right? Would you believe it’s slightly less than 37%? By confining our thinking to phenomena that can be modeled via Euclidean geometry, we limit what we can know to less than 3/8ths of what is available to be known. A dismal performance! On the other hand, putting the same problem in a non-Euclidean context allows the edges of the cube to bow and extend so that they template the inner surface of the sphere. By analogy, our insistence on treating the non-linear universe as if it were an assemblage of linear forms leaves us 63% blind. 2450 years after Plato we still don’t have a clue…and we won’t, until we free our thought process from its Euclidean play pen and stop trying to fill round holes with square pegs. Image: M. C. Escher. Relativity. 1953. Lithograph print. 27.7 cm × 29.2 cm. 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 Faith, Hope and Insanity David Cowles Dec 26, 2024 “Swimming in the sea of Language can be hazardous to the intellect.” “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” How often have you heard that lately? This tired meme has taken the first quarter of the 21st century by storm. It’s one of those things that seem to make sense, or even appear ‘wise’, at first glance. But does it stand up to analysis? What do call it when we do the same thing over and over again, expecting the same result each time? We call that Science ! The Scientific Method supposes that, controlling all variables, identical input will reliably result in identical output. If this were not so, we could never build a bridge or a skyscraper. Only in the works of J. K. Rowling do fully formed edifices magically appear. So far so good, right? Wrong! Look what we’ve done: we have split the universe of possible universes into two different, exclusive, but all-encompassing logoi (ordering schemes): one side we call science, one side we call insanity. Do I have to spell out the corollaries? Unless you put your faith in science, you are insane! This is a logical chain that only Dr. Fucci could love. And what of the person who thoughtfully responds, “I know I’m not insane and I don’t believe in magic, but I also knows that science has it limitations?” That person does not exist in your metaverse. The flaw, of course, is in assuming that everything in universe (U) must be ‘Either A or B’. ‘Both A and B’ and ‘Neither A nor B’ are not allowed. A World (W) can be dissected by a single cut (A/B) at any angle. A cut is ‘meaningful’ if and only if it is possible to define the two resulting subregions, A and B, so that every point on W is either in A or in B and no point in W is in both A and B. Many points in W, perhaps most points, appear neither scientific (A) nor insane (B). On the other hand, many on W, especially these days, appear to qualify both as science and as insanity…not an easy fete I’ll grant you. Therefore the cut X that ostensibly dissected W into science and insanity is not ‘meaningful’: it fails to deliver its promised result. The set of all U that can satisfy the terms of this cut is the null set. Swimming in the sea called Language can be hazardous to the intellect. It amounts to an encyclopedia (infinite?) of propositions, each suggesting that a particular ‘cut’ can be meaningful . Of course, the real purpose of our ‘cut above’ is the promotion of pseudo-science at the expense of all else. Validity is an afterthought at best. Every P is Propaganda before it is even a fully formed Proposition. It is certainly possible to be both scientific and insane (no wisecracks, please); it is also possible to be neither. Take the first two Theological Virtues, for example: Faith and Hope. Both can be defined as doing the same things (liturgy, morality) over and over again in the confident expectation of a ‘different result’: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.” Faith, hope and love are three faces of a single coin. Faith is hope’s foundation, hope’s the first fruits of faith. Love ‘proceeds from Faith and Hope’. Love is both the foundation and the product of ‘Faith X Hope’. Faith allows us to see ‘my neighbor as myself’ and Hope empowers us to seek the collective Summum Bonum in solidarity with that neighbor. Faith can only be faith in someone else, someone who is worthy of love. Hope can only be hope for someone, someone worthy of love. 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.

Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. < Back Jesus Meets Mister Spock Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL May 28, 2022 Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. I am still surprised when I hear people express their belief that the Catholic Church is opposed to science. The story of Galileo Galilei (1564- 1642) is a shocking one to many people, who deduct that the church has always been and continues to be against science. There are, indeed, some Christians who oppose science but not the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II apologized for the church’s treatment of Galileo in 2000. Earlier than that, he spoke often of the importance of science. Did you know that it was a Catholic priest who uncovered the theory of the hot Big Bang story? The Church sponsors conferences on science and religion. The Vatican has its own observatory in the hills outside Rome. In our country, there has been a growing anti-intellectualism and an increasing suspicion or even rejection of science. We live in an age when people think they can make up their own facts. Truth is not important. Some people, including politicians, reject truths they do not like and make up their own facts. Subjective belief in making my own truth is openly expressed. This is sad for the fabric of our society. Maybe the Church has, in the past, demanded we accept too many doubtful truths, but today it upholds the truth and upholds science. Of course, you wouldn’t always know this if you listen to some local homilies and talks. The teaching of the Vatican is not gotten down to all our parishes. Science and Religion should assist each other in pursuing the truth. Science can be too closed to the life of the spirit, the mind, imagination, thought, and creativity. Religion can be closed to anything new that threatens its perception of reality. Science can document the what and the how of our universe, but Religion struggles to define the why of it all. Both may be tentative in some areas at times as new discoveries and insights develop. So, we need to keep studying, listening, learning. Saint Thomas Aquinas said that if we wish to know God, we should study the world. The Psalms already preached this, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth the work of God’s hands.” (Ps. 19:2) And Saint Paul wrote to the Romans, “What can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” (Romans, 1:19-20) Monastic Scribe XXVI: April 29, 2022 Thanks to science, we now know so much more about this world than we have ever known before. The vastness and intricacies of the cosmos just blows our mind. And all adds to the majesty and beauty of God. Our God is a great Mystery and calls us into a life beyond what we can imagine. But we have to adjust some of our old images. The universe was not created in six days, but has been evolving for almost fourteen billion years. The three tier universe which is the base of the world view in the Bible now cedes to vast, uncountable galaxies. All of this challenges us to reimagine, much more meaningfully, the beginning of humankind, Adam and Eve, original sin, the Creator God, the incarnational God of Jesus Christ, the life giving Holy Spirit, as well as pain, suffering and the problem of evil. There is nothing to fear here. Our faith, seeking understanding, is deeper and more ennobled than we could have imagined. A deeper faith leads to a deeper hope and a deeper love, as we are overcome with awe and beauty at God’s creation. Evolution is not a theory but the way that God, since the beginning, has been creating and continues to create. We are called to take part in that evolutionary creation. Evolution means God is a God of the future, a God of promises. We believe in this God, and therein is our hope, no matter how bad things seem in our world. Not just the earth, but the entire cosmos, is God’s creation and our concern. The “new cosmology” or simply “the new story” is the tale of an expanding universe, always in motion, growing, incalculably vast. A century ago, we thought our Milky Way was the only galaxy, but now we know there are billions of galaxies. Black holes and black energy are the latest mysteries of this story. And we are part of this story. Our bodies are made of the very stardust that is found in all creation. Quantum mechanics shows us how everything and everyone is connected. It shows us how we can touch each other from a distance. I am not a scientist and certainly not a mathematician. I don’t comprehend all the details, nor can I differentiate all the categories of subatomic matter. But I don’t have to understand the details. I rely on scientists to explain things. But my view (my philosophy) of the cosmos, which comes from religion, adds meaning to all of this. I have enjoyed reading Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Berry, John Haught, Ilia Delio, Elizabeth Johnson, Laurie Brink and others to get a better picture of what Monastic Scribe XXVI: April 29, 2022, this beautiful cosmos is all about. I recommend these authors to you. I urge all my readers not to be afraid of science, but to embrace it and open your mind to a fuller comprehension of what God does for us. It will also give deeper incentive to work on climate change and care of the environment. We are creating with God, but often have been destroying creation. Is this new for you? Is it exciting for you? You can let me know at: joycet@glastonburyabbey.org. Republished with minimal edits and permission rom glastonburyabbey.org. Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL continues his regular blog, “ Monastic Scribe ”, where he reflects on "what I may have learned from all these years and what I am still trying to learn." Fr. Timothy notes, “I do not speak on behalf of Glastonbury Abbey, the Archdiocese of Boston or the Catholic Church, though I hope my faith is in harmony with all these. Any error in judgment should be credited to me and not anyone else.” Image: Leonard Nimoy as Spock, holding a model of the USS Enterprise , in a publicity photograph for Star Trek: The Original Series. Full caption and source here . 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

“We have been shown our sign…and it’s a simple one. The sign is that there are signs!” < Back Show Us a Sign! David Cowles Aug 29, 2024 “We have been shown our sign…and it’s a simple one. The sign is that there are signs!” Everybody wants a sign. Is God there? Is God listening? Does God really care about me? “Then show me a sign!” Be honest, the thought has crossed your mind…and not once. Maybe not every day…or maybe! Don’t be ashamed. We live by signs. So does the entire biosphere. Signs tell bacteria to reproduce, birds to migrate, trees to defoliate, bears to hibernate, etc. Signs tell us where we’re going and how to get there. Signs also enable predictions – I didn’t say ‘accurate predictions’ – but predictions. Squirrels gathering acorns is a sign that winter is on the way. Unless you’re ‘skint’ (or under age 25), I’ll bet you check the markets from time to time for ‘signs’ of what may be ahead for your IRA or 401k or Pension. Asking God for a sign somehow feels different though. It feels blasphemous…and ungrateful…and selfish…and it is! But relax, you’re not to blame. In the Gospels, Jesus is asked for a sign on a few occasions. How droll! According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus spent three years whistle-stopping all over Galilee, curing ailments, driving out demons, feeding multitudes, and walking on water. “What do I have to do to get an ‘Amen’ around here? What sign exactly are you looking for?” Any high school student of debate would do well to study the Gospels. Jesus is a master of repartee. He regularly turns skeptics’ questions against them. And he is rarely at a loss for words. Exception: he does get a bit flustered when asked for a sign. No wonder. His whole life is a sign. What more could anyone want? What is it that they don’t see? What would constitute an acceptable sign for this lot? So he gives answers his followers cannot understand. He mentions ‘the sign of Jonah’ and his own looming death and resurrection. Of course, he answers correctly, but for once he is talking above the heads of his audience. Let’s start with Jonah. Without getting into detail, Jonah was swallowed by a whale but coughed up on shore 3 days later, alive. It is, of course, a classic symbol of death and rebirth but I doubt Jesus’ audience understood it as more than just another run-of-the-mill miracle. References to his own future death and rebirth were, of course, totally incomprehensible at the time. So back to Jonah. Obviously, Christians see in Jonah’s ‘adventure’ a reference to Jesus’ own passion. But there is something else here too. When Jonah lands naked on the shore, he has been created anew. The Book of Jonah is as much a Creation account as it is a book of Prophecy. Jonah represents Being itself (Stephen Hawking, were he more theistically inclined, might have referred to Jonah’s whale as a ‘white hole’). Jesus incarnates Being. Christ is the whole, born and reborn, the Alpha and the Omega. But back to signs. “There can be no sign,” because everything is a sign ! That’s what the World is: a tapestry of signs. Whether you call it Maya , or Urðr (Old Norse), or Doxa , or Logos , or Phenomena , it is the obverse side of the World; it is the world we see – and it is meaningful. We have been shown our sign…and it’s a simple one. The sign is that there are signs! Does this make Jesus the world’s first semiologist? Perhaps! Archibald MacLeish once wrote, “A poem should not mean but be.” Turning MacLeish on his head, we would say, “The World should not be, but mean!” Being is the province of God; meaning is the province of the World ( logos ). This is perhaps what Jesus had in mind when he said, “…The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Because the World is meaning , every element in that World, every hair on every human head, has meaning. To be is to mean, to mean is to be! Fast forward 1500 years. The so-called Renaissance and the pseudo-Enlightenment that followed disenchanted the World. Logos (meaning) was replaced by Techne (technology). The world was no longer something to decipher; now it was something to manipulate. The magnificent, crystalline world of signs was shattered, leaving the shards we call ‘tools’. Imagine some Philistine scrapping the pigment off the Mona Lisa and using it to paint his kitchen – Mad Max has nothing on the Renaissance & Enlightenment. But salvation would come - in the persons of Melville, Proust, Eliot, Monet, Van Gogh, Cezanne, et al. Since 1875, the intellectual project of the West has, unwittingly, been the re-enchantment of the World. Picasso, Dali and Pollack; Einstein, Heisenberg and Bell – it’s happening right here, right now! But above all these, the true Savior of the age, was the great James Joyce. All his work, but especially Ulysses , was an effort to recover and represent the semiotic content of the physical and social world. Vivisecting a single day in the life of a single city (Dublin, June 16, 1904), Joyce showed how every event, every detail points at something beyond itself. With great respect for the Council of Nicaea, it is hard to read the Gospels, especially John, and not feel that you live in enchanted space. It is impossible after reading Ulysses . He even describes the phenomenal world as ‘signatures of all things I am here to read’. Everything is a sign, ‘a cascade of signification’ in fact. That is The Sign! The Sign of signs. The Sign is that ‘everything signifies that which gives it meaning’. But meaning is regressive: A means B but B means C. Our job, per Joyce, is to peel away the layers of the semiotic onion, until… logos – the source and end point of all signification - is revealed. The logos , of course, is Christ. Jesus answers the skeptics 7 times in the Gospel of John alone. Reprising YHWH in Exodus (3: 14), Jesus simply says, “I am.” That is the sign. Not that I was born, died and resurrected, but that I am! While the World was still enchanted, a medieval Irish poet (possibly St. Dallan) wrote of God: “Naught is all else to me save that Thou art!” Whatever “is to me” is a ‘sign’ and the sign, for Dallan, is that ‘God is’. We have our sign! John spells it out in his opening verses (1 – 4): “In the beginning was the logos (word or sign) and the logos was with God and God was the logos …all things came to be through him ( logos ) and nothing that came to be came to be without him ( logos ). In him ( logos ) was life…” Ultimately, there are innumerable signs but only one ‘signified’, God. The sign of signs is not the birth, death, or resurrection of Jesus; it is the existence of the Christ: “That I am”. 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 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

< Back Deidre Braley Contributor Deidre Braley is author and host of The Second Cup blog/podcast, where she loves to teach people that Jesus is for them, not against them. She has a monthly newsletter on Substack and her subscribers enjoy weekly content that focuses on communing with Jesus and others, creating beauty when it's hard, and celebrating this weird and wild life. She serves as editorial advisor on The Truly Co. Publication, and has been published in both The Truly Co. magazine and Joyful Life magazine. Deidre has also recently published her 2022 Advent Guide and invites you to follow along with her during this season of anticipation. Refresh the Crèche Call Me a Dinosaur. I Won't Use ChatGPT Summer of Enchantment A Simple Christmas

< Back Voice Verbs David Cowles “I am stuck on Band-Aid ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me!” So says the jingle for one of the world’s most iconic products. But more importantly, and quite unexpectedly, this slogan is one of the best examples of ‘middle voice thinking’ in American pop culture. “I am stuck on Band-Aid ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me!” So says the jingle for one of the world’s most iconic products. But more importantly, and quite unexpectedly, this slogan is one of the best examples of ‘middle voice thinking’ in American pop culture. We are used to sentences built around active (or passive) voice verbs. (The passive voice is just the active voice turned around.) ‘Billy hit Tommy’ and ‘Tommy was hit by Billy’ describe the exact same event but each with a different focus. The active voice puts the focus on Billy (the one who hit) while the passive voice focuses on Tommy (the one who was hit). But what about the more likely scenario that Billy and Tommy are simply fighting. In English, we have to say, “Tommy and Billy hit each other.” Clumsy! Other languages, especially ancient languages, often include a third voice, the ‘middle voice’. If English had a middle voice, there would be a form of the verb ‘to hit’ that would convey simply the ‘middle voice’ reality of this event. In Icelandic, the language with a middle voice that is closest to English, you usually just add ‘st’ to the end of the root verb to make it middle voice: “Billy and Tommy hitst,” for example. The band-aid jingle highlights this dilemma. Is the bandage stuck on you (active voice) or are you stuck on the bandage (passive voice)? Or are you and the bandage ‘stuckst’ (middle voice)? See how the active and passive voices distort slightly what happens with a band-aid. It takes a middle voice verb form to properly convey what is actually going on. So, who cares? Well, we all do or at least we all should. The current active-passive dualism makes us prone to think in categories such as ‘maker-made’, ‘employer-employee’, ‘ruler-ruled’. I’s exploit it’s. For some purposes, the dominance of active/passive voice verb forms may make practical sense. After all, this is the language of the industrial revolution: skyscrapers and assembly lines. But it is decidedly not the language of interpersonal relations. The philosopher Martin Buber called the proper relationship between two persons ‘I thou’ (rather than ‘I it’). ‘I thou’ is Buber’s way of introducing middle voice thinking into languages (German and English) that do not have a middle voice verb form. One of the most profound lessons of the New Testament is that what I do to another is simultaneously done to me. I am both the subject and the object of my actions. But without a middle voice verb form, we Anglophones have no easy way to express this ethos – and therefore we tend to lose sight of it in our everyday lives – at immense personal and social cost. Previous Next