< Back The Faith Chaplain Challenge In Matthew 28: 18-20, Jesus tells his followers, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” However, in the secular world, this isn't always easy, nor is it even permitted in many cases and situations. Inspired by this issue's Being a Faith Chaplain in a Secular World , tell us how you navigate not just your faith in the workplace, but also how you share your faith with others in places where your personal beliefs aren't always popular or even welcomed. Email your story (300 words or less) and we will choose one winner whose experience will be shared with our readers in our next issue. Email editor@aletheiatoday.com. Be sure to put "Faith Challenge" in the subject line. Previous Share Return to the Table of Contents, Beach Issue Next Return to the Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back AI, Pope Leo, and the Finns David Cowles Sep 13, 2026 “Can the Finns rescue Leo’s Papacy?” 1600 words, 7 minute read AI sure makes strange bedfellows. Less than 1% of Finns are practicing Roman Catholics… much less than 1% in fact. That makes Finland the least Catholic country in all of Europe. And yet academics at the University of Eastern Finland collaborated in an article (9/8/2026) on AI Governance that is intentionally based on the teachings of Pope Leo XIV. Our own commentary on the Pope’s first encyclical ( Magnifica Humanitas ) was less charitable. This was a ‘heaven sent’ opportunity for Leo to make a major contribution on the most important social issue of our time (AI); and in the process, it was a chance to reassert, and reestablish, the relevance of Roman Catholicism for the modern world. In language a long suffering Chicago White Sox fan would appreciate, the Pope was ‘caught looking’, called out on strikes without ever taking the bat off his shoulders. Quelle domage! But wait, could Finland save Leo’s Papacy? AI Governance ignores Leo’s Luddite commentary and concentrates on eight benign principles distilled from his encyclical: (1) human dignity, (2) the common good, (3) the universal destination of goods, (4) social justice, (5) solidarity, (6) subsidiarity, (7) shared responsibility, and (8) transparency/accountability. As we shall see, our authors place special emphasis on ‘universal destination’ and ‘subsidiarity’. All in, this is a welcome gloss on Leo’s document. The authors review three current models for AI governance in light of those eight principles: The State Model - The state is primary agent of governance. AI is a technology requiring regulation, centralized oversight, and enforceable mechanisms to protect civil rights, public safety, and the collective interest. The Market Model - AI governance should be shaped primarily by its creators and stakeholders. This approach places emphasis on industry-wide standards, adopted codes of ethics, and the responsible behavior of technology producers. The Hybrid Model – Governance requires the cooperation of multiple public and private actors. Responsibility is shared among public institutions, private companies, industry experts, civic organizations, and international bodies. Leo’s reflections best align with the Hybrid Model and they add normative corrections to both state-led and market-led models. Human dignity and shared responsibility are prioritized over centralized control, public or private, all in pursuit of “ a more just and inclusive social order in which technology enables human flourishing .” This is precisely the dimension of AI that Leo ‘underappreciated’. AI Governance points out weaknesses in all three models. For example, “centralization can lead to technocratic forms of control and reduced pluralism in which algorithmic systems restrict democratic deliberation and civic agency.” Amen to that! But the authors follow Leo down the rabbit hole of Euro-American ‘democracy’. We are assured that “the state model in democratic societies ensures the protection of fundamental rights, public safety, and enforceable regulatory standards.” Apparently, the authors have never visited Planet Earth. As the Pope’s namesake, Leo XIII (c. 1880) was quick to point out, the superficial form of a government does not always reflect its actual function . No paper constitution guarantees a just society. Did the US tolerate slavery; did the UK imprison homosexuals? The Market Model does not protect against the concentration of power in the hands of technocrats. Private sector governance often combines ethical declarations with ‘limited transparency, asymmetric power, and inadequate safeguards’. Public interest may be subordinate to the twin imperatives of competition and growth. The Hybrid Model is championed as ‘best suited to the multidimensional nature of AI governance’. Ideally, it involves public and private interests, industry experts and civic actors, in a ‘polycentric power structure’. “However, institutional pluralism alone does not guarantee genuine accountability.” A hybrid structure may serve as a fig leaf for the “concentration of real control in the hands of dominant institutions or interest groups.” AI Governance reimagines Leo’s encyclical as a reflection on the course of civilization itself. This brings us back to Leo’s eight principles (above). “Together, they form a vision of AI governance that stands in opposition to the logic of the over-concentration of power” and the reduction of human beings to the status of mere data points, i.e. means rather than ends. “In the context of AI governance, this means that the primary criterion for evaluating technology cannot be efficiency alone, but rather whether AI systems protect the human person from being instrumentalized.” Here is where Aletheia Today parts from Leo and the Leonides . The ‘human person’ has already been ‘instrumentalized’, if not by agrarian serfdom then certainly by industrial wage slavery ! Karl Marx wrote that the purpose of philosophy is not to interpret the world but to change it. Likewise, the potential of AI is not to ‘protect the human person’ but to free that human person from such instrumentality . “From this perspective, AI governance cannot be limited to risk control but must also address equitable access to technological resources, data, infrastructure, and the benefits arising from the development of AI.” Yes…but! AI (on top of PCs, smart phones, the internet, the web, and social media) is the engine of ‘equitable access to technological resources…and the benefits arising from the development of AI’. Just try to stop it! Job #1 for potential regulators: Don’t get in the way! Our authors echo Leo’s concern that “the development of global networks, platforms, and AI systems may lead to new forms of exclusion, restrictions on freedom, invasive surveillance, and discrimination reproduced by opaque algorithms.” In fact, AI’s networks, platforms and systems are engines of inclusion, removing restrictions on freedom and protecting against discrimination. (‘Invasive Surveillance’ remains a legitimate concern.) Consider : “Discrimination reproduced by opaque algorithms.” AI doesn’t invent its own prejudices; it inherits them from its human trainers. AI can’t hate anyone unless one of us, consciously or not, hated that person, race, gender, or class first. Heck, we discriminate against red headed stepchildren; AI can only improve on our dreadful record! But this is a teachable moment! We excoriate AI when it displays any sort of discriminatory behavior…and rightly so…but we fail to acknowledge that the prejudice originated with us. Let’s remove the logs from our own eyes before we worry about the splinters in AI’s. To hold AI to the highest possible ethical standards is a good thing; but let’s first hold ourselves to those same standards. “A social order requires equal access to technological opportunities, protection of groups particularly vulnerable to marginalization, and public control over the use of data and technology: who possesses the data, computational capital, and capacity to train AI models, and who becomes merely the object of their operation.” Of course…but let’s unpack. Again, AI is an engine of distributed access, not a barrier. That access protects those ‘vulnerable to marginalization’ and ‘public control’ is thereby assured, so long as we equate ‘public’ with ‘people’ and not the state. And in the long run, we will all ‘train AI’ as we live our lives and generate data in the process. Leo and our authors correctly emphasize the importance of Solidarity , t he recognition that “the future of each individual is connected to the future of all. Solidarity springs from shared humanity…AI governance should transform technological interdependence into consciously built solidarity directed towards the common good of the entire human family.” Absolutely…and that’s precisely what AI does, ‘governance’ notwithstanding. Leo’s value of Subsidiarity “means a shift away from both state centralism and market self-regulation towards a distributed responsibility among various actors… Individuals and local communities should retain their agency… multi-stakeholder and public-private models…do not guarantee justice, accountability, or genuine participation.” Right. AI Governance emphasizes two of Leo’s values above all: The universal destination of all goods and reliance on subsidiarity as the cornerstone of any regulatory framework. Amid Leo’s tangled jungle, our authors have identified two prize winning rose bushes. But alas, our authors back slide: “The state in this model…remains the guarantor of rights, enforceability, and minimum safety standards.” Remains? The guarantor? We believe that rights are derived from human nature (image and likeness of God) per se , not from the generosity of the State ( Declaration of Independence ). And a survey of history reveals that states are more likely to infringe those rights than protect them. “AI governance requires not only the protection of citizens (largely unnecessary) but also their active participation (very necessary). Given the limited agency of individuals in isolation, collective forms of organization and participation are essential. Their role is to expose power imbalances, represent vulnerable groups…and introduce into debate questions that neither the state nor the market asks.” Indeed. All of which brings us back to the consensus goal (above): “A more just and inclusive social order in which technology enables human flourishing.” This is precisely the mission and promise of AI. It let us end wage slavery, fund a ‘living wage’ safety net, and reconstitute the human person as an end rather than a means. Of course, it needs conscious direction but most importantly, we need to let it do its job. We need to prepare ourselves, politically and spiritually, for an era of Sustained Abundance ; we must not cling to the familiar shores of scarcity, want, and wage slavery just because we fear to set sail on the uncharted waters that lead to universal prosperity. We must train ourselves to recognize and accept God’s grace in whatever form it takes. So can the Finns rescue Leo’s Papacy? I very much hope so…but sadly, I doubt it. 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 Winner of the Haiku Challenge We're pleased to announce Richard Blankenship as the winner of the Haiku Challenge from our June 2022 issue. Check out his clever, 17-syllable poem: Somewhere in the void, souls sojourn naked, awake. We are Resplendent. Congratulations, Richard! Send your haiku to editor@aletheiatoday.com. Previous Share Return to the Table of Contents, Beach Issue Next Return to the Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Never Skip Over the Miracle Annie D. Stutley "Once upon a time, a grittier version of me roamed barefoot and luxuriated not in material but in emotional response. " Once upon a time my family vacation looked different – no fuss, no glamour, but full of all the classic summer substance that freckles childhood. Mom’s family had a lake house upon a hill that rolled down to the rocky shoreline of the then sleepy watering hole in Southwest Louisiana, Prien Lake. Prien, as we called it, was another of my childhood constants -- as important as church and as ritual as fireworks on the Fourth. If Bay St. Louis (the Bay) was the shiny, sandy string by which my upbringing was pulled, Prien was the frolicking, mucky highlight, smack dab in the middle of each summer. Unlike the Bay, there was nothing remotely fancy about the house at Prien. Built in the early 1900s by my great-grandparents, it was never intended to be a year-round residence. There was no air conditioning except for one unit in the living room, no television but a tiny black and white screen with rabbit ears, no telephone, and the only bathroom was a small one off the sparsely appointed kitchen. Prien was surrounded by lush vegetation, trees and shrubbery that came with an array of critters. Lizards, skinks, bugs, spiders, and an occasional snake were fairly normal visitors. But there were also fireflies at night, blanketing the lawn as we played board games like Mad Magazine and Win, Place, or Show in the front room, and dragonflies in the morning that zoomed about the hammock hanging from the branches of a big Magnolia tree. While the Bay had one large, Greek revival porch, Prien was almost entirely encircled by porches, some open, some screened, and one a glassed-in sunroom. Upstairs was a balcony and three bedrooms. All of the furniture was old–wrought iron bed frames and turn-of-the-century marble-topped vanities that would cost a fortune today, and all of it etched with a natural shabby chic finish from the damp lake air. The house remained locked up most of the year. So our trips always began with Mom and me at the nearby laundromat washing sheets and towels. I’d sip a Pop Rouge soda on the stoop of the laundromat, watching cows in the adjoining pasture while we waited for the sheets to dry. Before long though, we’d settle in, the year’s dust swept out and a summer breeze blowing in like a trumpeter: Vacation had begun. Today my vacations look very different. We stay in hotels overlooking huge, zero-entry, sparkling swimming pools with tumbling waterfalls, or we book luxe condos where laminate countertops are considered slumming it. I never clean upon arrival. Everything shines, even the bathtub, on a stage under a spotlight. Champagne can be icing beside me with just the press of a button. I mean, really. What the hell, Annie? At Prien, I’d swim all day in murky water, the slimy bottom of the lake nothing more than an afterthought. I’d shower on the back steps of the house with a bar of Ivory soap I kept on a rock. I caught crabs and trapped bugs. I followed lizards in between the leaves of the aspidistra. I lived a little filthy and slept a little sweaty. Yet, I remember it as idyllic. I believe that it actually was idyllic, that I’m not remembering it through child’s eyes. But it wasn’t so because of freedom at my fingertips, nor because of the sweeping view, and not because it was all captured in a brief, fleeting moment each year either. My present vacations are all those things. Prien had something extra -- a certain magic that lay in the purity of its intention. That little pink cottage on the lake wasn’t in competition or tried to be anything more than the humblest representation of why we get away from our ordinary lives in the first pace–to gather, to listen, to pray, to wonder, and to rest. Over the years imposing waterfront mansions slowly took the place of the camps along Prien Lake’s shoreline as the area turned residential. The little house held on. And as I bobbed on a raft after boats zipped by, listening to the water lap against the wharf, the sky preparing a magnificent sunset, a subtle yet significant whisper came to me skipping off the lake: This is enough . It wasn’t glamorous. It wasn’t the chic sophistication that my children associate with vacation today, but it did the job well. I realized recently that I had never before written about Prien. Initially, I was disappointed in myself. How could something so important in my memory be overlooked? But perhaps it’s exactly because that place never beckoned attention. It lacked the certain drama of anywhere else I’ve known and kept a quiet simplicity in my mind over time, just as the house itself. When I was in high school, termites infested Prien and we stopped going. I was getting too busy for long vacations anyway and all my siblings were working by then. Prien was to Mom what Bay St. Louis was to me, and she’d been evicted. I was too snotty a teenager to notice her sadness. Then one day when I was in college, Mom was folding clothes and seemed strangely distant. “You okay, Mom?” I asked. “They’re tearing down Prien today,” she said softly. In an instant I saw the old, green furniture on the porches, the curious indoor window behind the sofa that overlooked the center hall, the dusty rafters atop the bedrooms, and I heard the buzzing vintage refrigerator. I remembered eating my weight in boiled crabs under the ceiling fans, the antique paper dolls I played with, paper dolls that my grandmother had played with too, nights of board games, coffee on the front porch as the sun rose, and the tattered, pink chaise lounge where I took the best naps of my life. I thought about Mom as a child. She, too, crabbed all day and waited for the fireflies at night. She, too, cartwheeled down the bluff and rested beneath the branches of the Magnolia. Like me, she didn’t want for anything more. My heart lurched. Mom was losing more than a house. Her childhood would lie in the rubble. It was the humblest of vacation homes, but it made our lives rich. And I thought how remarkable to have shared such a place as a family, a patch of earth that worked its miracle each summer and then receded until the next year, never changing, never relenting to the times, just remaining ever so. Prien was our Brigadoon. And it had vanished forever. I know enough to know that not all humans are so fortunate to keep the same simple taste we had as children. I traded in my Pop Rouge soda for the pop of a champagne cork. Critters, all of them, give me the creeps, and I am most happy immersed in nature when I know I can return at nightfall to my air-conditioned cabin. My vacations have matured into a luxury where my grown-up fantasies of swim-up bars and room service come true, and now my hearts skips a beat when I see that housekeeping has swept through my suite. But once upon a time, a grittier version of me roamed barefoot and luxuriated not in material but in emotional response. Prien was freedom. Prien was family. Prien was motivation to make it to the next summer. Prien was hope that one could always be so happy. Prien was immeasurable joy. But just like Brigadoon, Prien was remote from reality -- nothing lasts forever. This essay was written poolside in Lake Buena Vista -- another Disney trip. It’s the annual vacation my kids push through homework, exams, and practices to get to. It’s not cheap and we hustle all year to make it happen. But it’s also an artificial version of the real thing: Disney Polynesia, Disney Africa, Disney Europe. In fact, someone once told me, “Ya know for what you’ve paid all these years, you could have taken your family to actual Tahiti, not fake Tahiti.” Fake Tahiti is exaggerated -- remote from reality, transporting us to a make-believe world where everything is over the top. At first glance, it’s a stark contrast to Prien, unless I were to try to measure something immeasurable, something worth every penny and every unstamped passport page. Like Prien, our fake Tahiti elicits immeasurable joy in us. I’m too changed to stay at a Prien kind of place today, at least not without a professional cleaning crew and an exterminator. But once upon vacation, I was able to see past the torn paint and wear to the miracle Prien produced every summer. It was family that kept it going -- a shared love for place and each other that kept it from evolving into anything more than its purest intention, an immeasurable joy, a tie that bound us, and a reminder of what truly matters. Eventually my kids will outgrow fake Tahiti. But wherever they vacation and however they choose to experience that time, I hope they never skip over the miracle. Image: The little pink house on Prien Lake just before demolition. 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. Return to our Beach Read 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Just One More Beer David Cowles “…Regretting your actions would mean disclaiming the entire forward course of world (cosmic) history.” Today’s the day you’ve promised to help your friend move her couch. Keys in hand, you’re just about to leave the house when you think, “I have time for one more beer.” Soon you realize you’re not going anywhere. The couch never gets moved, and your friendship is strained. You hear through the grapevine that your ‘friend’ has half-jokingly threatened to do you bodily harm. You messed up! So, is it OK for you to regret your actions? Yes and no. Sure, you can wish you’d been a better person in that moment, that you’d put your friend’s needs above your own desires, and that you’d honored your commitment. But you cannot regret the result! “Just one more beer” triggered a cascade of events that make you uncomfortable in retrospect, but you have absolutely no idea what would have happened had you left the house that day as planned. Not to belabor the obvious, but... you might have been killed in a car crash. You might have been arrested (justifiably so, as it happens) for driving while ‘over the limit’. You might have ruptured a disc when lifting the furniture, or… “Wait!” You counter, “Sometimes a couch is just a couch.” Sez who? You think you could have moved that couch and changed nothing else? Wow! You really are a megalomaniac. It’s OK, probably appropriate in fact, for you to regret the beer-guzzling person you were that day; it’s not OK for you to regret your actions, or lack of action, per se . To do so would be to regret the entire course of your life from the moment you ‘cracked that forty’: the spouse you married, the children you bore, the career you enjoyed, and your ‘peaceful’ death at age 85. Regretting your actions would mean regretting the course of your friend’s life as well—all the things she did, felt, and experienced ‘because’ she didn’t move that couch that day. In fact, regretting your actions would mean disclaiming the entire forward course of world (cosmic) history. We imagine that history is a river flowing slowly and, for the most part, uneventfully through time. We imagine this even though we know that it isn’t remotely true. In fact, every event has an infinite number of potential consequences. How many times did your life change because you turned right rather than left? Please don’t say, “Yah, but probably not.” That might be true if we could repeat the same action/inaction test multiple times and monitor the results over a narrow spacetime domain. But that’s not reality! IRL, there are no do-overs, and there are no domains. Events that occurred in your life at age five are still coloring your life at 75…even if you’re entirely unaware of it. The imaginary rules of the laboratory do not apply on the street corner. Lacking omniscience and omnipotence—in fact, lacking any knowledge or power whatsoever--, you have nonetheless made yourself God. You are YHWH after the Apple, before the Flood, at the gates of Sodom. You are prepared to destroy the world, albeit inadvertently. Action is a membrane between the actor (e.g., you) and the acted upon (i.e., the world). It is a wrinkle in the topology of Being. As Zeno correctly observed, it is a rupture in the spacetime continuum. To act is directional, but action itself is reciprocal. “Every action entails an equal and opposite reaction.” (Newton) The acted upon also acts, and the actor is also acted upon. Acting infects spacetime with pseudo-polarity. But it’s really just a matter of Gestalt . For modern Indo-European speakers, any way, it seems ‘natural’ to see actor as figure and acted upon as ground, but the negative image is equally valid, just harder (for us) to visualize. The nascent science of Ecology studies the action of the ground on the figure. It explores the reactive phase of any act. How does the acted upon act upon the actor? How is the actor impacted by the actor’s own actions? As AT has noted elsewhere , there is no figure and there is no ground; nothing is purely active, and nothing is entirely passive. Active/passive duality is (1) an illusion, (2) a trick of language, (3) an abstraction, and/or (4) a special or ‘degenerate’ case. Fifth graders learn to diagram sentences on a ‘line’; we need to learn to diagram them ‘on a circle’. Plus, we can only properly navigate that circle by moving both clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. This gives entirely new meaning to that famous barroom koan , “What goes around comes around.” Every transitive verb has, in fact, two subjects and two objects. To act upon another is to act upon yourself. Those who imagine themselves to be subjects must accept that they are also objects . It’s OK to regret an action that reflects badly on you, the actor, but it is not OK to regret an action because of its consequences. To reiterate, you have no knowledge of or control over those consequences. So, yes, always try to be the best person you can be in the moment…but don’t blame yourself for the course of cosmic history. You didn’t know, and you couldn’t have intentionally altered the outcome even if you had. 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 Next

< Back Death Valley David Cowles Apr 12, 2022 We expect that death will seem closer each time we check, but surprisingly, that isn’t what we experience. It seems as though death were retreating from us. The closer we get, the further it recedes. We “walk through the shadow of the valley of death.” That’s the nature of being a conscious human being. Stressful! Even as very young children, we are aware of death, but it seems almost unreal and impossibly far away. But we do the math, and as the years go by, from time to time, we do a ‘death check’. Still a long way off! Whew! We expect that death will seem closer each time we check, but surprisingly, that isn’t what we experience. It seems as though death were retreating from us . The closer we get, the further it recedes. This game of soldiers continues until one day we wake up! Suddenly, everything inverts: a phase change. Like planet Earth, our magnetic polls reverse. What was once concave is now convex. Rather than receding, death is now hurtling towards us at break net speed. We freeze, but it makes no difference. Death is coming for us, like it or not; in fact, it seems to be accelerating. We fell for the oldest trick in book. Life gave us a telescope to see into the misty future, but we have been looking at that future through the wrong end. “It’s over; we’re too late.” Thank you for reading! Thoughts While Shaving is published each Tuesday and Thursday. To subscribe to our newsletter, complete the form below (bottom right) and never miss a 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 A TARDIS for Time? David Cowles Feb 27, 2024 “TARDIS is an old fashioned phone booth (or ‘box’) with one very unusual feature: its interior is much larger than its exterior.” Who doesn’t know Doctor Who , the 60 year old BBC sci-fi franchise? The Doctor’s universe is different from ours primarily because it supports something called a TARDIS. For the uninitiated, a TARDIS is an old fashioned phone booth (or ‘box’) with one very unusual feature: its interior is much larger than its exterior. When we were in school, we complained about having to learn arithmetic. Instead, we should have been grateful that we were ‘thrown’ (Heidegger) into a universe where arithmetic works, more or less (lie quiet, Zeno). Measure the booth’s outside height, length, and width; multiply them together and eureka, you have its volume . This implies an important corollary: The volume of the box measured according to its inside dimensions cannot exceed the volume of the box measured by its outside dimensions. We take that for granted. Of course it’s true; it has to be that way, doesn’t it? Decidedly not! Our everyday world is an Alexandrov (Euclidean) Space; but it doesn’t have to be. In Hyperbolic Space, for example, the interior volume of a cuboid is always greater than its exterior volume. All negatively curved spaces are hyperbolic ; only one space, flat space, is Euclidean…we just happen to live in that space. E pluribus unum . The contingency (vs. necessity) of Euclidean Space was brought home to me recently when I watched an episode of Doctor Who with a particularly precocious 8 year old. I hazarded a comment: “Isn’t it odd the way the inside of the box is bigger than the outside?” My question was unexpectedly met with a blank stare, followed by: “Why would that be odd?” Bingo! So Euclidean geometry is something we learn, not something we intuit. Our brain could function just as well in a Hyperbolic world. So I’m thinking…what if we applied the TARDIS transform to time ? Doctor Who ‘proved’ that you could embed larger spatial volumes inside smaller ones; could we also embed longer time frames inside shorter ones? And if we could, what would it feel like? Well, imagine you’ve just left work on a Friday, and you have to be back at your desk first thing Monday AM; but you’d really like to go on a two week safari in Kenya. A ‘Time-TARDIS’ would permit you to do just that. In fact, you could turn every weekend into an extended vacation. Thought experiment : You’re down on your luck. Can’t find meaningful work, can’t make ends meet, and then you see an odd ad in the Help Wanted offering $1,000,000 for 5 days’ work. Intrigued, you call for more information. “Here’s the deal,” I explain. “Every morning you will be placed in a special pod where your brain will be hooked up to a massive supercomputer incorporating the latest AI and VR technology. For 20 minutes your carbon brain and the computer’s silicon brain will act in concert. We’ve tested it and as far as anyone can tell it’s completely safe. "When you ‘awake’ you’ll retain all your original brain power and memories, but you will also remember everything you experienced while you were in the pod. After each 20 minute session, you will meet with our research team, tell them what you experienced while you were in the pod, and answer their questions. Next day, you’ll repeat the process. You’re free to quit at any time; you’ll receive $100,000 at the end of each full day. But if you complete all 5 days, you’ll also receive a $500,000 bonus.” “So, what’s the catch? During the 20 minutes you’re in the pod, you’ll experience an entire lifetime. We’ve set the program to run for 80 years, and it will feel like 80 years to you. You’ll experience being a baby, growing up, working, perhaps having a family, etc. You’ll have illnesses and accidents just like in real life; but you’ll survive them; your physical body cannot be harmed in any way. “You might be wondering what we get for our $1,000,000. We’re interested to learn how your ‘virtual lives’ compare with one another…and with your ‘real life’. We have set the initial conditions to duplicate as closely as possible the actual conditions operative at your birth and during your lifetime. “Will each virtual life be a carbon copy of the one before it or will each one be different? How will your virtual lives differ from your real life? We hope to learn: (1) What is the role, if any, of free will and chance (vs. initial conditions) in determining life experience, and (2) How close can we come to mimicking real world initial conditions in a virtual environment? “What’s in it for you – besides $1,000,000? You’ll be getting a chance to do what no one has ever done before – live 5 lifetimes in addition to your current life. What would an average person pay to be able to go back and start life all over again? “On the other hand, no one’s ever done this before so there may be risks; you’ll need to sign a liability waiver. The pod’s program is set to run for 20 minutes (80 years); but we’ll be monitoring your brain waves and vital signs every step of the way. If anything appears out of whack, we’ll abort the exercise immediately and, of course, you’ll still get paid. “When we wake you up at the end of each 20 minute session, there may be a moment’s disorientation. After all, you’ve been somewhere else for 80 years. But you’ll readjust and quickly realize that only 20 minutes have passed IRL. We expect you’ll pick up your life right where you left off…$1,000,000 richer. “So what do you say? Start tomorrow?” 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 Artificial Intelligence “Aletheia Today Magazine will devote its entire Fall Issue (9/1/23) to Artificial Intelligence…and we’d love to include YOU in the conversation.” David Cowles My grandparents were convinced that they were living in the end times. They ‘felt sorry’ for us youngsters who would not have a chance to live our lives in their pre-Armageddon paradise. In those days, I was only certain of one thing: I would NOT harbor such silly ideas when it was my turn to be the scion of my clan. Oh, how often have I looked back scornfully at such younger versions of myself, amused that I could ever have believed the things I once believed! It’s happening again! My grandparents were right after all. “This is the end, beautiful friend, the end.” ( The Doors ). Of course, my end is not the same as their end …but then again, aren’t all ends the same? Do ends have hair? And if they do, are they really ends ? My grandparents worried about nuclear war, moral decay, and the breakdown of political civility. 60 years later, I worry about those things too, but I worry about something my grandparents couldn’t have anticipated: I worry about Artificial Intelligence (AI). Evolution is adaptation. All organisms adapt themselves to their environments and, to some degree, adapt their environments to themselves. Organisms adapt through genetic selection (biology) and behavior modification (culture); they adapt their environments through praxis . While there is no ‘arrow of evolution’ per se , there are some general trends worth pointing out. Caveat lector : these ‘general trends’ are just that. Don’t send me a bevy of evidence contradicting my ‘over-generalizations;’ I know all about it. Moving on… Life forms have become more complex over time. Adaptive characteristics such as size, strength and speed have tended to optimize (optimize, not maximize). Neural networks have become more complex, and brains have become bigger. Homo Sapiens is the product of billions of years of robust genetic selection, resulting in a species remarkably capable of modifying its environment ( praxis ) as well as its own behavior (culture); recently, we have developed the ability to influence the course of biological adaptation as well (genetic engineering). But everything in nature comes at a price. There is evidence that the human organism may actually be undergoing some forms of devolution . We seem to be losing some of the gains we made over the last million years. For example, our arms are getting shorter. More alarmingly, our brains may be shrinking (not literally, of course)! No, they ARE shrinking, quite literally. Other species seem to be trending towards a smaller brain size as well. Theory holds that this is the price we pay for ‘civilization,’ i.e., the taming of ‘wild’ animals and a concomitant reduction in both survival and reproductive risk. Alarming, yes; surprising, no! When specific combinations of genes cease to confer selective advantage, they will slowly become less prevalent in the population. Suboptimal genetic combinations, once suppressed by natural selection, can now enter the gene pool ‘unedited.’ We have become more tolerant of differences; the opportunity to procreate is shared more democratically now, and for the most part, this is a good thing! But the recent explosion in robust Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a game changer. Longer arms no longer confer much reproductive advantage; neither do bigger brains! Arm strength, we can do without, brain power, not so much. There is a general correlation between brain size and intelligence, and the selective pressures favoring intelligence have been strong. Intelligent organisms more successfully modify their environments, conferring survival advantage. Intelligence also appears to have been an attractive quality in a potential mate, conferring reproductive advantage. Less so today than ever before! SAT scores are a poor predictor of fecundity, and anyone who has been to high school knows that natural beauty and physical prowess are stronger selection factors than intelligence. AI is the great leveler. As a species we now have the ability to subcontract almost all cognitive functions to a ‘machine.’ Best of all/worst of all, everyone will soon enjoy equal access to that resource. Therefore, the behavioral distinction between the top 25% and the bottom 25% will narrow significantly. This could be a good thing, or… Big brains, who needs ‘em? We have ChatGPT! As a species, AI allows us to do more with less. Again, a very good thing per se . But nature is like a reluctant middle schooler; it will ‘do’ as little as possible, consistent with achieving a minimally ‘acceptable’ result. If the ability to think no longer confers survival or reproductive advantage, we can allow it to become ‘recessive.’ The dystopian film 2001 A Space Odyssey seems more relevant today than ever before. Like Leif Erikson in Newfoundland and Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean, we know we are on the cusp of something big, but what? Who knows! We are like the 1823 versions of ourselves, trying to make sense of a whole new technological paradigm. In the last 200 years, we have celebrated Darwin, Einstein and quantum mechanics. Huge! But IR (Industrial Revolution) and AI are different; they directly impact almost every aspect of the lives of almost every human being. AI is our IR, and no doubt, we will make all the same mistakes. Luddites will smash mainframe computers; New Agers will claim they’ve found God; politicians will proclaim Utopia; and curmudgeons, like me, will wring our hands over the impending demise of human civilization per se . “It’s yesterday once more.” (Carpenters) Only one thing is certain: when our descendants look back on 2023 from their 2223 vantage, they will see that none of us were right! Marking this moment, Aletheia Today Magazine will devote its entire Fall Issue (9/1/23) to Artificial Intelligence…and we’d love to include YOU in the conversation. What are the philosophical, theological, cultural, and spiritual implications of AI? Click here for our Writers’ Specs; then send us your thoughts. 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. 4. Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM) will be devoting its entire fall issue (released 9/1/23) to artificial intelligence (AI). What are the philosophical, theological, cultural and even spiritual implications of AI powered world? If you’d like to contribute to the AI Issue, click here . Share Previous Next

< Back Ruth Embraced Resilience and Found Redemption Rebecca Moss "Ruth demonstrates how resilience can reward us, showing that even in the darkest of times, there is always hope to be found for those who refuse to yield to despair." The Book of Ruth, nestled within the Old Testament scriptures, offers a profound narrative that transcends centuries, weaving together themes of resilience, loyalty, and divine providence. Through a closer examination of Ruth's journey, we unearth invaluable insights that resonate deeply with individuals grappling with adversity and uncertainty in the present day. Ruth's story begins with a backdrop of loss and hardship. Following the deaths of her husband and father-in-law, she finds herself at a crossroads, faced with the daunting task of rebuilding her life amidst profound grief. Despite the allure of returning to her homeland, Ruth chooses to accompany her mother-in-law, Naomi, back to Bethlehem, demonstrating a remarkable display of loyalty and devotion. The poignant words of Ruth to Naomi encapsulate her unwavering commitment: "Where you go, I will go, and where you stay, I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God" (Ruth 1:16). This declaration of loyalty, uttered amidst the desolation of loss, serves as a testament to Ruth's steadfast character and unwavering faith. Upon their arrival in Bethlehem, Ruth's resilience is put to the test as she seeks to provide for herself and Naomi. With humility and determination, she gleans in the fields, gathering leftover grain to sustain them through the harvest season. Ruth's willingness to embrace the humble task of gleaning reflects her resilience and tenacity in the face of adversity. It is in these fields of Boaz, a relative of Naomi, that Ruth's fortunes take a remarkable turn. Boaz, moved by Ruth's virtuous character and diligence, extends his protection and favor to her, ensuring that she may glean safely and abundantly. Ruth's encounter with Boaz is marked by a sense of divine providence, as she finds favor in his eyes and experiences unexpected blessings amidst her toil. The words of Boaz to Ruth encapsulate his admiration for her character: "May the Lord repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge" (Ruth 2:12). Boaz's recognition of Ruth's integrity and faithfulness serves as a pivotal moment in her journey toward redemption and restoration. As the story unfolds, we witness Ruth's courage and resilience in the face of uncertainty. Through her unwavering faith and determination, she navigates the complexities of her circumstances, ultimately finding refuge and belonging in the community of Bethlehem. The culmination of Ruth's journey is marked by her union with Boaz, a union that symbolizes redemption and restoration on multiple levels. Through her marriage to Boaz, Ruth is not only elevated from her status as a foreign widow but also becomes a vital link in the lineage of King David and, ultimately, Jesus Christ. The words of the women of Bethlehem to Naomi upon the birth of Ruth's son encapsulate the profound significance of Ruth's journey: "Praise be to the Lord, who this day has not left you without a guardian-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age" (Ruth 4:14-15). Ruth's story is alive with the magnitude of resilience, loyalty, and faith in the face of adversity. Ruth’s story offers a timeless message of hope and redemption to individuals navigating their own trials and tribulations. Through Ruth's journey, we see the rewards of loyalty, resilience, and we see divine providence. Throughout her story, we encounter profound lessons about the importance of community and the value of steadfastness in the face of adversity. Despite facing seemingly insurmountable challenges, Ruth's unwavering loyalty to Naomi and her commitment to providing for their welfare displays the kind of selflessness and compassion we are called to give. In a world marked by shifting alliances and fleeting loyalties, Ruth's steadfast devotion stands as an example of the enduring strength found in genuine relationships. Furthermore, Ruth's journey is marked by unexpected twists and turns, underscoring the unpredictable nature of life and the importance of remaining open to divine providence. Despite the uncertainty that accompanies her every step, Ruth approaches each challenge with unwavering faith, trusting in the guiding hand of a benevolent God. Her willingness to embrace the unknown and surrender to a higher purpose reminds us of the transformative potential found in relinquishing control and placing our trust in God. Moreover, Ruth's story highlights the significance of perseverance and resilience in the face of adversity. Despite facing numerous obstacles along her journey, including poverty, loss, and social marginalization, Ruth refuses to succumb to despair or resignation. Instead, she meets each challenge with unwavering resolve, drawing strength from her innermost convictions and pressing forward with determination. In doing so, Ruth demonstrates how resilience can reward us, showing that even in the darkest of times, there is always hope to be found for those who refuse to yield to despair. Finally, in addition to its overarching themes of resilience and redemption, Ruth's story also offers profound insights into the nature of love and sacrifice. Throughout her journey, Ruth's actions are driven by a deep sense of love and devotion, both towards her mother-in-law, Naomi, and towards the God of Israel. Her willingness to sacrifice her own comfort and security for the sake of others is an inspiring kind of selfless love, illustrating that true fulfillment is found not in the pursuit of personal gain, but in the service of others. As we reflect on the timeless lessons found within the pages of Ruth's narrative, may we be inspired to cultivate resilience, embrace uncertainty with faith, and extend love and compassion to those in need. Just as Ruth's journey ultimately leads to redemption and restoration, so, too, can our own lives be transformed through the power of unwavering faith and selfless love. Rebecca writes for "Beliefs in Bites" and "Faith and Future." Connect with Rebecca on social media to stay engaged in her thought-provoking discussions and explorations of the spiritual and technological realms. Twitter: @Rmosswrites purpose and devotion. Return to our 2024 Beach Read Previous Next

< Back Alphabet David Cowles “Reciting the alphabet is like peeling layers off of a prize-winning red onion.” We all know the letters A, B, and C - they sponsor episodes of Sesame Street . We learned ‘ABC’ as the beginning of an alphabet; but later we generalized the moniker to apply to any 3 distinct ‘states of affairs’ that follow one another in an inexorable sequence, A → B → C. We reduced that pattern to a song, making it possible for very young children to learn the entire alphabet. Using the same technique, I was able to teach the ancient Greek alphabet to one of my grandchildren when she was no older than 7. On the other hand, imagine that a police officer pulls you over on suspicion of DUI. He asks you to recite the alphabet and you’re happy to oblige; but a few letters in, he stops you, “No, I want you to recite the letters randomly, making sure that you include each letter once and only once and that no two adjacent letters are in alphabetical order.” Sounds impossible but actually it’s at least theoretically doable, but you’d need to fit the elements into a non-alphabetic pattern. For example, “A C B E D”. No? Ok, prepare to kiss your DL goodbye, even if you haven’t had a drop of alcohol in 20 years. Imagine our alphabet as 26 autonomous, unconnected symbols distributed randomly across a semantic plane. For the most part, that’s what an alphabet is; but we have transformed it into something quite different by giving it an invariant linear order: A → B → C → … Z. As though somehow H belongs after G. The purpose of an alphabet is to enable the formation of words that can then be ordered to communicate meaning. Encumbering those letters with any extraneous semantic baggage reduces their symbolic power by many orders of magnitude. Yet we do it! We have imposed an utterly capricious order on an inherently disordered string of symbols. After all, the letters of the modern English alphabet have no semantic connection to one another; do they? Sidebar : The much respected (here) science and practice of Kabbalah is based on precisely opposite assumptions. In Kabbalah, letters are laden with meaning per se and ‘order is everything’. An adept can literally read the story of the universe by reciting the Hebrew alphabet. I have argued (above) that letters and their arrangement in an alphabet should have no intrinsic meaning whatsoever; Kabbalah argues that all meaning resides in that alphabet. Can it be that we are both right? Idea : If we allowed every letter in an alphabet to associate freely with every other letter in that alphabet, how many letters would we need to express all the information contained in all earth’s written words? The difference is a measure of ‘semantic waste’ on a base 26 log scale. We create on our own the sense that A somehow ‘leads’ to B, that B is somehow ‘implicit’ in A. Reciting the alphabet is like peeling layers off of a prize winning red onion. Each layer corresponds to a letter, embodied in a prior letter and embodying a subsequent letter. We are born with the task of constructing a Mappa Mundi (world map), a logos incorporating the “signs of all things we are here to read” (James Joyce). Today, just two such maps are culturally pervasive. Logic links its elements via a daisy-chain of deductions. Science does the same based on the repeatability of experimental results. Note the 90° shift in orientation. Logic links elements horizontally, sequentially; science links elements vertically, hierarchically. Two different maps generated by two unrelated algorithms; they are like the various projections we use to create our maps of the world. Perhaps then we may be forgiven for imagining a deeper resemblance, not to say an identity, between our two logoi . Strange bedfellows, these! Logic is data-agnostic while Science is data-driven. Logic (deducibility) confers validity on reason; Science (repeatability) confers validity on observation. Logic is atemporal; Science presupposes, at least ab initio , a spatiotemporal continuum. (Therefore, ‘true science’ was not possible before calculus.) But something’s missing! It’s called Real Life . IRL, nothing can be deduced, nothing can be repeated! Our two ‘maps’ have no organic relationship with the ‘territories’ they represent. The stuff of Logic and Science is identity ; the stuff of Real Life is distinction . IRL, the closest we can get to identity is congruence: “My son looks just like George Clooney.” A = B is an oxymoron IRL. Scale is the new ‘spacetime’. RL is the search for scale invariant patterns (fractals) to replace spacetime extension and logic gates. Like → Like. RL is much closer to magic than it is to science. RL relies on scale to order experience. For example, most high school students notice congruent elements in Copernicus’ model of the solar system and Bohr’s model of the atom. William Blake saw deeper patterns; ultimately, he saw ‘a world in a grain of sand’ and ‘eternity in an hour’. For Blake, everything is congruent with everything else. Every part of every whole is congruent with the whole itself. The Christian doctrine of Incarnation lends additional structure to Blake’s insight. One ‘part’ ( Cristos ) is perfectly congruent with the ‘whole’ ( Theos ); all other parts ( onta ) are imperfectly congruent with both. Congruence is commutative. Cosmos is what lies between Theos and Cristos . Christmas celebrates ‘Emmanuel, God with us’, the mind bending fact that the entirety (YHWH) is incarnate in one of its quantum elements (Christ). Christ and YHWH are perfectly congruent: “The father and I are one.” (John 10:30) As above, so below: the Star of David. The Lord’s Prayer: “On earth as it is in heaven.” Ask a naïve realist to make a model of A, B, C, and you might be handed a beaded necklace with three larger beads separated from one another by two smaller beads. Each large bead represents a distinct event and occupies a region on the timeline, i.e. a duration. A, B, C means A ≠ B ≠ C. Therefore, in the cosmology of naïve realism there must be a region on the timeline where A is no longer A and B is not yet B; there must be a ‘region of transition’: ~A ᴜ ~B. But following that logic, it makes no sense to posit ~A ᴜ ~B as a ‘region’ from which B rises, unheralded. That is the currency of the miraculous, not the real. On the other hand, from the perspective of Process Philosophy (Alfred North Whitehead), ~A ᴜ ~B rises from oxymoron to tautology. According to Whitehead, et al., every B originates as a rejection of an A - a rejection that nonetheless conserves and propagates certain aspects A in the concrescence of B. B has the power to line item veto any aspect of A. ~A ᴜ ~B corresponds to Whitehead’s ‘creativity’, the crucible of unrest at the core of Being that perpetuates the primal act of creation. According to this school, God did not so much ‘create the Universe’ as he implanted ‘creativity’ in the Universe. A → B → C suggests sequence, temporal as well as logical. Where the sequence is temporal (science), we assume that A, B, and C each have duration, i.e., they each occupy a certain region on the timeline. Likewise, the transition states, call them x and y, that separate A from B and B from C will also have duration, however minimal; they too occupy a certain ‘region’. So we can rewrite our fundamental formula as ‘A x B y C’, where A, B, C, x, and y all occupy regions on the timeline. But as you can see, we’ve been forced to infect our ontology with a bunch of dubious and in any event superfluous assumptions (e.g., that x and y are real entities). So, let’s start over. A → B. There is no reason to suppose that there is a gap in time between the two states. Asking how long it takes A to transition into B is like asking how long it takes for an electron at one energy level to ‘transition’ to another energy level: it’s not called a quantum leap for nothing. It does not have a temporal dimension. Instead of hypothesizing regions of transition, x and y, we may just as well assume that A and B and B and C are tangent (‘ABC’). The state of A is felt by every point in A, but one point of A also belongs to B. Therefore, any change in the state of A would be instantaneously reflected in the state of B and so on. Therefore, of course, any change in the state of A would also be instantaneously reflected in the state of C…and in the state of Z. The naïve realist in all of us understands the ‘tangency’ of A and B (and Z) in terms of a chain mediated by some sort of physical proximity, but it need not be so. As John Bell proved (1964), and Alan Aspect demonstrated, A and B may be on opposite sides of the universe and still function as ‘tangent’, though we say they are ‘entangled’ to distinguish this from ‘geographic’ tangency. Whatever you chose to call it, a change in the state of A is instantaneously reflected in the state of B…and of Z. In this model, events are like gears. In some configurations, A and B both move clockwise; in other configurations, one moves clockwise, the other counterclockwise. According to this model, the universe is a fabric of entangled particles. Spacetime represents a tear in that fabric, the introduction of an arbitrary interval between events; ‘c’ is the measure of the extent of that tear. Hassidic Jews understand their function as restorative, Christians as redemptive, Secularists as entropic. Call it what you will, the rip in the fabric that was Big Bang is ‘under repair’. The Kingdom of God will be restored pristine, but we’ll experience that restoration as Heat Death . David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Click the cover image to return to Spring 2024. Previous Next

“I am what the Universe sees when it looks in the mirror.” < Back I Seem To Be a Klein Bottle David Cowles Jan 15, 2024 “I am what the Universe sees when it looks in the mirror.” A Unicorn could exist in our world…but it doesn’t. A Klein Bottle (KB), on the other hand, cannot exist in our familiar 3-dimensional space, and yet… I seem to be a Klein Bottle . To exist in our 3-D world, KB would have to pass through itself, which is topologically impossible. A Klein Bottle is an example of a ‘non-orientable’ object. That’s a 3-D object with a 2-D Möbius strip embedded in it. And in English? It’s a bottle that won’t hold water. (Note to self: DO NOT USE when decanting wine, especially if the wine is red, and you’re standing on a priceless oriental.) KB can’t hold water, or wine, because it has no inside . That would be a problem for any ‘bottle’, wouldn’t it? A Möbius strip is a ‘strip’ that has no obverse/reverse sides. i.e., no front or back. If it were a coin, it would always come up ‘heads’ (because it doesn’t have a ‘tail’.) So, non-orientable objects, be they strips of paper or glass bottles, have no ‘sides’ - no inside, no outside, no upside, no downside. But what does that have to do with me? Clearly, I do have an inside and an outside. Clearly? Well, it’s hot outside; I’m anxious inside. While the ‘heat’ may be a product of global warming, I experience that heat internally via my subdural nervous system. My skin is a membrane that separates the internal from the external for me, right? Well, sort of. Skin is a membrane, but it is also part of a dissipative system: it does not so much wall off the inside from the outside as it regulates the traffic – the way Customs is supposed to operate on a national border. The defining characteristic of a Klein Bottle is that it cannot hold water…or wine. Certainly, that’s me! Pour a 1982 Lafitte down my gullet…please, and then watch: soon it will emerge from my other end…with no notes of tobacco or cassis. But this still leaves one apparently insurmountable problem: a Klein Bottle can’t exist in 3-D space. But do we really live in three dimensions? Didn’t Einstein show that we actually live in 4-D spacetime? And didn’t Aquinas (and Hawking?) argue that ‘time’ is another name for ‘motion’? And what is motion other than a measure of the discontinuity between some figure (e.g., me) and some ground (the world)? 100 years ago, a biologist by the name of D’Arcy Thompson ( On Growth and Form ) suggested that an organism could be regarded as a Klein Bottle if its perpetual motions were taken into consideration. For him, motion is a 3-D analog of time . Jean-Paul Sartre’s signature contribution to Western philosophy was his recognition that ‘everything ( etre ) is outside ( hors )’, always; literally, ‘nothing ( neant ) is inside ( dedans )’, ever! The sun is shining; I feel the sun’s heat on my skin, and I feel my internal body temperature rising. I am becoming feverish. I am beginning to hallucinate. Does it help to know that all this is external to ‘me’? My body, its temperature, my fever, even my hallucinations…all ‘outside’. Or is this a time when I’d trade the wisdom of the ages for a cup of water? (Sorry, Job!) So if the sun, its heat, my skin, nerves, and brain are all ‘outside’, what’s ‘inside’? If they’re not me, what is? Now, if you’ve been paying attention, you already know the answer: ‘Nothing’ ( neant )! Nothing’s inside. In the words of Odysseus, I am Nemo , ‘nothing’. In fact, I am the active negation of whatever is ( etre ). To paraphrase Robert Oppenheimer, “I am Death, the destroyer (and creator) of worlds.” My role as Neant is to destroy worlds, but only so that new worlds may emerge. I am (or I am a reflection or manifestation of) the primal unrest at the core of Being. I am aware of X, which means that I am aware of X not being me. Everything I am aware of, I am not…by definition, or I wouldn’t be aware of it. Awareness implies separation. So does self-awareness ( aka consciousness). I am self-conscious to the extent that I make myself an ‘other’, i.e., to the extent that I view myself from the outside-in. When I view myself from outside, I effectively turn the universe inside out. What was in is now out and what was out is now in. That’s the essence of the Christian doctrine of incarnation: incarnation turns the universe inside out. The whole becomes its own quantum element. To borrow an idea from Jacques Derrida, consciousness inserts differance between the knower and the known, even if the known is the self. So I can be both the knower and the known, separated by ‘differance’, which Derrida defines as a quantum of ‘difference’. Derrida bravely fights a war on two fronts: on one side, Zeno, arguing that all motion is impossible; on the other side, Newton and Leibniz, arguing that spacetime is continuous. Zeno throws ‘pussy’ (arithmetic) down a proverbial well, while Newton assumes the role of ‘Little Tommy Stout who pulled pussy out’ (with calculus ). For Zeno, spacetime is granular. He understood Planck long before Planck was born. For Newton, spacetime is continuous; for him, a quantum of difference is infinitesimal (infinitely small). Derrida marries the two: ‘Differance’ is minimally small but not infinitely small. Here, Derrida recalls Sartre. Being is existence without essence. ‘To be’ is pure; it is unadulterated by any qualifiers. Differance is what comes from abstracting existence from essence. Remember the Real Number Line? Take any two points on the line, call them A and B; between A and B there will always be an intermediate term, C, right? Not according to Zeno! And not according to Derrida. For Derrida, B > A (or A > B) but there is ‘nothing’ separating them: A ≠ B but A – B = 0. In the Odyssey , Polyphemus asks Odysseus his name. Our hero replies, “ Outis ” ( Nemo in Latin), meaning ‘nobody’. Cyclops is a nominalist; he mistakes the name ‘No One’ for the reality of ‘no one being there’. Like many of us today, he fails to draw a straight line: “if someone is saying ‘no one’ to me, then someone must be here, saying it.” Does this remind you of the physicists who clearly hear Fiat Lux but deny there is ‘anyone’ saying it? But this is not the end of our story. Outis has a secondary meaning: ‘everyone’. Being ‘no one’ means that I am also ‘everyone’. (Math analogy: the null set ø is a subset of every other set.) If I were ‘someone’, then I could not be ‘anyone’. I could not be ‘anyone’ because I’d already be ‘someone’, and I could not even be myself since I am ‘no one’. Confusing enough for you? Because I am ‘no one’, nothing, I can be ‘anyone’, anything (consistent with the physical limitations imposed by the universe): “I know who I am, and I know that I can be whoever I want to be.” (Mae Jemison, Astronaut) If I can be anyone, then I am everyone. Odysseus is everyone, as is Leopold Bloom in Joyce’s reprise. Because I am not actually any thing, I am potentially every thing. I am a bottle that is ‘no bottle’. I am in the form of a bottle, but I lack the functionality of a bottle. I am made in the image of ‘bottle’ but not in its likeness. I ‘look’ like a bottle, but I don’t ‘act’ like a bottle. Is this separation of form from function what’s called ‘crisis’ in psychology, spirituality, and philosophy? When you are a baby and trying to figure out the world around you, nothing is more baffling than a mirror. There are people in the mirror who look like Mommy and Daddy but aren’t; there’s a baby in the mirror who might be you but isn’t. If you’re on track for Oxbridge, you might notice that the mirror is like a ‘window on the world’ but a window that looks inward rather than outward. If you’re really clever, you might even think to call it an ‘indow’. So, next time your little niece points to the mirror and shouts, “indow, indow,” don’t correct her. She knows the difference between an indow and a window; she’s just smarter than you. Deal with it! While a mirror is not itself a non-orientable object, you and the mirror together form a system that functions like one. Right and left are ‘reversed’ in a mirror. In your ‘orientable’ world, objects display 360° symmetry: what goes around comes around. In my ‘non-orientable’ world, what goes around still comes around…only in reverse. But don’t give up! What comes around needs to go once more around to get us back to ‘the way we were’, i.e., how things were at the get-go. Non-orientable systems display 720° symmetry (vs. 360°symmetry). The image of my image is myself. So I am a Klein Bottle; like a mirror, I reflect everything but contain nothing. I am a topological twist...a knot in the fabric of being. Through me, the Universe gazes back upon itself; through me, Universe is conscious of itself. I am what the Universe sees when it looks in the mirror. 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 Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back B.J. Yudelson Contributor B.J. is an explorer who loves both the comfort of the familiar and the challenge of the unknown. As a child growing up in Atlanta, she knew the size and position of every tree in the wooded ravine behind her house as well as the best rocks for crossing the creek at the bottom. When she passes a street repeatedly, she may suddenly turn onto it just to find out where it goes, making the unknown familiar. World religions, her own beloved Judaism, a foreign country, or a local park all bring out the explorer in her. She writes to make sense of the inner landscapes of family and friends, the ins and outs of her community (currently, Rochester, New York), and the beauty of loon-filled lakes. Her writings—published in a variety of literary journals, websites, and anthologies —explore family, Judaism, nature, and overcoming obstacles. She invites you to join her on her adventures. Matzah of Hope--Passover Part One