< Back How to Build a Warp Drive “Buckle up! While your friends are lining up for a trip to Mars, you’re headed for Alpha Centauri…and beyond!” David Cowles Panta Re , “Everything moves”, the wisdom of Heraclitus (5th century BCE), proven 2500 years later by Einstein & Co. Everything that is moves in space or time or both. A photon in a vacuum, for example, moves in space but not in time. It transverses 186,000 miles in one second. A couch potato, on the other hand, moves in time but not in space. He traverses Normal Life Expectance (85 years) without going even once to the kitchen for a beer. We call that ‘aging’. Photons don’t age. They have found the fountain of youth. It’s called perpetual motion. But unfortunately, the motion you generate on your treadmill won’t do the trick…unless you can jog at the speed of light (like Usain ‘Bolt’). Proposed : Age is a measure of our inactivity. To the uninitiated, space seems vast and time interminable, but in fact the fabric known as spacetime is constricting; it imposes severe limitations on our Wanderlust . My friends ridicule me, with reason, because I’ve never been to Asia. I could have done but I didn’t and now I can’t; oh well! I have the last laugh: they’ve never visited Proxima Centauri (PC), the closest star to Earth (besides our sun). Poor them! (Not that I’ve been there…yet; but I know how to get there which most of them don’t: it’s ‘second (star) on the right and straight on till morning’, right?) A photon travels from PC to Earth in ‘just’ 4 years (the time between one US Presidential election and the next) but it will take Voyager One almost 75,000 years to reach our nearest neighbor. Talk about Little House on the Prairie ! Even today’s most energetic space probe would take 7,500 years to reach PC. If my fellow Earthlings are ever to have the thrill of visiting this nearby star, they will need to start shredding the fabric of spacetime. And don’t despair: we have the technology! Well, to rephrase: we know what we need the technology to do. We don’t quite know how to build it…yet, but the principles are clear enough. We need to ‘fix’ the ludicrous disproportion that exists between spatial distances and temporal intervals in our frame of reference. The ‘cosmic ratio’, as we experience it, is 186,000:1 (miles per second). By comparison, most of us will never travel faster than 0.2 miles per second. We imagine that we live in a 4 dimensional spacetime. The 3 spatial dimensions appear to be interchangeable; a common metric applies. By comparison, from our perspective, the temporal metric seems wildly distorted. One second in time equivalent to 186,000 miles in space. Even the world’s most traveled human is still more than 99.99% potato and less than 0.01% photon. Fortunately, there is a simple way to make our experiences of time and space congruent. In Yellow Submarine , an icon of 20th century mythology, John Lennon adjusts the onboard clocks (metrics) to slow the flow, and even reverse the direction, of time. IRL, we estimate that the edge of the non-visible universe is receding from us at about 1,000 times the speed of light. So superluminal speed is no problem; we just need to change the metric, i.e. shrink space. For space travel to be routine, we’d probably need to be able to zip across our home galaxy in about the time it currently takes to circumnavigate our globe (about 40 hours). This gives whole new meaning to the term, Road Warrior . The problem is that it would take a photon about 80,000 years to make the trip. So even light is a slow poke by these standards. To achieve an acceptable galactic navigational speed we would need to compress space by a factor of 10^9 (vs. 10^3, above). Easy! We just need to create a soliton (a wave that travels through space with virtually zero environmental interference and nearly zero dissipation) and invest it with enough energy to carry us at a speed 10 billion times light. Surfing the cosmos? Hang10! So where do we find these magic beans? Right under your nose. All you need to do to create a Star Fleet worthy warp drive is to subject conducting plasma to ‘stress’ and allow it to interact with the electromagnetic fields surrounding it. An ordinary plasma wave packet becomes a soliton when nonlinear effects in the plasma exactly balance out the natural tendency of waves to disperse. Importantly, once this balance of amplifying and dispersing forces is achieved, it naturally tends to self-perpetuate. It forms a sort of ‘energy sink’; only an outside force (like interaction with the environment) can disrupt the balance. Actually, several different types of solitons occur in plasma: Acoustic solitons : These act like sound waves: the ions move together with the electrons to maintain charge neutrality. The plasma pressure and electric fields balance each other perfectly. Electronic solitons : These involve oscillations of the electrons while the heavier ions remain relatively stationary. The envelope of these high-frequency electron oscillations can form a stable packet. Magnetic solitons : In magnetized plasmas, you can create stable structures in the magnetic field that propagate as solitons. “Ok, this is all very interesting, but why do I feel like I’m still in the realm of science fiction? I’d feel better if the mathematics was fully developed and if there was empirical evidence to support the concept.” Feel better! The math is fully developed; it’s called the KdV equation: ∂u/∂t + u∂u/∂x + α∂³u/∂x³ = 0 Where - ∂u/∂t is the term for evolution in time, u∂u/∂x is the term for nonlinear (u∂u) amplification and α∂³u/∂x³ is the term for dispersion. The zero testifies to the fact that these variables are in perfect balance. Calculus buffs (not me) will note that these terms represent first, second, and third order derivatives Feel better, again! Satellite observations have detected solitary waves that maintain their structure while traveling through the Earth’s plasma core. So buckle up! While your friends are lining up for a trip to Mars, you’re headed for Alpha Centauri…and beyond! Image: "Allegory of the Planets and Continents," Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, 1752, oil on canvas, 73 x 54 7/8 in. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, 1977. 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. Share Previous Next

< Back The Butterfly Effect David Cowles Nov 30, 2023 “The ‘Butterfly Effect’ rolls back 500 wasted years of ‘results oriented’ pseudo-ethics…” Oh no, not this again! How many times do I have to listen to it? “A butterfly flaps its wings in Borneo and it rains in Chicago.” So what! What makes this meme so unpleasant is that it is both self-evident…and ridiculous. You can’t refute it, but neither can you live with it. In this respect, it’s a bit like Zeno’s paradox. Of course, Achilles can beat a Tortoise in a road race…just not according to the rules of arithmetic. Usually, when we say that A causes B, we mean that A transfers some of its ‘information’ to B (e.g., its momentum). We imply that ~A would result in ~B. Otherwise, A wouldn’t be a cause; it would just be a coincidence. The Butterfly Effect falls somewhere between Bell (non-locality) and Laplace (determinism). A might cause B and ~A might result in ~B, but the effect of A on B can neither be predicted nor controlled. If Chicago finds itself in the midst of a drought, sending a team of climate scientists to Borneo to stimulate wing flapping would be ridiculous. (Of course, we might want to send them to Borneo for other reasons…but I digress.) Wing flapping is just as likely to inhibit rainfall as it is to cause it. Study planet Earth for 1,000,000 years: you won’t find any correlation between rates of wing flapping and amounts of rainfall. And yet, a single flap can trigger a tsunami. So, what can we say? “I act; things happen; oh well!” Things cause other things, but in ways that can never be predicted or controlled. So who cares? Say you’re thinking of helping an old man cross a busy street. You do it because you see a connection between your selfless act and this man’s safety, and you assume that safety is a good thing. So, street crossed. But did you consider all the relevant variables? The man you’re helping is carrying a concealed weapon. He’s crossing the street to kill his daughter who is pregnant out of wedlock. Unbeknownst to anyone, that unborn child would have had an IQ of 180 and could have found the key to world peace. But you just had to flap your wings, didn’t you? Thanks to you, peace eluded Planet Earth and it turned into a cinder a generation later…but no judgment. You ‘meant well’ and that’s all that counts, right? So Camus was right: the world is ‘absurd’ (another word for ‘chaotic’); “I best mind my own business – no more helping old men cross busy intersections!” So you adopt the ‘quietist ethic’, you elect ‘not to get involved’. And so the man is run over and killed, but what do you care? It’s none of your business, right? Except that the man was not armed after all and was crossing the street to reconcile with his daughter. But seeing her father run down in the street, the daughter miscarried…and so the Earth turned into cinders anyway! All because you didn’t act when you could have. Quietism is simply activism under a different name. Obviously, we need tougher ‘truth in labeling’ laws! Fate? Destiny? Nope, just Chaos. The world is so tightly wound that events appear random. Efforts to control the flow of things only serve to amplify random fluctuations, but this is the way the world works. So deal with it! “Deal with it?” You deal with it! How do I ‘deal’ with the fact that the effects of my actions are unpredictable and uncontrollable…and yet potentially catastrophic? Machiavelli (c. 1500 CE) proposed that ends (consequences) justify means (actions). Maybe so. But we know nothing of ends! We barely have any idea what the immediate consequences of any action will be and we have no idea about the ultimate consequences. “But that’s not true! I do know ends. For example, I know that the man crossed the street safely. That’s an end.” Ok, but do you know that? Perhaps you’ll both be killed in the crosswalk. But even granted the man’s safe crossing, that is not the effect of your action, it is part of the action itself. Part of helping the chicken cross the road is seeing the chicken get to the other side. Part of every act is its ‘aim’, but the way in which that aim is realized (its ‘satisfaction’) is part of the act as well. An act is an organic whole, but it’s bipolar. One pole is intention. Getting the old man safely across the street is the other; it’s the satisfaction pole of the act. So how do we assess the ethical value of any act? Certainly not by its ends! We can only judge an act by the act itself. In our example, helping an old man cross a busy street is either a good thing, per se , or it isn’t. It has nothing to do with the long-term consequences. If I help the man, it’s because it’s a good thing to do – not because it will save his life, or the lives of his daughter and his unborn grandchild, certainly not because it might save the planet. Thankfully, the ‘Butterfly Effect’ rolls back 500 wasted years of ‘results oriented’ pseudo-ethics, but you can’t go home again. Rolling back 500 years doesn’t bring us back to the ‘rules based’ morality of the Middle Ages. It takes us all the way back to Galilean ethics (30–100 CE): “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Mathew 7:12); or to the liberation ethics of Israel after the Exodus (1300 – 1050 BCE): “In those days, Israel had no king; everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (Judges 17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25) The Butterfly Effect is real, albeit enigmatic, but it is no substitute for ethics. 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 Afraid of the Dark David Cowles Jul 16, 2021 Most young children are afraid of the dark. As adults, we tend to dismiss those fears. But as in so many other ways, it is the children who are right…and we who are wrong. They have not yet wrapped themselves in the cocoon of consumer goods. They still see life as it is. Most young children are afraid of the dark. As adults, we tend to dismiss those fears. But as in so many other ways, it is the children who are right…and we who are wrong. They have not yet wrapped themselves in the cocoon of consumer goods. They still see life as it is. So too the poet: “Do not go gentle into that good night…Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” – Dylan Thomas Have you ever noticed how common house flies prefer to hang out in well lit parts of the house, especially at night. They sometimes curl up in my home office, under a desk lamp, atop a white index card, and rock themselves to sleep, seemingly unaware of the threat I could pose to them if I chose. Do flies also dread the dark? At some level, do they have ‘intimations of mortality’? Much later in life, certainly sometime after age 70, you will rediscover your primal fear of the dark. You will remember what it was like to be a little child in a dark bedroom. We return to the words of Dylan Thomas, “Old age should burn and rave at close of day. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back The Problem of Waste “(Theology) will have to account, not just for the evil in the world, but for something much worse in modern eyes…the inefficiency of the world.” David Cowles The world is a terrible place! War, famine, pestilence, child abuse, human trafficking…I could go on…and on. We have no idea how much suffering may be in store for each of us, individually, between birth and death, or for all sentient beings, collectively, between Big Bang and Big Chill (or Big Crunch). It is widely believed that suffering on this scale is incompatible with ‘Triple-O-Theology’, i.e., with belief in the existence of a God who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent. Even staunch religionists like Rabbi Harold Kushner ( Why Bad Things Happen to Good People ) consider that the three O’s might need some modification. The Problem of Evil (‘POE’) is the #1 reason folks give to explain their disbelief. Even the great Bertrand Russel based his most widely read book, Why I am Not a Christian , on this argument. And, of course, the argument is irrefutable…as far as it goes. Embedded in POE, however, are a number of under-analyzed assumptions: That the world could be better than it is. ( Leibniz argued that this world, horrible as it may be, is as good as any real world ever could be; in other words, we already live in the best of all possible worlds.) That we sentient beings, collectively, are not somehow ourselves responsible for the deplorable condition of things. (The doctrine of Original Sin says otherwise.) That we sentient beings, collectively, are not somehow able to correct the condition of things. (Many post-Enlightenment political ideologies say otherwise.) That we can all agree on the criteria to be used to measure the goodness of things; or if not, that we can at least agree that such criteria exist. That we can all agree on a methodology for measuring the incremental goodness of one state of affairs vs. another. That we have a broad enough view of space and time to enable us to measure the ultimate ‘value’ of any event. Against all this sophistry, the heart piercing cry of a hungry child! James Joyce famously said, “That is god – a shout in the street!” Then is ‘a crying child’ the absence of God? It is a classic Gestalt Is ‘evil’ the donut? Or is it the hole? In spite of the intense feeling on both sides of this issue, it is not objectively resolvable. But if you’re still in the mood to go God-hunting, there is an even better weapon than POE – I call it POW! (the Problem of Waste): Say what you will about the Universe, it is incredibly wasteful. For example, the Cosmos is 14 billion years old. Planet Earth has existed for just four billion of those years. Apparently, it took the Cosmos 10 billion years just to ‘cool off’ after its Big Blowout. Once Earth formed, life appeared almost immediately, give or take a few hundred million years. That said, we are now only 10,000 years into the Anthropocene , a newly proposed ‘geological’ era during which living organisms (us) began purposefully transforming their environment. Let’s put this in perspective: since homo sapiens evolved, only 100 billion people have ever lived (eight billion are alive today). Sound like a lot? Consider this: over the course of an average lifetime, each person is made up of 100 trillion cells, independent living organisms that somehow cooperate to generate the coordinated patterns of behavior ‘formerly known as’ You . Each of you then is three orders of magnitude more complex than human civilization . Bach and Beethoven notwithstanding, we have precious little to show for 14 billion years. I mean, let’s summarize: Big Bang…10 billion years…Earth/Life…four billion years…You! Of course, it may turn out that the universe is teeming with many civilizations, some vastly more complex than ours…but that is appearing less likely every day. So, moving on… Let’s talk DNA, the building block of all life as we know it. You and I each have DNA made up of 46 chromosomes. Many species of fern have over 1,000 chromosomes. Now, I know you and I have had our differences over the years but still, I’d put you up against a fern any day of the week! (No need to thank me.) What we have here is massive inefficiency, aka waste! By this standard, government is a well-oiled machine. If I can be made with just 46 chromosomes, why would someone need 1,000 to make a lovely, fragrant, oxygen regenerating, but presumably simple minded, fern? Shout out to my green friends everywhere…no offense intended. Then again, maybe you’re not so great either. Even at 46 chromosomes, you’re a bit of a bloat. I can make you cry with just six chromosomes; meet Mr. Mosquito. I can drive you crazy with 12 (Housefly). But the Jack Jumper ant beats all: God named that tune in just two notes (two chromosomes)! Now none of this has anything to do with Good, Bad, Better, Best . Whether you think the World is a Garden of Eden or a wallpapered over Inferno, it’s inefficient. Mind-bogglingly inefficient! Which is problematic at a time when ‘efficiency’ is the new Summum Bonum of the age (Jacques Ellul, La Technique ). I am not an atheist. I am not completely convinced by POE or POW. It is the latter, however, that keeps me up at night. Like it or not, we are all engaged in a collective search for new ways to understand God and God’s relationship with World. The bearded old man on a cloud, an image inherited from Canaanite religion 3,000 years ago, isn’t getting it done. I don’t know how Theology will evolve over the rest of this century, but I can make one prediction: it will have to account, not just for the evil in the world , but for something much worse to modern eyes…the inefficiency of the world . 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. Share Previous Next

< Back Steve Gimbel Contributor Steve Gimbel is a Professor of Philosophy and affiliate of Jewish Studies at Gettysburg College. Gimbel has authored Einstein’s Jewish Science: Physics at the Intersection of Politics and Religion & Isn’t That Clever: A Philosophy of Humor and Comedy ).” ChatGOD

< Back On your Way to San Jose…Turn Right! David Cowles Aug 6, 2024 “An alliance of positive thinkers against the malaise of wokeism is natural…and most welcome.” In a 7/19/2024 edition of The New York Times , columnist Ross Douthart wrote about the convergence of High Tech and the Religious Right. Natural enemies on culture and lifestyle issues, techno-elites and religious conservatives are surprised to find that they have common ground after all. There’s philosophical overlap on “a set of premises held in common about the nature of the universe and the condition of America today”. First, they share faith in the cosmic order, “a belief that the world is still a puzzle waiting for solutions” and not just a collection of random events or a permanently indecipherable mystery. BTW, these later two gnoses are equivalent – they’re just dressed differently. Second, they share the belief that “human beings have some important cosmic destiny, that we aren’t just doomed to blink out in some entirely meaningless apocalypse”, like Heat Death. Finally, there is a shared recognition of the sorry state of Western civilization. How could we have allowed something so incredibly beautiful and profound to devolve into an amoral collection of trinkets? Business as usual will not produce the cultural earthquake needed to rescue us from the malaise of all pervasive despair which threatens productivity and spirituality alike. As is often the case in politics, the two ends of the spectrum find common ground against the middle. But this goes deeper. Our two groups share a common, if unpopular, anthropology: Human beings matter! It’s hard to believe that we’ve reached a state where this proposition must be stated…with the expectation of strong opposition from the cultural elite: “Dust in the wind/All we are is dust in the wind.” ( Kansas ) Strange as it may seem, this convergence is only ‘new’ now; in prior generations, the confluence of religious and economic interests was taken for granted. While Karl Marx labeled religion ‘the opiate of the people’, JP Morgan never failed to attend Sunday services…with full fanfare, of course. Critics view religion as industrial propaganda: “Work hard and endure privation for you will have your reward (back wages?) in Heaven.” But that is not it at all! The cosmology embedded in most religions spotlights human behavior. Sloth is a waste of God’s great gifts. We have talents and resources, not so we can wallow in them, but so we can put them to use for the glory of God and the service of humanity. The urge to build, to discover, to innovate is innate. Not to do so disrespects not only God but humanity as well. I think most entrepreneurs would agree with this sentiment; at one time the entrepreneurial class and the religious community overlapped (recall Max Weber’s iconic The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism ); not so much today! But if we are to believe Ross Douthart, that may be changing. Of course, this admittedly facile analysis carefully obscures a number of crucial issues. Marx and his followers went to great lengths to point out these chinks in the argument, but they made the ‘mistake’ (IMHO) of throwing the baby (religion) out with the bath water (injustice). Imagine the impact they might have had if they’d chosen to revolutionize religious institutions, making them the vanguard in the struggle to bring prosperity and justice to the world…just as Moses, Joshua, David and Jesus intended. Instead, communism divided economic revolutionaries from spiritual revolutionaries, turning the Church reactionary and the State totalitarian. Any rapprochement between Silicon Valley and Vatican City (symbol of the institutional locus of Western religions) must be grounded on some basic principles: The ‘work ethic’ cannot be used to conceal or excuse economic injustice. Workers own their labor and are entitled to retain it (for their own benefit) or sell it (for wages) as they see fit. In any case, workers are entitled to a generous share of the fruits of their labor. Work must produce goods and services helpful to other human beings without harming the biosphere…or the planet. As long as these four principles are scrupulously accepted, there is no reason why productivity and spirituality should not converge. The notion that production needs to be rapacious and spirit quiescent is peculiar to the 19th/20th Centuries. An alliance of positive thinkers against the malaise of wokeism is natural…and most welcome…in Century 21. 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. Keep the conversation going. 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 Second Tree of Life David Cowles Mar 20, 2025 “In our zeal to stretch the envelope of gnosis are we willing to put bios itself at risk…again?” What’s your favorite version of the Apocalypse? Armageddon? The Rapture? Or perhaps catastrophic climate change is more your cup of tea. If you’re over 65, it might be AI; if you’re under 30, it might be zombies. Carl Zimmer’s recent column ( New York Times , 12/12/2024) offers a new candidate. According to Zimmer, scientists are “a few decades” away from creating a novel microbe that would essentially amount to a Second Tree of Life. Zimmer reports: “Within a few decades, scientists will be able to create a microbe that could cause an unstoppable pandemic, devastating crop losses or the collapse of entire ecosystems.” Zimmer understates the problem! Perhaps he did not want to create panic. Crop failures and the attendant global famine are the least of our problems. The creation and ‘deployment’ of a second form of life would likely wipe out all current life forms in very short order. Bummer! How come? The primordial DNA/RNA molecule synthesized about 4 billion years ago; it quickly blanketed the planet with unicellular organisms (prokaryotes such as bacteria). If any other self-replicating molecule synthesized before or after, all traces of it have been obliterated. Genetics takes no prisoners! If mad scientists or curious aliens ever succeed in releasing an alternative self-replicating molecule into our biosphere, it is unlikely that the two forms of life could long co-exist. Undeterred by such risks, we are hard at work searching for life elsewhere in the Universe. We worry, will the aliens be friendly? Who cares! If they consist of self-replicating molecules that cannot coexist with DNA/RNA, their mere arrival on Earth could doom our planet. But don’t lose sleep over this. In all probability, there are no ‘little green men’ in the skies above us; and if there are, they’re nowhere to be seen. A bigger threat is posed by our own laboratories (think COVID 19), experimenting with silicon and other ‘inorganic’ elements, hoping to discover the key that unlocks Pandora’s Box. Fortunately, they face some significant hurdles. Silicon, for example, behaves a lot like Carbon in some situations but in other ways (its water solubility, the strength of its chemical bonds, and even the angles of tangency among its atoms), it’s quite different. So there’s no need for cold sweats on this account either…yet. Zimmer is reporting on a threat that is much more imminent: “Our DNA…has a backbone made partly of sugar. While sugar molecules can exist in left- and right-handed forms, DNA only uses the right-handed molecules. That’s the reason DNA’s double helix has a right handed twist . Our proteins, by contrast, are made of left-handed amino acids . This combination is found not just in humans, but in every species on Earth.” What if scientists are able to ‘reverse that chirality’? What if they synthesize left-handed DNA? ( W e have already created right-handed amino acids!) We know what happens when we ‘reverse the charge’ of an elementary particle: If it comes in contact with a traditionally charged version of itself, the particle pair will self-annihilate in a flash of pure energy. There is every reason to believe that this would be true of chirality-reversed molecules as well. Biblical scholars among us will recall that the Garden of Eden included two sacred trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. By tasting the forbidden fruit of knowledge, humanity compromised its relationship with life itself. We are mortal now, we suffer, but life goes on…at least for now. Are we about to make the same mistake again? In our zeal to stretch the envelope of gnosis are we willing to put bios itself at risk…again? It’s assumed that we can’t help ourselves. Since we were little children, we have instinctively opened every cabinet door, raised the lid on every box, pulled every dangling string or chain. Cajoling parents, armed with threats and draconian punishments, are powerless against native curiosity. What makes anyone think we’ll stop now? Knowing that we’ll probably find some way to destroy terrestrial life as we know it, we need to place our precious DNA molecule in a museum or wildlife refuge. We must ensure that it does not come in contact with its chirality reversed alter ego . What better protection than a moat, as wide and deep as we can make it, connected with the mainland only by a single strand of thin wire! What better moat than interplanetary space! Hence, the current focus in the USA, China, India, Japan and the EU on space travel. Our first DNA sanctuaries will be on our Moon and on Mars. Eventually, we will establish other conservation sites on selected moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Beyond that, the sky, quite literally, is the limit! If ‘life on Earth’ is only one of nature’s many bio-initiatives, it may still be worth preserving our DNA, if only for historical research and scientific experimentation. But if our life form is the only life form in Universe, failure to protect it would be truly catastrophic. We are perhaps only a decade or two away from building an archipelago of self perpetuating DNA colonies. Let’s hope we make it in time; the stakes quite literally could not be higher. ***** Image: "The Tree of Life." First half 17th century. British. Canvas worked with silk thread; tent, Gobelin, and couching stitches. H. 22 1/2 x W. 24 1/8 inches (57.2 x 61.3 cm). Textiles-Embroidered. Gift of Irwin Untermyer, 1964. 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 Norman Lear Neo-Talmudic Sage of Democracy and Good Times Dr. Stephen Stern "Nobody wins democracy. It's not a possession, but a continuous process that requires everyone's participation." Norman Lear passed away at 101 after living a life that not only brought laughs to millions, but did so while dedicating himself to what Abraham Lincoln referred to as “the unfinished work of Democracy.” Here we show that not only is Lear’s work neo-Talmudic, prophetically midrashic, but that the way we frame him offers a different paradigm from which to expand understandings of democracy as more than the enlightened property based social contract understanding of community. A Young Jew Who Cared about Democracy Born in 1922, to a blue-collar Jewish family in New Haven, Connecticut, Lear’s father H.K.—he told people the “K” stood for King—brooked no dissent in the house. The kids dared not speak back and if his mother disagreed, she was told to “Stifle!” He had a hard time keeping down a job and always had a new scheme up his sleeve until he returned back from a trip to Oklahoma and was arrested for fraud. He was incarcerated until after Norman’s bar mitzvah. Lear’s mother and sister moved in with his grandparents, but Norman was circulated among relatives, never having a stable home. His escape was the radio, where he loved comedy, but found himself distressed by the antisemitic ravings of Father Charles Coughlin. Lear was a proud American, but knew that his Jewishness was leading to his exclusion. Graduating high school, Lear wanted to go to college, but after his release from incarceration, his father still had not been able to work steadily and the family had no money. So, Lear took a longshot and entered a contest sponsored by the American Legion with an essay entitled “The Constitution and Me” where he argued that his Jewishness did not keep him from being fully American, but rather informed his Americanness. He won a scholarship to Emerson College. He split his time there between the classroom and local burlesque house where he saw some of the greatest comics of the time including Phil Silvers and Red Buttons. Emerson being one of the nation’s leading dramatic schools, he was learning to act, direct, and write. He seemed destined for show business…and then came Hitler. When the war broke out, Lear, like so many other young Jewish men, felt the need to volunteer. He was a radio man and gunner in the army’s air force, flying many dangerous missions during the war. Indeed, at one point a bullet pierced his plane, killing the soldier next to him. In word and deed, Norman Lear was dedicated to promoting democracy and fighting fascism, hatred, and bigotry. Mostly In the Family After the war, he returned home, got married, and started working as a publicist. He moved to Los Angele, where he had a cousin whose husband, Ed Simmons, was trying to become a comedy writer. One night, the wives decided to go to the movies, leaving the guys home with the kids. After the little ones were in bed, Norman asked Ed what he was working on. It was a song parody. They had it done when their wives came home. Singing it for them, they thought it hilarious. Norman said they needed to sell it…now. So, they went downtown to a club where comedian Betsy Abbott was performing and between sets, approach her. She loved it and bought it on the spot for $25—a week’s salary for them. They decided to become a team. Writing a piece for Danny Thomas, they quickly became known in the industry and were picked up by Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin. Eventually, the team broke up and Ed went on to write for Carol Burnett. Norman wrote and started producing for a range of programs which allowed his family to live comfortably…and then he read an article in TV Guide. It was about a British program called “Til Death Do Us Part” about a conservative father and liberal son who argue about everything. It took Lear back to his own childhood and he knew he had to develop an American version. That, of course, became All in the Family, a groundbreaking show that Lear could not get picked up. It was too provocative, too edgy, too smart. He was discussing topics that serious news programs rarely touched on, much less a comedy. The network thought the seriousness would kill the laughs. It was run with a warning to audiences the first season, telling them about sensitive topics. It got off to a slow start, but where the public did not appreciate it, the critics did and after it won several Emmy’s, it became a hit. Archie Bunker was a blue-collar, bigot who hated liberals and minorities, but who loved his family including his wife Edith and his liberal daughter Gloria whose grad student husband Mike lived with them. The liberal Mike and the conservative Archie would fight nonstop, rehearsing exactly the debates that were happening around dinner tables across the country in the early 1970s. Archie’s frequent use of racial slurs alarmed the network and censors, but they brought an honesty and realism to the program which was also the pivot point around which the comedy revolved. There were no strawmen, no cartoon characters, but real people wrestling real problems. It changed television comedy forever. Instead of the screwball silliness of “Mr. Ed” or unrealistic domestic portrayals of “Father Knows Best,” we were seeing real America, warts and all. It was funny because it was true. But those laughs and that truth served Lear’s lifelong project of defending Democracy. A healthy democracy requires authentic debate, critical examination of a range of viewpoints. The American entertainment landscape was a falsely sterile ecosystem, devoid of real questions, new views, and authentic searching for solutions. Lear sought to change all that, to bring the town square, John Stuart Mill’s marketplace of ideas, to the small screen in everyone’s living room. Enlarging the Family Democracy requires freedom of speech because the truth will sometimes reside where we least expect it. We need to hear a wide range of perspectives and consider the insights they bring in order to keep from becoming trapped in our own cognitive bubble. Yet, America has a tragic history of silencing important voices. Lear’s love of democracy demanded that he increase the number of viewpoints in his comedy. He was not just going to look at white men on different sides of the political spectrum. When Edith’s outspoke feminist cousin Maude Findlay appeared in one episode, the reaction from fans was instant and overwhelming. She had to have her own show. Bea Arthur’s portrayal of the title character was fearless as it took on issues from substance abuse, to domestic violence, to suicide broke ground. The two-part episode in which Maude considers whether to get an abortion is one of the most important moments in television history. Lear replicated the All in the Family formula with the great Redd Foxx on Sanford and Son featuring junk dealer Fred Sanford in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles. Maude’s maid Florida was another strong character who clearly needed her own program and Lear launched Good Times, featuring the first two-parent black family to be the focus of a television show in America. They lived in the notorious Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago and that led to an unexpected visit to Lear’s office by a group of Black Panthers who demanded to see the “White trashman,” Lear. They confronted him, asking why all of his black characters were poor when there were many well-off Blacks wealthier than most Whites. Lear knew they were right and knew what he had to do, another spin-off. The Bunkers’ next door neighbors, George and Louise Jefferson owned a chain of laundromats and the profits from them allowed them to be moving on up to a deluxe apartment in the sky. The Jeffersons, which was the longest-running series in television history was also the first to feature a mixed-race couple that shared a bed. Lear continued to work to increase the number of perspectives he could mainstream. One Day at a Time humanized single mothers in an age of increasing divorce. Hot l Baltimore featured a stable gay couple and sought to humanize sex workers. Remembering Father Coughlin’s antisemitism that tried to silence him, Lear demanded that no voices be silenced. Neo-Talmudism Talmudic thought begins with the Torah and its mitzvot, the commandments Jews must obey. These are the fixed points, the undeniable stakes that ground rabbinic Judaism. But as a text, the Torah and associated books of the Tanakh, require interpretation. There is an active cognitive human element that must be added in order to glean wisdom from the words. Jews may be the People of the Book, but the Book is not passively absorbed. Indeed, quite the opposite, it is actively explored and interpreted by scholars in a wide range of ways. Unlike Christianity in which different sects are distinguished by their interpretations and fight (sometimes violently) among themselves over whose understanding is the literal truth, for Jews, God’s truth is too big to fit in any one interpretation. All of the different approaches unlock the various truths contained in the text. It is not subjectivism where anything goes, as it is tied to the text, but it encourages a creative stance toward unraveling the wisdom hidden within the words. This approach is profound in marrying an absolutism—the text itself is venerated—with perspectivalism—the text gives rise to multiple understandings, all of which are considered meaningful. It allows for an intellectual version of a choir in which different voices sing different lines, but harmonize or contrast in order to create a bolder sound that no one could imagine when hearing only one voice. The profundity of this dialogic approach stands in opposition to the Hellenic-Christian tradition. In it there is one and only one truth. It is the goal. The entire process is teleological, driven with a single end in mind—achieving a grasp of that one and only truth. But the Talmudic tradition sees the value laying not in the endpoint, but in the process, not in the knowing, but in the learning. As a result the great rabbi and philosopher Emanuel Levinas argues that beneath the commitment to the mitzvot, there exists one meta-mitzvah—discussion shall never cease. If the Sacred Text is a ball, then you can think of the Hellenic-Christian approach as a game of soccer, each trying to possess the ball and score a goal, thereby defeating the others who want the ball for their own. But the rabbinic approach is instead a game of hacky-sack where the ball is hared amongst all, each doing with it what they will—some scholars making impressively fancy moves twisting in unexpected ways—while other rabbis are more straightforward in being simple in how they pass to someone else. But all of them are engaged in a collective endeavor, seeking to keep the process going as long as they can, all focused on the ball but passing it among themselves. We can keep the game, but replace the ball. By changing the Sacred Text, we are no longer being Talmudic. Instead, we are being what we call “neo-Talmudic.” One can find neo-Talmudism throughout intellectual history, where some sacred text—be it a work of art, a social institution, or an ideal—is considered sacrosanct, yet is kept alive by constant reinterpretation. In fact, Norman Lear’s television legacy is a perfect example. For him, the sacred text is the democratic experiment that is the American experience. What Lear gave to us was a great game in which the circle of players included those from a wide range of backgrounds. Each got their chance to play, to demonstrate their skills and style in working with it as they would. Everyone else would watch and laugh in appreciation until it was passed to another who would then get their turn. One might say that much of his work exercises TV prophetic midrash, an approach that doesn’t base democracy only on property rights, but directs us to understand it as never ending discussion. No one gets to own the democratic discussion in Lear’s work. Norman Lear’s great insight was that nobody wins democracy. The American democracy that Lear loved with all of his being was not an end, a goal, a thing to be possessed. He realized that it was a process, a happening that required all of us. The point was not assimilation, homogenization, the disappearance of difference. That is what Hitler wanted. Democracy was, as Levinas pointed out, an unceasing conversation. The discussion must never end. But the only way to keep it going, was to have all of us—especially those who have been kept out—to become active parts of it. Norman Lear made us laugh, but he also made us think, and in doing so tried to make more of us part of “us.” Co-written with Dr. Steven Gimbel of Gettysburg College’s Philosophy Department. Gimbel is the author of “Einstein’s Jewish Science,” a one time finalist for the national Jewish book award. Image: Photo of Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker from the television program All In the Family.. Credit: CBS This piece was republished without edits with permission from the author. Dr. Stephen Ster n has authored Reclaiming the Wicked Son: Finding Judaism in Secular Jewish Philosophers, and The Unbinding of Isaac: A Phenomenological Midrash of Genesis 22. His forthcoming book, The Chailight Zone will be out later this year, 2024. Stern is an Associate Professor of Jewish Studies & Interdisciplinary Studies, and Chair of Jewish Studies at Gettysburg College. Return to Summer 2024 Previous Next

< Back Unintentional Consequences David Cowles Jul 12, 2021 Since I was 12 years old, I have found Greek Mythology baffling. What exactly is the role of the gods? I told my grandchildren that the Greek gods are like our Super Heroes, but even that analogy didn’t totally satisfy me. Now, more than half a century later, I think I’ve figured it out (with a major assist from Oswald Spengler). In Ancient Greece it is the gods who act, not the people. Individuals go through the motions, but their intentions are meaningless and their actions entirely without effect. Since I was 12 years old, I have found Greek Mythology baffling. What exactly is the role of the gods? I told my grandchildren that the Greek gods are like our Super Heroes, but even that analogy didn’t totally satisfy me. Now, more than half a century later, I think I’ve figured it out (with a major assist from Oswald Spengler). In Ancient Greece it is the gods who act, not the people. Individuals go through the motions, but their intentions are meaningless and their actions entirely without effect. Consider Oedipus. He goes through some of the most horrible experiences imaginable. But in no sense were the actions that led to these consequences intentional. In our culture, no jury would convict him of any crime. Not so in Ancient Greece. There guilt is imputed to him even though he lacked intent, or even consciousness, of what he was doing. In much the same way as salvation is imputed to us by God, regardless of our actions, according to Luther and Calvin, so guilt is imputed in Greek Mythology. Consider Troy. It was not the soldiers who determined the ebbs and flows and ultimately the outcome of this 15 year war; it was the gods. Compare this to the contemporary story of Job. Job is punished gratuitously but guilt is never imputed to him (except by his “Consolers”). We never doubt that Job is a good and just man, not in any way deserving of his trials. We evaluate Job as we would anyone today. If only he had had access to “the Innocence Project”. Not so, Oedipus. Sophocles encourages us to consider him guilty. THAT is the tragedy: that a man can be judged guilty of a crime he did not intend and of which he was entirely unaware. 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.

“Right now, scientists and philosophers all over the world are engaged in the search for a ‘TOE’, a Theory of Everything…(but) we already have such a TOE.” < Back “Is God Dead?” David Cowles Oct 15, 2023 “Right now, scientists and philosophers all over the world are engaged in the search for a ‘TOE’, a Theory of Everything…(but) we already have such a TOE.” A grandchild recently surprised me with a question, “Isn’t God dead?” I hadn’t realized that Nietzsche’s tentacles stretched so far. Time Magazine posed the same question on its April 8, 1966, cover. At the time, the magazine was reporting on a handful of radical theologians who claimed to have invented “Death of God Theology” ( Theothanatology for short). In fact, first in The Gay Science (1882) and later and more famously in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883), Nietzsche, the self-appointed cosmic medical examiner, had already pronounced: “God is dead!” No surprise really. As every superannuated hippie knows, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Like a rebellious teenager taunting his parents, Nietzsche undoubtedly chose his worlds at least partly to shock his Judeo-Christian readers. Nonetheless, it is consistent with his overall philosophy. In the 1880s and then again in the 1960s, Christians were outraged. But why? Every year on Good Friday, Christians celebrate God’s death. Of course, ‘Nietzsche and the Death of God Theologians’ did not have Good Friday in mind when they coined their slogan. Still, their core concept should horrify no one. Today, we are asked to believe that the universe came to be, literally, in a flash. While we have well-developed theories of how the universe evolved, no one claims to know anything about why it came to be in the first place. So why is there something rather than nothing? Let’s start by looking at the world. What do we know about it? From one perspective, we see that it consists of discrete entities (objects, events) and relationships between them. From another perspective, we see that the world consists of qualities (colors, textures, values) and harmonies among them. Both perspectives are true. Entities differ from one other according to the various qualities they display, but qualities are not displayed in the absence of an entity. Without entities and qualities, there could be no Universe as we know it. So accounting for the Universe means accounting for entities (and their relationships) and qualities (and their harmonies). This is the project of Alfred North Whitehead’s Process Philosophy. To explain the world as we know it, Whitehead posited the existence of a single ‘super-entity’ that includes all qualities primordially and all entities consequently. Whitehead’s super-entity is the source of all the qualities that characterize the entities that constitute our world. It is every entity’s raison d’etre …its ‘subjective aim’, its purpose, its motivation, its goal, its destiny, and its fate. Stated differently, each entity defines itself in terms of its relation to the super-entity and in terms of its relation to its own unique, inherited Actual World. Guided by its ‘subjective aim’, each entity ‘decides’ which qualities it wishes to display and how it wishes to display them. (There is no requirement that consciousness be part of this process.) Each entity (including the super-entity) exhibits its qualities in a unique way which Whitehead called ‘subjective form’. The subjective aim conditions the subjective form, and together they constitute the entity’s identity. Entities share qualities, and shared qualities give Universe its solidarity. Every entity, of course, derives its qualities from the super-entity. Pursuing its subjective aim, each entity combines a variety of diverse qualities. The entity harmonizes those qualities so that they form an integrated, holistic pattern. That pattern is the ultimate expression of the entity’s identity and constitutes the entity’s unique objective contribution to the content of the Universe. Whitehead called this the entity’s ‘superject’. Some folks will recoil at the idea of a super-entity; the concept of God goes against their religion. They would be right to recoil if we were claiming any special ontological status for the super-entity, but we are not! This is the genius of Whitehead’s scheme: it conflates the sacred and the profane. The super-entity is an entity among entities. All the ‘rules’ that apply to ‘other entities’ apply equally to the super-entity. Our world is one world! In Whitehead’s terminology, the super-entity is not an exception to the rules, it is the paradigmatic expression of those rules. The super-entity is unique only in the sense that it combines all qualities and harmonizes them in the particular configuration we know as Summum Bonum . Whatever we say about the nature of the ‘other entities’, we need to be able to say about the super-entity as well. Likewise, whatever we say about the nature of the super-entity, we must be able to say about the ‘other entities’. At the end of the day, they are all first and foremost just entities, super or otherwise. Right now, scientists and philosophers all over the world are engaged in the search for a ‘TOE’, a Theory of Everything. The hope is that once we can explain all the fundamental features of Universe with a single, self-consistent theory, we will be able to resolve rather quickly the remaining paradoxes of physics and cosmology. Truth to tell, however, we already have such a TOE. It’s called Christianity . According to the Nicene Creed (325 & 381 CE), Christianity’s primary creedal document: God is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible”. Jesus Christ is his “only begotten Son…true God from true God…consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made…By the Holy Spirit (he) was incarnate of the Virgin Mary…he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried…the Holy Spirit (is) the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” This, of course, expresses the famous Christian doctrine of Trinity: one God, three Persons. But it also happens to be exactly what we’ve been talking about in this article. God the Father (Creator) is God-primordial, God the Son (Christ) is God-consequent, and God the Spirit (Holy Spirit) is God-superject. It is by the Father that we have a world (qualities), by the Son (Christ) that that world consists of entities ( logos ), and by the Spirit that we have ‘life’ (i.e., novelty, creativity, process). So is God, dead? You bet! And Jesus explains why (John 16): “If I do not go (die), the Advocate (Spirit) will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” Jesus Christ must ‘die’ so that his Spirit, God’s superject, may infuse the world - not by way of Creation or Incarnation but by Crucifixion (the “bloody sacrifice”), Resurrection, Eucharist (the “unbloody sacrifice”) and Pentecost. Jesus explains this in a parable (John 12: 24): “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” In ‘parable-speak’, the fruit is the superject of the seed. Without a super-entity to source qualities for other entities, there can be no world. But unless that super-entity is also an ‘other entity’ with its own unique superject, there is no way for those qualities to become part of the life of that world. So, if God eternal is also temporal (via Incarnation), then temporal entities (objects, events) must be eternal. Upon achieving Whitehead’s ‘satisfaction’, each entity contributes its unique superject, its ‘objective immortality’, to the ‘world without end’. Without an eternal dimension, the temporal world would auto-abort. Time is ‘perpetual perishing’ (entropy). On the other hand, without a temporal dimension, the eternal world would be devoid of content. The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Parmenides , (c. 475 BCE.), confronted this dilemma in his ontological poem, On Nature . In that poem, he describes the Way of Truth ( Aletheia ) and the Way of Appearance ( Doxa ). Re Aletheia , he writes: “What-is is ungenerated and imperishable, whole, single-limbed, steadfast and complete…it is, now, all together, one, continuous…Nor is it divisible since it is all alike…It is completed from every direction like the bulk of a well-rounded sphere…equal to itself from every direction…Thus coming to be is extinguished and perishing not to be heard of.” But re Doxa , he writes: “It has been named all things that mortals have established, trusting them to be true: to come to be and to perish, to be and not to be, to shift place and to exchange bright color…Everywhere the same as itself, but not the same as the other…Thus according to belief, these things were born and now are, and hereafter, having grown from this, they will come to an end.” For almost 2,500 years, philosophers (beginning with Plato) have debated the meaning of Parmenides’ paradox. Is he outlining a nihilist philosophy a la Nietzsche? Or does his model prefigure the Christian cosmology of John and Paul? In either event, Parmenides clearly understood the problem: a purely eternal world must be featureless, while a purely temporal world must self-destruct. But back to our story. Primordially, all qualities exist in God in perfect harmony, no conflicts! So consequently, all entities must exist in God in perfect harmony. All conflicts must be resolved into contrasts, and all contrasts must contribute to God’s harmony. Every temporal entity is initially responsible for its own subjective aim, and ultimately responsible for its own superject. Pursuant to that aim, each appropriates the combination of qualities that it wishes to exhibit and determines how it wishes to exhibit them to achieve satisfaction, its superject. That is our work and when it is done, God takes over. It is God who harmonizes each entity’s superject, including his own, with the superjects of every other entity. This is what we mean by Grace. As a result of Grace, every entity shares in eternal life. That is what we mean by Salvation. Finally, our participation in the Consequent Nature of God is what we mean by the Kingdom of Heaven. From our earliest musings, humans have been confronted with the task of explaining how it is that there is a world and what purpose that world has, if any. Christian theology answers those questions. It offers a comprehensive model…and the model works. But could there be other, non-Christian, atheistic solutions? Aren’t there secular models that accomplish the same thing? First, as far as I know, there are not! But second, and much more importantly , any such model would have to account for the presence of qualities (Values) and entities (Creation). It would have to account for the occurrence of solidarity and novelty. It would have to bridge temporality with eternity. Would such a model be anything other than‘ Christianity by another name ’. So now I can answer my grandchild: “God is not dead, And it’s a good thing too, Or there’d be no me… And there’d be no you.” 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 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 Grace Krzenski Young Writer Winner, Winter 2023 Grace Krzenski is a junior at Cabrini High School, New Orleans, where she enjoys studying science and English. Grace is on the varsity Cabrini basketball team, and in her spare time enjoys reading, playing basketball, and spending time with family and friends. She is looking forward to attending college somewhere in the southern states to study marine biology. Integrity vs. Life

< Back The Future of Art in the Age of AI David Cowles Nov 21, 2024 “There is no civilization without novelty and no novelty without art." “A poem should not mean but be.” (Archibald MacLeish) In our lingua-centric culture, there is a tendency to want to translate every meaningful experience into a well-formed string of words (sentence). “What does this poem/painting/partita mean ? What did we learn from this experience?” This tendency is exacerbated by pedagogues who tell us that something is real only to the extent that it can be represented in language. In reality, some aspects of human experience lend themselves to linguistic representation and others don’t. When language functions as Representation we call it prosaic ; when it functions as Art, we call it poetic . Confusion stems from the fact that language plays a dual role. On the one hand, it is our culturally chosen medium of explication; on the other, it is its own artistic medium. In its purest form, we call ‘linguistic art’, poetry (or verse ). But poetic language drives other art forms as well: for example, drama and choral music. Further, the poetic use of language can transform even the driest explication into an artistic masterpiece ( Moby Dick ). Imagine you are the new Schopenhauer. Your magnum opus might be titled, “The World as Art and Representation”. Good news! You can skip the writing part. Everything you need to say is in the title. To understand the significance of this duality, we need to turn to Heidegger…of course! He defines Art as that which shows you something new about the world. Language can do that (poetry)…but so can music, painting, dance, etc. What can we say about the world? It is ever new (Art) and always the same (Representation). Representation must then be the antithesis of Art. One can only ‘represent’ what is already conceived, so what is ‘ready for representation’ is never new and therefore cannot be Art. A ‘poem’ cannot mean anything…and still be a poem! Together, Art and Representation function as Penrose Tiles. They perfectly template one another and together they can cover an indefinitely large surface without any pattern ever repeating. It is fun to be alive after all! (Thank you, Roger) But back to MacLeish. A poem should not mean but be. What would be an example of a poem that means something? Verse that could be translated into another medium (e.g. prose) with no appreciable loss of content (information). Consider the fine art of translation. A poem that is merely ‘translated’, conserving its denotative content, is no longer a poem. But in the hands of an Ezra Pound or a Seamus Heaney a poem can be translated into another poem with its own fresh ‘aha moments’. Recently, I received a newsletter from Rob Howard, Founder of Innovating. He was discussing AI generated art in general and Coca-Cola's AI-generated Christmas ad in particular. Is AI generated ‘art’ any good? Can it be? Is it even Art? How will AI impact the broader Art world ? His questions answer themselves. He writes, “Anyone can now make nearly Hollywood-quality video with a text prompt!” A text prompt! No drawing, no filming, no voice over. And quality? Check! But Art, no! An AI generated ‘painting’ can never, ever be Art because it merely reproduces information that pre-existed in the prompt. Concept precedes execution. Therefore, nothing new can be attributed to the art work itself. If the execution of all ‘works of art’ in all media (image, sound, etc.) is subcontracted to AI Bots, at least as we know them today, then we will be condemning ourselves to the be world’s first ‘art-free civilization’, which is an oxymoron. Or are we? The fact that novelty will no longer emerge through the execution of ‘a work of art’ does not preclude the possibility that new things will happen, new discoveries be made, or that people will experience what’s happening in new ways. Today, painters are translating their visual ideas into code (i.e. prompts); likewise composers with their musical thoughts. This artificial state-of-affairs cannot continue for long though. Soon artists will have to learn to think, and create, in code. Prompts will be the new medium of artistic expression, and all artists will need to learn to think in code. Have you ever mastered a foreign language? For the longest time, you translate what you hear back into your mother tongue; likewise, you compose your answers in English before you deliver them in perfect French. Then one day you don’t. You can speak and hear without the need of an internal translator. You think in French now. (You, not me, quelle domage !) On the other hand, my AI Bots are innately multilingual. In fact, if I type more than a few French words in a row, my Bots assume I’ve renounced my American citizenship and relocated to the EU. Silly Bots! Now I’ll need to spend my time persuading them that I’m still the same old Okie from Muskogee (Merle Haggard). Or perhaps I’m just feeling carbon entitled . I don’t mean to minimize the situation. Moving from finger paints and the recorder to ‘code castles in the air’ will not be an easy transition. We will need a new mindset, and it will require a huge epigenetic adaptation. But the alternative is far more daunting: the disappearance of human culture and civilization as we know it…because there is no civilization without novelty and no novelty without Art. 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.