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

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

< Back After Parmenides What to "Western philosophy is the history of our effort to understand the silence of Parmenides, or to break it." David Cowles What doesn’t belong and why? Philosophy, Science, Literature, or Social Studies? Philosophy, of course. In the other disciplines, new information and new interpretive schema are constantly emerging, endlessly enriching their subject matter. Not so, philosophy! In fact, here the reverse is true. Arguably, philosophy’s greatest achievements lie in its distant past. Parmenides of Elea is generally regarded as the Father of Western Philosophy. Of course, he had precursors (e.g. Thales, Pythagoras, Anaximander), but our knowledge of their teachings is sketchy at best. From what we do know, it seems as though these OGs were narrower in their focus than Parmenides – somewhat like philosophers today. Indisputably, Parmenides was the dominant intellectual influence in the 5th century BCE, the golden age of Greece. He did not win that honor by default. He lived in ‘interesting times’, sharing the intellectual stage with political leaders, Leonides and Pericles, playwrights, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Aristophanes, and fellow philosophers, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Zeno. We can say this much for sure: the oldest substantially intact work of systematic philosophy in the Western World is Parmenides’ ontological poem, On Nature . Happily, the Father of Western Philosophy did not pussy foot around; he asked the big questions: What is reality, really? How is it that appearances appear? How are what-is and what-seems-to-be related? Can you honestly say that we’ve moved beyond these issues 2500 years later? 20th century philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato. Whitehead was half right. Western philosophy can be read as footnotes on Plato but only if Plato is read as footnotes on Parmenides. Parmenides divided his poem into three sections: First, a short prologue; then Aletheia (Truth); finally, Doxa (Appearances). The prologue sets the poem in a narrative context and makes it clear (to me if not to all) that no account of the World can be complete without accounting for its dual aspects of Aletheia and Doxa . Aletheia models the world as noumenal, Doxa as phenomenal; and regarding the relationship between the two…silence, uncomfortable, enigmatic silence. Western philosophy is the history of our effort to understand that silence, or to break it. First, there are those who deny the silence: “Parmenides must have spelled out his ideas; we’ve just lost that portion of the manuscript.” Then, there are those who have graciously offered to ‘correct’ Parmenides’ oversight. i.e. to fill in the blanks . Present company excepted, few have been willing to take Parmenides’ silence at face value in an effort to understand it. There are roughly 20 intact fragments of On Nature , each independently preserved by ‘a trusted source’, such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero, Simplicius, Clement, and Eusebius – just to drop a few names. From these fragments, it is possible to reconstruct a coherent text. It is ludicrous to assume that Parmenides’ curators somehow failed to retain the one fragment of text that would have explained the entire work and unlocked its hidden meaning. So we can turn our attention to Parmenides’ editors – well meaning folk who have volunteered to add what Parmenides obviously meant to say to what he actually did say. Thanks but no thanks! However, in their zeal to correct Parmenides’ oversights, these philosophers left a trail of breathtaking ideas that constitute what we study when we study Western Philosophy. 20th century philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, wrote that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes on Plato. Whitehead was half right. Western philosophy can be read as footnotes on Plato but only if Plato is read as footnotes on Parmenides. No doubt, Socrates’ disciple is Parmenides’ best known editor and commentator; but he was far from the first and possibly not the most important. In fact, Plato’s grasp of pre-Socratic philosophy was ‘incomplete’…at best. I could say more…but I don’t wish to appear impolite. Three 5th century philosophers should primarily be credited with continuing Parmenides’ great project: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Zeno. All three played at ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ but in their defense, what else is a neo to do? On the plus side, their emendations preserved the spirit of Parmenides’ work. I’m not sure that he would have endorsed all their formulations but I think he would have recognized them as valid extensions of his own thought. Speaking of which, in Fragment #1, the goddess tells our pilgrim, “It is right that you should learn all things, both the steadfast heart of persuasive truth and the beliefs of mortals…how things that seem had to have genuine existence, permeating all things completely.” For the ‘persuasive truth’ we turn to Fragment #8: “…What-is is ungenerated and imperishable, whole…and complete. Nor was it once nor will it be since it is now all together, one, continuous…Thus coming to be is extinguished and perishing not to be heard of. Nor is it divisible since it is all alike.” But regarding ‘the beliefs of mortals’, Fragment #8 continues: “To come to be and to perish, to be and not to be, to change place (motion), and to exchange bright color.” This is the realm of Doxa . If order is your thing, you’d have loved the Big Bang. That is the moment when order in the Universe was at its maximum. Not so surprising when you consider that all energy was concentrated in a singularity – at a dimensionless point or perhaps in a Planck-sized Space. If only my desk were so well ordered. Entropy (S) is how we measure disorder. S was at its cosmic minimum at Big Bang and it will be at its cosmic maximum at Heat Death. Knowing this, you might be less surprised when I share my view that European philosophy reached its pinnacle in the 5th century BCE… before Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. This was the century of Parmenides, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Zeno. Not to mention Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Aristophanes… or Leonides and Pericles. Who says there’s no such thing as a Golden Age? Someone sharing my view of Intellectual History might think that Hebrew theology peaked with Torah and Christian theology with the writings of John and Paul. It is certainly possible to understand the balance of the Old Testament as ‘commentary on Torah ’ and all of Christian theology as ‘commentary on the New Testament’. So, why not treat the corpus of Western philosophy as commentary on the pre-Socratics? (20th century British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, said that all Western philosophy was commentary on Plato; but he was wrong. Plato himself was a commentator on the pre-Socratics…and not an especially good one.) Each of the major pre-Socratics contributed a unique perspective to the burgeoning science of cosmology. Heraclitus, for example, is known for Panta Re (“everything flows”). Anaxagoras is known especially for his trademarked meme, Pan in Panti Hot Link (‘everything in everything’). Anaxagoras’ universe begins as the undifferentiated entirety - pure energy in the Big Bang model. Nous (mind/soul) injects a quantum of rotation which propagates throughout the whole. This circularity could be understood as the first flicker of recursion, a precursor of consciousness. Gradually, this rotation triggers a wave of centrifugal force. The undifferentiated mass begins to separate, like attracts like, and soon sub-regions emerge, each with its own signature mix of properties. “Signatures of all things I am here to read.” (Joyce) Eventually, these sub-regions will become what we know as ‘events’, i.e. actual entities. Anaxagoras’ genesis is different from that of other philosophers. Each actual entity retains a trace of every element buried in the original mass. Entities are distinguished, not by their elements, which are the same in every case, but by the signature variation in the concentration of those elements in each entity. If Parmenides was the apostle of stability and Heraclitus the prophet of change, Anaxagoras was the oracle of solidarity. He understood that a stronger bond among entities was needed to preserve the integrity of a universe in flux. When it comes to Universe, the problem is not so much explaining its diversity as it is accounting for its ultimate unity. Anaxagoras achieves the requisite solidarity in two ways. First, as noted above, everything interpenetrates and shares elements with everything else. In fact, every entity contains the ‘seeds’ of all entities. Theoretically, if the entire universe were reduced to a single organism (cell), genesis could begin again with barely a pause for a methane rich breath. This model is remarkably close to the modern science of genetics. The RNA/DNA molecule may have synthesized only once on Planet Earth. It is likely that every cell contains genetic material descended from that original DNA molecule. But DNA is as inefficient as it is powerful. Likely, it is so powerful because it is so inefficient! The genome of a common fern is 50 times longer than the human genome. On the other hand, some bacterial genomes are 5,000 times shorter than human DNA. But size does not matter! Less than 2% of our genes code for proteins (the primary function of DNA) anyway and less than 20% are ‘expressed’ in any one organism (cell). However, unused genetic material is not useless; it can always be accessed if environmental changes favor a different combination of phenomenal traits. Tens of thousands of years of evolution can be by-passed by visiting ‘the stacks’ in the vast and ancient ‘library’ of your DNA. As climate change gets real, we may be glad for our airconditioned library. Second, Anaxagoras’ universe is scale agnostic. Patterns repeat up and down the ladder, from the infinitesimal to the infinite. We are mesmerized by scale. The vastness of it! There are c. 60 orders of magnitude from Planck scale to Uni verse. But Anaxagoras shows that scale is a local phenomenon only. From a global perspective it just endlessly repeats, and it is impossible to distinguish any one stage from any other. Scale is a relative measure, not an absolute one. So Anaxagoras could be known as ‘Father Fractal’. In an Anaxagorean universe every macro pattern is made up of congruent micro patterns. Each macro pattern is in turn a micro pattern in an even larger macro. And, of course, every micro pattern is a macro with respect to other micros. Pan in Panti. Every entity includes the ‘seeds’ of every other entity and is in turn included as a ‘seed’ in each of those other entities. As with our DNA model, the entire entity is encoded in the seed. Every entity is a pattern which reflects the patterns of the micro entities that constitute it and is reflected in the pattern of the macro entities it constitutes. This odd cosmic topology is not found only in Anaxagoras. Are you familiar with the New Testament? Part of the genius of early Christianity is the doctrine of Incarnation – the idea that God, Being per se , locus and creator of Universe, is incarnate as a quantum being (Jesus Christ) in that Universe. That’s solidarity! Pan in Panti . But this topology is not limited to the Incarnation per se . Every day, it is repeated in the celebration of Eucharist. Jesus, human and divine, body and soul, under the appearance of bread and wine, is consumed by the communicant who is immediately ‘uploaded’ into Jesus’ mystical body. Pan in Panti . In Romans (8: 26), Paul tells us that when we pray (to God), it is actually the Holy Spirit (God) who searches our hearts and intercedes for us ‘with inexpressible groanings’. In First Corinthians (15: 24-29), he tells us that all creation flows up to Christ who hands it on to the Father ‘so that God may be all in all’. Pan in Panti . In the so-called Age of Reason, Leibniz resurrected Anaxagoras for his Monadology . Briefly, Leibniz’ universe consists of monads, each one reflecting all others: Pan in Panti . Finally, in the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead created what may be the last great philosophical system of our era. Process and Reality is full of ideas that would have felt at home in 5th century BCE Greece: The universe consists solely of one class of ‘things’: Actual Entities ( aka Events). Each actual entity configures the common Multiplicity of past events into its own unique Actual World. Each actual entity executes judgment on that actual world (‘the gods of Egypt’ - Exodus 12: 12) as it ‘prehends’ all other actual entities (or to use Whitehead’s terminology, ‘as it feels them’) and acts to bring the elements closer to an ideal pattern. In Whitehead’s model, every ‘trajectory’ connects God’s Primordial Nature (conceptual values) with God’s Consequent Nature (concrete entities). As with his contemporary, Robert Frost , Whitehead’s ‘roads diverge’…but end up at the same destination. Whitehead’s model sets up a kind of universal reflexivity. Every event is ‘in God’ and God is in every event; therefore, every event is in every event. Every event is even an element of itself. How’s that for recursion? With this topology, how is it the Universe does not just seize-up at birth? For that answer, we needed to wait for Jacques Derrida in the latter half of the 20th century. Every event includes itself as an element. A’ є A. But A’ is not strictly speaking equal to A. A and A’ are separated by what Derrida called differance , an infinitesimal difference. Differance is the origin of process, Proust’s uneven cobblestones. Every event consists of the same members, uniquely configured. The cosmos, then, is God’s Kaleidoscope . A limited number of elements generate innumerable unique patterns…and we have a pre-Socratic to thank for this insight. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at dtc@gc3incorporated.com . Return to Groundhog Issue 2025 Previous Next

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

< Back Holy Moments David Cowles Nov 28, 2023 “You were made in the image of God; act accordingly!” In an earlier edition of Thoughts While Shaving , we contrasted Matthew Kelly’s concept of a ‘Holy Moment’ with Jean-Paul Sartre’s ‘Perfect Moment’. A perfect moment is an effort to create (or recreate) Paradise, using artifacts from the material world. Utopian political systems are examples of perfect moments. But laws are required only where humanity fails…law turns out to be a poor substitute for love. Memo to Marx: Love is the ‘withering away of the state’. A holy moment , on the other hand, is an action we undertake to project God’s values into the world. The ‘anti-political’ system that ‘governed’ Israel for c. 250 years between the death of Joshua and the coronation of Saul was ideally suited to facilitate such moments. The Book of Judges can be read as a compendium of holy moments that occurred during that period. How can we create our own holy moments ? There’s no definitive list, but here are a few ideas: Treat every person we meet as if they were Jesus in disguise. Ask yourself, ‘what would Jesus do (WWJD) in this situation’. Honor Ephesians 2:10: “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works (holy moments?) that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them .” Do what you prayerfully believe God is calling you to do. “Here I am, Lord!” Take life one holy moment at a time. Always ask yourself, “What is possible in this moment?” Always ask yourself, “Is this the best version of myself?” When I was but a wisp, The Baltimore Catechism taught that ‘God made us to know him, love him and serve him…' What else is a holy moment but a way to know, love, and serve God? Now, if these 300 words have convinced you to make Holy Moments your new life’s work, here are some things you would do well to keep top of mind: Our hunger for Goodness comes from God; it is God: ‘God with us’ - Emmanuel . “Character is destiny” (Heraclitus) and virtues are the building blocks of character; in fact, virtues are reflections of God’s character, his essence. What matters is what you do next: ‘today is the first day of the rest of your life’. Holy Moments are not something you do (active voice) or something that is done to you (passive voice); they are collaborations ( middle voice ). One seemingly insignificant holy moment may generate a tidal wave of goodness. Moments are plastic. You have the power to deflect them toward the Holy…or not. The Holy Moments campaign is the stepchild of Matthew Kelly, but its ‘biological’ father is none other than Jesus himself. What are the Beatitudes but an anthology of holy moments? Plus, every holy moment is a transfiguration ; it opens a window onto what’s possible. Bobby Kennedy: “I dream of things that never were and ask why not.” The Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert talk of two hungers: ‘the little hunger’ (for food) and ‘the great hunger’ (for meaning). Job preferred knowledge/meaning to wealth, health, and life itself. Jesus counseled us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread” (little hunger) and “Forgive us our trespasses…lead us not into temptation…deliver us from evil” (great hunger). Victor Frankl, writing after the Holocaust, echoes Job: Meaning is more important than Happiness! Or perhaps you are not yet convinced. You say, for example, “I don’t have time for this Holy Moments nonsense; I’m out to change the world.” Well, God bless you; “we’d all love to change the world” (Beatles); you have a lot of deck chairs to rearrange, so best get to it. In reality, Holy Moments are the solution to the world’s problems…Unholy Moments got us into this mess, and only Holy Moments will get us out. Matthew Kelly offers a single meme to summarize Holy Moments Spirituality: “You were made in the image of God; act accordingly!” Keep the conversation going! 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back AI and the Quest for Humanity’s Answers Josef Flintlock, AT responses by Editor-in-Chief David Cowles "AI will virtually obliterate the barrier between what can be known and what is known." The dawn of the artificial intelligence era has cast a spotlight on the tantalizing prospect of discovering answers to humanity's most profound questions. As ChatGPT and other AI technologies advance, the question arises: will these digital marvels truly hold the keys to unlocking the mysteries that have puzzled philosophers, scientists, and thinkers for centuries? AT : It is unlikely that AI will move the border separating what can be known from what is fundamentally unknowable. But AI will virtually obliterate the barrier between what can be known and what is known. This essay embarks on a journey through the realms of knowledge, humor, and philosophy to explore whether ChatGPT and AI are destined to become the ultimate oracles of wisdom. In a world where Google knows our favorite pizza toppings before we do, the allure of ChatGPT having the answer to every question is both mesmerizing and hilarious. AT : The centuries old mystical doctrine of Kabbalah distinguishes Understanding (Binah) from Wisdom (Hokhmah). Understanding shades over into knowledge (Malkhut) so I expect AI to vastly expand our understanding of most everything; whether it will demonstrate or confer wisdom is something else again. However, even in the age of AI, the notion that these digital entities will hold all answers is akin to believing that wearing a cape will make us superheroes. AT : What would make us superheroes? The complexity of human inquiries, infused with nuance, context, and cultural intricacies, presents a challenge that even the most advanced algorithms struggle to master. AT : True today, but the attraction of AI is the possibility that it will eventually be able to mimic humans’ capacity for nuance and that it will adequately integrate context and cultural norms into its process. While AI might provide extensive data-driven insights, it remains an evolving tool rather than a universal panacea. The Dance of Subjectivity and Philosophy Imagine asking an AI to resolve the age-old question: "What is the meaning of life?" ChatGPT might earnestly reply with an eloquent response, citing philosophical treatises and scientific theories. However, the beauty of this query lies in its subjectivity—a concept that AI struggles to encapsulate. AT : If AI is to fulfill its promise, it must be able to mimic human subjectivity. Pre-AI, algorithms are objects. The challenge for AI is to behave in a way that convinces us that it is its own subject. (Turing Test) Re the meaning of life, it’s true, I wouldn’t expect much from today’s AI. But then again, how well has Non-artificial Intelligence (NI) done with this question? The multifaceted nature of existence, tinged with personal experiences, emotions, and interpretations, evades AI's binary world. AT : Is there a world that is not at some level binary ? A motion picture is made up of static frames. Could the same not be true of every apparently continuous phenomenon? Calculus was supposed to have proven the ‘reality of continuity’; in fact, it only provided us with a tool that allows us to ‘treat’ stochastic phenomena as though they were continuous. In this dance between the objective and the subjective, humans stand as the choreographers, utilizing AI as a partner to enhance the performance but never completely define it. The Comedy of Errors In a whimsical twist, the comedic potential of AI attempting to provide definitive answers to humanity's grand questions cannot be overlooked. Picture an AI offering advice on matters of the heart or rendering artistic critiques—it's like asking a potato to compose a symphony. AT : I have no doubt that AI could do a better job for the lovelorn than either Dear Abbie or Anne Landers! Whether AI can recognize and/or create Beauty is an open question addressed elsewhere in this issue. Hot Link And in defense of our much maligned spuds, please don’t overlook the Lyonnaise Polonaise . The inherent limitations and occasional misunderstandings of AI can lead to responses that are hilariously off the mark. AT : Yup, “Kids say the Darndest Things” (Art Linkletter) That’s how we learn…and how AI will learn too. While AI's missteps are a source of amusement, they also emphasize the uniqueness of human cognition and the importance of embracing imperfection. AT : Perfection is a myth (at least in spatiotemporal systems) and unhelpful as a measure of value. An element of ambiguity is what makes the strongest algorithms what they are (‘fuzzy’) – and that’s how our minds work as well…especially after a night spent drinking ‘adult beverages’. The Uncharted Seas of Discovery As technology progresses, AI's role in uncovering insights cannot be denied. AI's capacity to sift through vast amounts of data and identify patterns has contributed to scientific breakthroughs and innovative discoveries. AT : Our brains have been curated by natural selection for over a half a billion years; as a result we are pattern generation and pattern recognition machines. That said, AI will soon blow past us…if it hasn’t already. Patterning has conferred enormous selective advantage on all sentient life forms and AI will take this to a whole new level. Some contemporary cosmologies understand the Universe as nothing other than a hierarchy of patterns: e.g., fractals, holograms, The Matrix . Yet, the act of seeking answers extends beyond factual information—it encompasses the exhilarating pursuit of knowledge, characterized by curiosity, experimentation, and the thrill of the unknown. In this regard, ChatGPT and AI can act as guiding stars, offering directions in a limitless universe of exploration. The notion of ChatGPT and AI possessing all the answers to humanity's greatest questions tantalizes us with visions of a digital sage with boundless wisdom. AT : Is there nothing new under the sun? How about the Oracle at Delphi? Hal 9000? However, this vision is a blend of comedy and philosophy, highlighting the intricate interplay between AI's capabilities and the uncharted depths of human inquiry. As we navigate the landscape of knowledge, we find that while AI augments our journey, the thrill of discovery lies not in having all the answers but in the pursuit of questions that lead us to new horizons of understanding. AT : AI can save us from the tedium of data determination and interpretation (Binah, Understanding); will it free us up to focus on the meta-patterns (Hokhmah, Wisdom), the meaning of it all. So, let us welcome AI as a companion on this profound expedition, embracing the laughter, the wisdom, and the mysteries that lie ahead. A connoisseur of both AI technology and the intricacies of human inquiry, Josef’s writing seeks to bridge the realms of science and philosophy in a way that both informs and entertains. When not penning essays, you can find him lost in a book or simply enjoying the laughter that accompanies life's absurdities. He has written for Honeywell, Medium, and Elephant Journal. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Punctuation David Cowles Jul 26, 2021 Classical Western languages (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and Latin) for the most part lacked anything we would recognize today as ‘punctuation’. When marks did appear in texts, they were merely to guide actors and orators in their declamations. The same is true of Medieval languages (e.g. Old English, Old French and Old Norse). Classical Western languages (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and Latin) for the most part lacked anything we would recognize today as ‘punctuation’. When marks did appear in texts, they were merely to guide actors and orators in their declamations. The same is true of Medieval languages (e.g. Old English, Old French and Old Norse). What we recognize as punctuation today, marks in the service of meaning rather than rhetoric, did not become widespread until the invention of the printing press. Ever since then, punctuation has been the bane of every schoolboy’s and schoolgirl’s existence. Today, most writing happens on a cell phone or tablet. The typewriter’s single keyboard gives way to the multiple keyboards (screens) characteristic of electronic devices. The inclusion of punctuation marks in a text is no longer a seamless process; it requires the writer to switch screens which is inconvenient and time consuming. I predict that in a generation or two our written language will revert to the punctuation poor style of the ancients. The intrinsic value of every being lies in its potential to enter into an I – Thou (or Thou – Thou) relationship. The extrinsic value of every being lies in the actual Thou – Thou relationships it enters into. It is not obvious that beings in a cosmos would automatically have the potential to form Thou – Thou relationships. Such relationships are only possible in the context of transcendence and eternal values are only possible in the context of such relationships. Thomas Aquinas offered 5 proofs for the existence of God (transcendence). The only one that is still of interest to modern philosophers is the fourth, a proof based on the existence of values in the world. Aquinas was on to something! Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

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

Aletheia Today celebrates winter writing through process philosophy, scripture study, and critical essays. Addressing questions like "Is God real?" and "Does Heaven exist?", this issue offers a thoughtful exploration of the spiritual and scientific aspects of holiday celebrations, encouraging a harmonious dialogue between faith and reason. Inside Our Winter Issue Philosophy I Seem To Be a Klein Bottle “I am what the Universe sees when it looks in the mirror.” Should I Vote? “What if there was an election where everyone was eager to vote…but nobody cared who won? It’s happened!” Robert Frost “Anyone can go for a walk in the woods; only Frost can ‘walk this way’.” Determinism…or Entanglement? “Take Vegas! The casino’s ‘edge’ is as little as 1% on some bets. At those odds, I should be able to play forever…but probability is not actuality.” Theology A ‘New’ Old Theory of Consciousness “The simplest unicellular species display behaviors that are clearly cognitive in nature.” Faith Is Not Belief Without Evidence "Faith is not belief without evidence; it's the content of a relationship with God and is based upon the private experience of God's love." Culture & The Arts Mythology Before Marvel Comics “Sturluson searched for the universal patterns that connect all times, all places, and all scales…and, Glory be to God, he found them.” The Science Behind the 7-Second Rule "First impressions swiftly shape neural pathways, steering our social interactions through rapid cognitive processes." Home Alone “Macaulay Culkin is ‘every boy’ and his Home Alone family is ‘America’s family’ – except it’s not!” What Are Farm Animals Thinking? New research is revealing surprising complexity in the minds of goats, pigs, and other livestock. Spirituality Mamisoa In the heart of poverty, a community's spirit shines, defying limitations, and embracing hope against all odds. Finding Light: A Prayer for Wisdom and Forgiveness Embracing clarity, forgiveness, and purpose Readers React What's the buzz about? Our readers' reactions to Aletheia Today... Additional Reading Can't get enough of Aletheia Today's content? Check out the books that inspire our magazine.

< Back Pando “How are you at riddles? Let’s see!” David Cowles Riddle #1 : I’m black and white and red all over; what am I? Guess : A newspaper! Well, good try, but we don’t allow archaic constructions in this game, and nobody uses the word ‘newspaper’ anymore, so your answer is disallowed. (If we allowed ‘newspaper’, we’d have to allow Old English words from Beowulf , et al. and that would be quite messy.) Answer : A blushing zebra. Try again? Riddle #2 : I’m a living organism, I weigh 40 times more than a Blue Whale, and I’m at least 5,000 years old (but who’s counting?); what am I? Guess : A dragon? The Loch Ness Monster? The Blob? All good guesses but none correct. Answer : A Quaking Aspen. Get it? “A Quaking Aspen,” hilarious…right? Not so much? Well, no wonder; it’s not a joke. It’s a Quaking Aspen for pity’s sake! Not just any Quaking Aspen as it turns out; it’s a particular Quaking Aspen that answers to the name of, you guessed it, Pando . (Do all trees have proper names…or just this one? Do they know their own names like dogs and cats?) Being Pando : What’s it like being me? Well, I’m one tree, but I have more than 40,000 stems (you’d call them ‘trunks’). I cover 100 acres. And in case you were wondering, my pronouns are he and him , but my sexual orientation, sadly, is still unknown (I reproduce asexually). I’m 40,000 trunks, each trunk a clone of all the others, each tapping into a common root system, but each with its own bark, its own crown (foliage), its own lifecycle (not 5,000 years…maybe a few hundred), and each with its own personal survival challenges (weather, fire, predators, parasites, disease, human beings, etc.). So, what’s it like being Pando ? It is not easy to enter the intellectual life of a tree. There is little doubt that trees communicate with each other, recognize nuclear family members, care for the young, the sick and the elderly in their midst, and proactively share available resources (e.g., water). Nutshell : trees engage in eleemosynary behavior. Their motto: Do Ergo Sum . More than most members of a certain unnamed animal species I know well, they love their neighbors as themselves . But it is hard to imagine what sort of ideation accompanies this activity. Obviously, it would be non-verbal. The activity of trees seems clearly intentional…but is it conscious? To whatever extent Pando is ‘aware’, is that awareness solely at the level of the organism itself or is it distributed among its member off-shoots? Are we talking Federal Reserve (central bank) here…or are we talking Blockchain? (Lie quiet Hamilton, I mean that is Alexander Hamilton.) Or is it both? But back to Matthew : “Love your neighbor as yourself .” As yourself! ‘As’ is different from ‘like’. ‘Like X?’ I recognize the dignity and equality X (i.e., the other). ‘As X?’ I recognize myself in the other. For Pando , ‘as’ and ‘like’ are synonymous. Pando is simultaneously self and other. All of which brings us back to that “certain unnamed animal species” we met earlier. According to Jesus ( Matthew ), we are to love our neighbors as (not like) ourselves. Is that an ethical ideal? Or does it reflect an ontological reality? Am I Pando ? (Or at least Pando-like ?) Am I one among the 8 billion living stems of a single organism? (This has been an insight of mystics, East and West, for millennia.) Am I my sister as well as my sister’s keeper? Do I automatically do unto myself what I do unto others? On this site, we have repeatedly argued that reality is inherently recursive. Accordingly, we live in a universe with a curved (vs. flat) ontology – not ‘just’ a curved topology. Karma is real. It’s not a reaction to an action, it is embedded in the action itself. Well, food for thought all around. But whether we are Pando-like or not, we can agree that human beings have a lot to learn, not only from Pando , but from trees generally (trees which, BTW, share 50% of our DNA ). Share Previous Next

< Back Art & Archimedes David Cowles Feb 28, 2026 There are more things in heaven and earth, Euclid, than are dreamt of in your philosophy…or ours.” 1200 words, 5 minute read We celebrate the fact that we are children of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. We look back on the Western world prior to 1500 CE and wonder, “How did people ever live like that, think like that?” The particularly crass among us disdainfully refer to the 1,000 years immediately preceding the Renaissance as the Dark Ages . As if we, the authors of Hiroshima and the Holocaust, are in any position to denigrate others! Truth is, the years around 1500 CE did witness the single biggest upheaval in the Intellectual History of Western Europe. Machiavelli was both the catalyst and emblem of this change. In a nutshell, the theo centric Universe of the Middle Ages gave way to the modern, ego centric model. Burgeoning science gave us the illusion of control. We no longer need respond to the actions of the Universe (the gods, fate); now we can impose our will (technology). We are no longer shaped by what happens around us; now we shape what happens to reflect our own image and likeness. Following the intermediation of the Reformation, Humanism, Moral Relativism and Secularism, Narcissism has replaced Roman Catholicism as the ‘universal faith’: I believe in me! Imagine a new edition of the Baltimore Catechism: “Why am I? - To know, love, and serve myself.” Sound about right? *** Perhaps the best way to learn about any culture is to study its art. How do folks understand the world around them? How do they relate to ‘things’…and to each other? We should not be surprised then that the intellectual upheaval of the Renaissance was accompanied by a seismic shift in painting protocol. In Italy and elsewhere, artists ‘suddenly discovered’ perspective. Discovered? Feels odd to apply this term to something we simply take for granted. Consider Camille Pissarro’s Road to Marly (below). Notice how the trees and other figures pictured close to the viewer are huge compared to those in the background. The space is continuous, receding smoothly toward a fixed point on the horizon. Road to Marly - Camille Pissarro (1870) This is a Big Bang/Big Crunch universe! Pissarro’s universe begins and ends at a singularity, a point, and from that point, like a cornucopia, it inflates to fill the canvas. This landscape appears to follow the laws of Euclidean Geometry, one of a much larger group of geometries jointly known as ‘Archimedean’. These geometries incorporate the rules and properties of real numbers (arithmetic, calculus). In our minds, this is not just a model, it’s Reality . Would it surprise you then to hear that this representation of the world is virtually unknown outside of Western Europe,1500 – 1900 CE? The vast majority of human beings, past and present, see the world very differently. Take the famous Italian painter, Giotto (c. 1300). His painting of St. Francis receiving the Stigmata (below) was painted (below) without perspective. The sizes of the objects represented have little to do with their situ in space. Rather their dimensions are dictated by the roles they play in the narrative. Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata - Giotto (c.1295-1300) Francis, appropriately, is huge, as is the angelic manifestation of Christ. Two nearby houses-of-prayer are tiny by comparison. One is positioned forward of Francis, one behind. Both are depicted as same-sized, indicative of the characteristics of the buildings themselves rather than their placement in the frame or relative to each other or to the viewer. Imagine Francis, as illustrated, squeezing through either door in time for matins ! The landscape itself (mountain, trees) is merely sketched, and it dissolves into an undifferentiated, monochromatic background, symbolizing uncreated light. It does not recede from the main image but rises above it. (Giotto characteristically depicts distance as height.) Finally, the trees on the mountain side are all similarly sized (tree sized) despite their varying distances from Francis…and the viewer. For centuries, post-Renaissance critics attributed these anomalies to a lack of technical proficiency. How wrong can we be! Giotto was a master of his craft, but he was painting a different world, or rather, our same world seen and understood differently: First, the size of an image is proportionate to its role in the narrative, not its position on the panel. Second, each object has its own intrinsic metric, unrelated to the metrics of the other objects. Finally, the frame does not contain the imagery; the images utterly overwhelm and overflow any edge. We approach Pissarro’s landscape as voyeurs. We are looking at the scene through a knothole in a fence. Giotto’s images, on the other hand, are projected at us. There is no question of not looking; they are in the way. We have to deal with them before we can move on. Earlier we pointed out that Pissarro’s landscape presents us with a paradigmatic model of a Euclidean universe: a place for everything and everything in its place. Giotto’s landscape is radically non-Euclidean: nothing’s in its place. In fact, its geometry is not even broadly Archimedean , much less narrowly Euclidean ! First, the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole; indeed a single part may be greater than the whole. Second, every object has its own metric, independent of other metrics, other objects, other images. Third, the value of any image is independent of its position in space or on the panel. Turns out, these are among the defining characteristics of non-Archimedean (non-A) Geometry. Check out this graphic: Now at last we can consider the Byzantine icon at the head of this article: Madonna and Child by Duccio di Buoninsegna, c. 1300. Much as I love Pissarro and Giotto and my own Claude assisted PowerPoint (above), this is clearly the masterpiece of our collection…and a clear exhibition of non-A Geometry in art. Mary and Jesus are the equivalent of our B and C circles (PowerPoint slide, above); A is the image as a whole. That leaves undefined that portion of A that is neither B nor C. Call it X. Our unknown artist, typical of the custom of his day, has colored this space a uniform, undifferentiated gold. If B+C > A, then B+C+X = A if and only if X = A - (B+C): in other words, B+C > A, if and only if X is a negative number. One way to make ordinary arithmetic work in a non-A universe is to allow objects (B and C) to exist in negative space (X where X < 0). Got it? Are you a non-Archimedean mathematician now? Good for you! If not, take at least this away: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Euclid, than are dreamt of in your philosophy…(or ours).” Icon of the Virgin and Child, Hodegetria variant - Byzantine or Crusader (13th Century) *** The Icon of the Virgin and Child (Hodegetria variant) centers on the theme of spiritual guidance , portraying Mary as "She who shows the Way" by gesturing toward Christ as the path to salvation. It reflects a unique intercultural synthesis , blending traditional Byzantine theological rigor with the distinct stylistic influences of 13th-century Crusader art. Finally, the icon emphasizes divine authority by depicting the Christ Child as a solemn, miniature philosopher offering a formal blessing. 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 Eleanor Rigby David Cowles Apr 2, 2024 “The Beatles were true revolutionaries. They called for the overthrow of the existing social order, replacing it with… a secular version of Galilean Christianity.” Amid the avalanche of great popular music in the ‘60s and early ‘70s, the Beatles Songbook stands out. On top of ground breaking harmonies, Beatles’ lyrics often express philosophically interesting ideas. Similar only to Bob Dylan at the time, the Beatles marry melody with meaning, poetry with philosophy. This contrasts with some of the era’s heavy metal bands whose lyrics are virtually indecipherable and/or mind numbingly simplistic. The best work of this period reflects the intellectual ferment of the times…as it breaks new musical ground! Eleanor Rigby , a simple elegy, is a great example. I’ll let the music speak for itself and focus instead on the lyrics: Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been, Lives in a dream, waits at the window, Wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door, Who is it for? Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear, No one comes near. Look at him working, Darning his socks in the night when there’s nobody there, What does he care? Chorus : All the lonely people, where do they all come from? All the lonely people, where do they all belong? Eleanor Rigby died in the church and was buried along with her name, Nobody came. Father McKenzie, Wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave, No one was saved. We all seek connection: Ms. Rigby works, no doubt as a volunteer, for her local parish church. She craves human contact; she hopes her service makes a difference, somehow to someone; but in reality, her life is the detritus (rice) of others’ . Fr. McKenzie works on a sermon he hopes will help him connect with the remaining members of his dwindling congregation. A single word could light a fire; but it doesn’t. One theme could resonate with one worshiper and lead to a lifelong friendship; it won’t. In fact, no one will even hear his sermon, either because no one attended church that day or because they merely attended: “What did the priest talk about this morning, Joey?... I dunno!” Like Picasso or Matisse, McCartney is able to bring a whole ‘world’ into being with just a few lines. Ms. Rigby and Fr. McKenzie live in expectation of a world full of human contact and existential purpose, i.e. a world they will never experience! Instead they stand, thrown onto the deserted beach of Being (by Heidegger of all people), arms wide open, desperately waiting for a hug that, of course, will never come. Drawing from Gregory Bateson and Alfred North Whitehead, we say that Being is ‘a difference that makes a difference’. Rigby and McKenzie yearn to ‘make a difference’ and to enjoy the human contact that comes along with having purpose. They are disappointed: nobody came, no one was saved! Superficially, the song is about Eleanor Rigby. It’s not! It’s about Fr. McKenzie. “Look at him working…writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear…darning his socks (that no one will see)…what does he care?” (In the same way, Mary Poppins is not about Mary but about Michael Banks, age 5.) Ab initio , Christ’s ekklesia was an engine of human contact, but two millennia later, at least according to the Beatles, it has become another ossified barrier inhibiting real mutuality. Fr. McKenzie continues to go through the motions. He hopes for a breakthrough that he knows will never come. Instead, his life comes down to a series of existential dilemmas: Is a sermon a sermon if no one hears it, are socks socks if no one sees them, is liturgy liturgy if no one participates? Is life life if you’re just going through the motions? “All the lonely people, where do they all come from?” That’s easy! They are the products of a dysfunctional social structure. It is almost as if the Whole is afraid of its own parts. It protects itself by keeping people in virtual cages, sorted by gender, caste, class, etc. Cross-pod interactions are discouraged…and tightly choreographed. Artificial human interaction (‘getting and spending’ – Wordsworth) displaces real human contact. Result: each of us is alone in the crowd; we are ships passing in the night, islands in the stream. “All the lonely people, where do they all belong?” This is not so easy! In fact, Eleanor Rigby doesn’t answer that question…but the Beatles do answer it in a contemporaneous movie, Yellow Submarine . “Where do they all belong?” Why, in Pepperland, of course – a post-Christian Kingdom of Heaven. Pepperland is powered by Love…and Music is its agent. All barriers break down (“Let’s mix, Max!”)…even the ontological barrier between spacetime (Beatles) and eternity (Sargent Pepper). Pepperland is the World as it was supposed to be, Eden before Babel. The Beatles were true revolutionaries. They called for the overthrow of the existing social order, replacing it with a confraternity of the entirety, aka a secular version of Galilean Christianity. 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.