Search Results

< Back God and Consciousness David Cowles May 28, 2026 “Ironically, the solution to both problems turns out to be the same…and that is the solution!” These days, we have all accepted David Chalmbers’ characterization of consciousness, its origin and nature, as the ‘hard problem’. Prior to society’s collective secular lobotomy ( aka the Enlightenment), we struggled with a different ‘hard problem’, the existence and nature of God. Ironically, the solution to both problems turns out to be the same… and that is the solution! Yes, you read right, but just to be clear, the solution to both problems is that the solution to both problems is the same solution. Wild, I know! An analysis of the Trinitarian model of God (e.g. as found in Christianity) and a parallel analysis of conscious phenomena reveal a common structure: Consciousness occurs whenever an entity (A) is aware of a world (W) external to itself and is also aware of itself (A’) being aware of that world. I diagram it here: A ↙ ↘ W ← A’ As a result A experiences W stereoscopically, first directly, second by perceiving itself perceiving W. The infinitesimal differance (Derrida) between the two experiences is the origin of consciousness. This model can be generalized to represent the phenomenon of recursion per se , a phenomenon that minimally applies to all ‘living’ systems. Recursion is the primordial non-linear process that applies whenever the subject of an action is also in some way its object. In scriptural terms, what I do unto others I do unto myself; in linguistic terms, we are talking about events that are best represented using middle voice verbs (vs. active/passive). It is annoying that the middle voice has all but disappeared from most modern Indo-European languages. It makes it hard to talk about process at its most fundamental level. We are left describing ornaments with no mention of the tree itself…much as we are expected to catalogue the manifestations of divinity in the World ( aka Science) without acknowledging the existence of God. Our model (above) can be further generalized to represent all situations involving ‘quantum’ differences, i.e. minimum perceptible distinctions. Marcel Proust provides illustrations of this phenomenon in his masterpiece, Remembrance of Things Past (1913): “The sensation which I had once experienced as I stood upon two uneven stones in the Baptistry of St. Mark’s (Venice) had, recurring a moment ago (France), been restored to me, complete with all the other sensations linked on that day to that particular sensation… The past was made to encroach upon the present, and I was made to doubt whether I was in the one or the other… The moment to which I was transported seemed to me to be the present moment…” Proust describes a phenomenon applicable to all experiences of ‘quantum difference’ (above). Convergence of qualia overwhelms divergence in spacetime. Events are related essentially, not existentially. Cause and Effect is replaced by Cause and Affect . The Trinitarian model of God is based on the formula, ‘One God/Three Persons’. Christianity labels these persons, Father (F), Son (S), and Holy Spirit (H) respectively although a different terminology could be adopted by the theologically squeamish: F ↙ ↘ H ← S What is essential, per the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), is that the Father ‘begets’ the Son and the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds’ from the Father and the Son, exactly as modeled above. Trinitarian God and the phenomenon of consciousness share a common structure and so, according to the tenets of 20 th century Structuralism (Levi-Strauss), they share a common identity. How so? What we experience as consciousness is a manifestation of God’s presence in the World. According to one metaphor, God ‘sees’ the World through the ‘eyes’ of every conscious organism…about 10^30 of us and that’s just on Planet Earth today . Face it, God gets around! In light of this, we need to update Descartes to read: Deus est ergo cogito! (“God is therefore I think.”) To be clear, I am not God per se but I am certainly the image and likeness of God. We share a common structure; we are inexorable templates, we are entangled. Of course, as hinted above, this realization makes both ‘hard problems’ disappear. We know that God exists because we are conscious and we experience consciousness because God exists. Once again Hot Link to People’s Creed , we are struck by the simple profundity of a Medieval Irish poet (St. Dallan): “Naught is all else to me save that thou (God) art!” Quite literally true…according to our analysis. There could be no meaningful ‘you’ without God! Therefore, absent God, you are naught . Dallan is not talking here about God the Creator; his God is much more immediate and immanent. He does not search for God beyond the mists of time; life itself is the experience and manifestation of divinity. “A shout in the street, that’s God.” ( St. Joyce , 1250 years later) Dallan writes (in part): Be thou my vision , O Lord of my heart; Naught be all else to me save that thou art. Thou my best thought by day and by night; Waking or sleeping, thy presence my light . Be thou my wisdom , and thou my true Word; I ever with thee and thou with me, Lord… Be thou my breastplate, my sword for the fight; Be thou my dignity , thou my delight … Heart of my heart, whatever befall, Still be my vision, O Ruler of all. My relationship to God is not in the least bit remote. God and I share a common structure. God is my foundation, my scaffolding, my logos . God is in every nook and cranny of my being; God permeates me. Enriched (hopefully) by this insight, we can read the Gospel of John with renewed awe: “I am in the Father and you in me and I in you.” (14: 20) 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.

Written by David Cowles, Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today magazine and explores short, profound thoughts and discoveries about theology, science, philosophy, literature, the arts, society, and prayer. Subscribe today for FREE! Enter your email address here: Subscribe now! Thanks for submitting! May 28, 2026 God and Consciousness “Ironically, the solution to both problems turns out to be the same…and that is the solution!” Read More May 27, 2026 Magnifica Humanitas “Pope Leo has squandered an incredible opportunity... to assume a leadership role in shaping a new Ethic of Abundance.” Read More May 20, 2026 Got Money? “The main reason that people who don’t have money don’t have money is that they don’t have money.” Read More May 19, 2026 Jesus & the Prime Directive “Are we growing into a civilization governed by the Prime Directive? Or are we finally heeding Jesus’ call to keep off the grass?” Read More May 18, 2026 JD Salinger vs Wally Shawn “Rather than reject Salinger’s derogatory depiction, Shawn leans into it… He dismisses the Gregory/Salinger aesthetic and lifestyle as fantastic, illusory, arbitrary and magical.” Read More May 17, 2026 Can Design Help Form Faith? “The best Christian design does not ask to be admired. Its purpose is not only to be seen. Its deeper purpose is to point. It asks to be followed beyond itself.” Read More May 16, 2026 Do Nebulae Think? “If nebulae do think they, if they are conscious, we may assume that they integrate information…across light years.” Read More May 15, 2026 Purpose, Meaning, Value “The beautiful…floats imperceptibly above the surface of the painting and underneath the gaze of the connoisseur - in the realm of pattern (logos).” Read More May 14, 2026 To Know, Love, and Serve “…Everything I do begins with a primal appetition for the Good, manifest as Truth, Beauty, and Justice. Where I go from there is up to me (free will).” Read More Apr 26, 2026 Jesus Christ Pantocrator “Take the AT challenge: Maintain eye contact with the Pantocrator for one full minute.” Read More Apr 25, 2026 The Great Reveal? “What if there are life forms that do not resemble anything I can describe? We probably wouldn’t know they exist… until they tap us on the shoulder and…they may have done just that.” Read More Apr 18, 2026 Aliens and the Upcoming Great Reveal Five Converging Clues That Suggest an Extraordinary Disclosure Read More Thoughts While Shaving 41 Page 1

< Back Magnifica Humanitas David Cowles May 27, 2026 “Pope Leo has squandered an incredible opportunity... to assume a leadership role in shaping a new Ethic of Abundance.” Although I am not a fan of the Chicago White Sox (wrong color hose), I greeted the election of Pope Leo with enthusiasm, especially when he chose the name ‘Leo’ in honor of Leo XIII, one of my intellectual heroes. 150 years ago, Leo cut through the Capitalist vs. Communist rhetoric of his day and put forward an alternative, and compelling, vision of a good society. Importantly, the elder Leo did not fixate on the form of a government but on its actual policies. So I was severely disappointed by Leo XIV’s first Encyclical ( Magnifica Humanitas , 5/15/2026). The text, not yet widely available in print, demands a much more detailed response, but please consider this as a first pass: Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity… Wow! That Leo feels a need to make such a statement near the beginning of his Encyclical is chilling. Technology is a charism, just like preaching, teaching, and speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12). Among extant terrestrial life forms, this behavior is almost exclusively the franchise of homo sapiens . Other species adapt to environmental change better than we do but we do a much ‘better’ job of modifying that environment. Technology is near the core of what it means to be human. Today, however, we find ourselves facing a new situation. The power and prevalence of emerging technologies are interwoven into the fabric of daily life, shaping decision-making processes and deeply affecting the collective imagination. Every technology is ‘interwoven into the fabric of daily life’… That’s how technology works! That’s what it is! Respectfully, Leo needs to brush up on his Marx, Ellul, McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller, et al. New technologies open up a horizon extending in directions that are imaginable but not yet fully predictable. This complicates the assessment of their potential impact and the long-term effects they may have on both the dignity of individuals and the common good . Leo is fixated on the concepts of human dignity and common good; both are deeply problematic. Re human dignity, we are born naked, helpless, and covered in mucus. We spend the next 18+ years trying to survive the abuse, neglect, miseducation, and regimentation known as a ‘happy childhood’; we follow that with 40+ years of wage slavery known as a ‘career’. Then we grow old, get sick, regress, and die. Some dignity! I’m sorely tempted to leave things here (so that I can enter the academy of 20 th century French intellectuals…and I’m not even French, mes amis )… but I can’t. There is another side of the story: each of us is also the image and likeness of ‘God’, you know, that omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent fellow that we all once believed in. According to Sartre (fellow 20 th century French intellectual), God is the being whose essence (qualities) precedes his existence. And according to Aquinas (not French) et al., that essence is Good; Good manifests in our world as Beauty, Truth, and Justice. So perhaps we do enjoy some dignity after all. One of the ‘avatars’ of this God we emulate is Creator . So we create. Our creative function ( techne ) confers dignity as do our artistic, intellectual ( gnosis ), and legislative ( mishpat ) functions. Lastly, nothing is ever fully predictable, especially potential impacts and long-term effects. That’s why they’re called ‘potential’ and ‘long term’; otherwise they’d be called ‘actual’ and ‘immediate’. In the past, it was largely up to the State to guide and direct innovation. Really, in the entire history of the world, has any State ever really ‘guided and directed innovation’ - though not for lack of trying (USSR et al.)? The Church values democracy insofar as it guarantees the effective participation of citizens, enables them to elect and peacefully replace their leaders and prevents power from being monopolized by small elite groups motivated by particular or ideological interests. Agreed. The church correctly values these things…though they have never existed. “I dream of things that never were and ask ‘Why not?’” (Bobby Kennedy) Human rights are inviolable, since they are “inherent in the human person and in human dignity.” Consequently, they are universal and inalienable. Among the numerous implications of the common good, immediate significance is taken on by the principle of the universal destination of goods . First of all, this principle reminds us that the earth’s goods — soil, water, air and natural resources — are given by God to the entire human family to sustain the lives of all, and that every person has an inherent right to the use of such goods, both now and in the future. Leo’s notion of common good seems to imply equal access and therefore socialism, which Leo XIII abhorred and which subsequent Church teaching seems to condemn. Certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. According to John Paul II , this subordination is the golden rule of social conduct and the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order.” Between Robber Baron Capitalism and Democratic Socialism, there is a vast middle ground. As far back as the 1960’s John Rawls proposed a theory of a just society that was based on three principles: (1) universal civil liberties, (2) a safety net guaranteed to deliver cash and benefits equivalent to a living wage, and (3) otherwise, unrestrained economic activity. No homelessness, no food insecurity, unlimited opportunity. In the Church’s tradition, property has been viewed as a means of protecting and managing goods so that they may better serve the common good. The Church has traditionally valued private property as a way of protecting that property from the rapacious appetite of the State so that it may be deployed by individuals (owners) in ways that ultimately contribute to the common good. Starting with Leo XIII and the beginnings of modern social teaching, the Church has insisted that neither the individual nor the family should be subsumed by the State, but should be allowed to act freely, as far as possible, without harming the common good… The Church’s social teaching emphasizes that solidarity is both a principle and a virtue. As a principle, it expresses the objective order of relationships among individuals, groups and peoples, pointing to an awareness of interdependence whereby the good of each person depends on the good of others. Amen to that! As with every major technological shift, AI tends to amplify the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise and access to data. Perhaps, but conversely AI, alongside personal computerization and social media, radically democratizes access to data (information) and communication media and places exponentially enhanced agentic power in the hands of the individual. Will you consider me mean spirited if I point out that the Church’s own track record in this area is ‘checkered’? It was not that long ago that the Church actively discouraged laity from reading the Bible. Then Martin Luther dragged the Church kicking and screaming into the 16 th century; 500 years on, will it be Sam Altman who drags the Church into the 21 st ? The search for truth is an essential element of democracy , which is itself a means of contributing to the common good…Democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but above all of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole . At its theoretical best, Democracy is a process by which ‘the people’ determine those facts and then, based on those facts, formulate social (political and economic) policy. Pope Leo puts the cart before the horse. He assumes that the result of fact finding and deliberation will always be ‘a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society as a whole’. Alas, the history of electoral democracy does not support Leo’s optimism. Above all, however, the Magisterium has recognized in work “the essential key” to understanding the entire social question, since it is through their work that individuals develop many dimensions of their existence. Let’s conduct a survey: how many people feel that their work has helped them ‘develop many dimensions of their existence’ (whatever that means)? Work is not simply an instrument; it expresses and enhances the dignity of our lives. It is a requirement of the human condition , a normal path toward maturity, development and personal fulfilment. Ah, a hidden variable is revealed! According to Genesis , one of humanity’s punishments for Adam’s transgression was the need to live by the sweat of one’s brow. Were the necessity of work to be overcome, would we be undermining scripture? While AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines (and)… relegate(s) them to rigid and repetitive tasks. Leo has his Revolutions mixed up. It was the Industrial Revolution (19 th century) that subordinated workers to their machines and condemned them to mind numbing tasks. It is the AI Revolution (21 st century) that will free workers from this drudgery. The need to keep up with the pace of technology can erode workers’ sense of agency and stifle the innovative abilities they are expected to bring to their work. Au contraire , AI boosts workers’ agentic powers and rewards, often handsomely, innovative thinking…”because it is so rare.” ( Mutiny on the Bounty ) Precisely in order to avoid this drift, it is necessary to design systems that are centered on the human person and not solely on performance. What could be less dignifying and more dehumanizing that the suggestion that peak performance is incompatible with the human person. Tell that to Bach, or Van Gogh, or James Joyce. Thank God, they didn’t get the memo! It is certainly desirable for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks… Yet, the protection of employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain the general rule. So, relieving ‘humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks’ is ‘certainly desirable’…but let’s not do it? Economic freedom is not absolute; it must always be measured against the common good and the dignity of every person. Economic freedom is a cornerstone of human dignity and indispensable to the aggressive pursuit of the common good. A just society requires a vigilant State. This is grotesquely anti-scriptural. The Book of Judges (justice makers) details a glorious 250 year period in Israel’s history: “In those days, Israel had no king, everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (21: 25, et al.) Jesus, handed a Roman coin, did not issue a white paper proposing monetary reform; he just gave it back. (Mt. 22: 21) In continuity with the tradition inaugurated by Leo XIII , the Church renews her firm condemnation of all forms of slavery, trafficking and the commodification of persons. All forms of slavery except, apparently, Wage Slavery. And what is ‘labor’ (vs. work) other than the commodification of the person? That’s precisely what labor is…’value added’! But worst of all, Pope Leo has squandered what an incredible opportunity…for society and for the Church. A new day is dawning, with or without Pope Leo’s blessing, and it begs for inspiration and guidance; both are utterly lacking in Magnifica Humanitas . As for the Church, this was an opportunity to assume a leadership role in shaping a new ‘ethic of abundance’ : How to ensure that newly created wealth works to improve the human condition generally. Instead, Leo responds with the worn out ‘ethic of scarcity’ – quelle domage ! 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.

There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home

There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home

< Back Can Design Help Form Faith? Giosafatte Ingrassia May 17, 2026 “The best Christian design does not ask to be admired. Its purpose is not only to be seen. Its deeper purpose is to point. It asks to be followed beyond itself.” I grew up in Calabria, in the south of Italy, where visible signs of faith were part of ordinary life. In our home there was Padre Pio on the wall, statues of Jesus and Our Lady, and the kind of religious images you do not really question as a child because they are simply there. At school, there was a crucifix. In my father’s car, there is still a small crucifix hanging beneath the rear-view mirror. Only later did I begin to realise that these things were not just decoration. They were reminders. Quiet ones, maybe, but reminders all the same. I moved to Rome as a teenager, the picture became more complicated. Rome is full of churches, sacred art, and Christian history, yet many people my age seemed more secular than those I had known in smaller towns in the south. Then, when I moved to London at twenty, the contrast became sharper again. Christian signs felt less assumed, less woven into public life. I did not have the language for it then, but Durkheim’s old distinction between the sacred and the profane later gave words to something I had already felt: the sacred can be present and still be ignored, or absent enough that its smallest sign begins to matter. Christian tradition has always understood that what we see can shape what we remember. Paintings, statues, icons, stained glass, rosaries, medals, church bells, and the rosoni, the great rose windows in old churches, were never meant to be mere decoration. They taught, reminded, and directed attention. They surrounded people with signs of the good, the true, and the beautiful. Beauty does not replace faith. But it can make the soul more ready to receive meaning. A church window, a crucifix, or a sacred image does not force belief. It simply asks us to pause. Studying psychology has made me less naive about attention. The modern world knows very well how trainable it is. Screens, adverts, notifications, billboards, and algorithms are constantly competing for our eyes. They do not simply show us things. They try to make us desire, compare, click, buy, and return. That is why visible signs of faith deserve to be taken seriously, even when they appear in ordinary forms: a mug, a phone case, a print, a shirt, or a tote bag. If the modern world is already using design to form our desires, Christians should not be embarrassed to ask whether design can also help form attention toward God. Of course, this can go wrong. Christian imagery can become shallow. It can turn faith into a vibe, a slogan, a costume, or just another consumer identity. A cross can be worn without being carried. A verse can be printed without being lived. That does not mean humour or modern Christian design should be dismissed. There is room for humour within reverence. Many of us have experienced enough divine irony in our own lives to know that faith is not humourless. But humour has to point back toward truth, not away from it. The difference is purpose. A Bible verse, a saint image, a crucifix, or a Christian phrase becomes meaningful when it serves remembrance, prayer, courage, truth, hope, or witness. The problem is not that faith becomes visible. The problem is when visibility becomes the whole point. Christian design should not make holiness fashionable; it should make forgetfulness harder. There is a line in ‘Excalibur’ where Merlin says that one of the curses of men is that they forget. The line has stayed with me because forgetfulness is not only a human weakness. It is a spiritual danger. We forget what is true, what has been given, what has been sacrificed, and who we are called to become. Christian life depends on remembrance. “Do this in memory of me” is not a sentimental phrase. It is at the heart of worship. Memory matters because love weakens when it forgets. Design cannot carry the whole weight of faith, but it can carry a reminder. A rosary, a crucifix, a verse on a mug, or a Christian image on a wall can interrupt the day’s ordinary drift. A gift with Christian meaning can do something similar. It may sit quietly on a desk, hang by a door, or be worn in public, but its purpose is not only to be seen. Its deeper purpose is to point. Sometimes a visible sign of faith does what awkward words cannot: it begins a conversation. It can cross the small distances that often keep people apart: accent, background, nationality, class, appearance. Beneath those differences is a shared human dignity, and for Christians, a soul made for God. A Christian object is at its best when it points beyond itself. It is not precious because it is religious merchandise, but because it may invite someone to remember Christ, to pray, to return, or to live differently. This question has become more personal for me as I approach confirmation. I am not thinking about design only as aesthetics, but as part of a larger desire to seek the Kingdom, grow closer to God, and deepen my relationship with Christ. Christian by Grace is only a small means toward that end. Its purpose is not to make faith look fashionable, but to help make faith visible in ordinary life. If even one design became the occasion for someone to remember Christ, pray, return, or ask a deeper question, that would be enough. So, can design help form faith? Not by itself. Not automatically. But it can help form attention, memory, witness, and return. Faith does not need to be loud, but it should not be invisible. The best Christian design does not ask to be admired. It asks to be followed beyond itself. Giosafatte’s bio: Giosafatte Ingrassia is a London-based psychology graduate originally from Calabria in southern Italy. He is the creator of Christian by Grace ( Hot Link to https://christianbygrace.com ) a Christian visual design project built around making faith visible in daily life through Scripture, sacred symbolism, humour, devotional art, pilgrimage, and everyday reminders. 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 Purpose, Meaning, Value David Cowles May 15, 2026 “The beautiful…floats imperceptibly above the surface of the painting and underneath the gaze of the connoisseur - in the realm of pattern (logos).” “Does it have any purpose, any meaning, any value?” Isn’t this approximately the first question we ask whenever we encounter anything novel? Notice I say ‘question’, not ‘questions’ – because these three ‘questions’ are actually the same question expressed in different contexts: (1) Can this entity further my projects? Can I put it to some use? Can I find a purpose for it? Techne . (2) If not, does this entity have a message for me? Does it contain information? “The signatures of all things I am here to read.” (Joyce) Gnosis . (3) If not, does the entity have value per se , in its own right, apart from any possible utility? Logos . Unexpectedly, these ‘contexts’ reflect three facets of the Divine Nature, i.e. of the Good, manifest in the World as Beauty ( logos ), Truth ( gnosis ), and Justice ( techne ). Purpose, Meaning, and Value (PMV) are vectors; they point beyond mere materiality. Purpose refers to the techno-sphere, Meaning to the noosphere, Value to the logo-sphere, three layers of Being that template the purely material ( physis ). They are what-is caught in the process of becoming what-is-not. They are what-is transcending itself. PMV refers to an aspect of things that is not immanent in the things themselves: “This painting is beautiful.” Heads nod in unison. But where does that beauty come from? From the eye of the beholder? Or from the physical painting itself? Or from values that transcend the painting, the artist, and the critic? If the beauty lies with the beholder, then it is no more significant than my grandchild liking peppermint stick ice cream: nice to know…but end of! If beauty lies in the painting itself, then it is inseparable from the particular pigments and brush strokes used. But if that is the case, how is it that a second painting with exactly the same range of color and acumen of craft is butt-ugly? The beautiful is grounded in the canvass and appreciated by the connoisseur but it exists in its own realm: it floats imperceptibly above the surface of the painting and underneath the gaze of the connoisseur - in the realm of pattern ( logos , see below). Against all of this, there’s Nietzsche: “One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole – there exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our being, for that would be to judge, measure, compare, condemn the whole… But nothing exists apart from the whole!” ( Twilight of the Idols ) This 19 th century proto-existentialist recognized that PMV transcends the material world but he denied that anything transcends ‘the whole’ and therefore he denied the possibility of any meaningful valuation. Note : “I like it,” is a valuation of sorts but it is not yet meaningful; it is the semantic equivalent of a sigh. It refers to the painting, and it refers to the critic, but it makes no appeal to the transcendent. However, anything beyond ‘I like it’ or its equivalent invokes values that do not reside either in the critic or in the craft. So, checkmate! PMV is how we ‘judge, measure, compare, condemn’; therefore, they cannot exist in a flat (linear) Universe such as proposed by Nietzsche and implicit in today’s reigning ontological paradigm, Scientific Positivism . Unless, of course, Nietzche is wrong! Much as we admire Nietzsche’s take no prisoners style of philosophizing, few of us live our lives as Nietzscheans. The twin ‘illusions’ of agency and hierarchy are just too strong. I have to choose, coffee or tea, and I can’t reconcile myself to the idea that my choices are random, determined algorithmically, a matter of habit, or a product of fate. Agency sets me apart from the World. Phenotypically, the distinction of not-self from self is our first exposure to the non-linearity of Being. Through me, the World experiences and acts on itself; ego is the vehicle and first fruit of recursion. But Agency (self vs. not-self) is a specific example of the more general phenomenon of hierarchy . Remember Nietzsche, “Nothing exists apart from the whole?” But I do , I am of the whole, but I am also apart from the whole. Philosophers love to split a hair, pick a nit, but there’s no splitting or picking here! Either Being is flat (linear) or it’s hierarchical (recursive). If it’s flat, nothing transcends anything else and PMV is an empty concept. However, if anything has purpose, meaning, or value, then Being per se is non-linear and everything has at least the potential to be useful, informative, or enervating. That potential is what defines an ‘entity’ in a non-linear world. To be is to have the capacity to convey influences. There is a crucial ethical dimension to this. If the World is flat and without transcendent value, then we are free to use (abuse) our environment as we see fit. If those uses are unsustainable or inhumane, so what? We cannot be judged. But on the other hand, if entities have purpose, meaning, or value, they transcend mere materiality and that severely constrains how we may relate to them. Perhaps the most developed ethic in this vein is that of the Eastern European Hasidim . According to this Orthodox Jewish sect, every entity contains a divine spark, a fragment of Shekinah , YHWH’s Presence in the World. Our mission is to release those sparks so that they can reunite, ultimately constituting the ‘Cosmic Messiah’ (as envisioned by Teilhard de Chardin et al.). Here Asian and European philosophies overlap. Anaximander, the grandfather of Greek philosophy, taught that Being itself is the product of two potential or virtual entities granting each other ‘reck’ (respect) and thereby constituting each other as ‘actual entities’ with the potential to convey influences. We fulfill our mission when we treat everything we encounter with that respect, when we grant ‘reck’, when we let everything around us ‘be all that it can be’ (US Army), i.e. when we transform daily living into a sacrament (“The grove needs an altar” – Ezra Pound). Consider also Native American spirituality. It expresses respect and gratitude to the animals and plants that must be hunted and gathered to sustain human life. Bottom line, I may not arbitrarily exploit or co-opt other entities solely to further my projects or satisfy my desires. Instead, I must meet every person, process, or thing on its own terms, using it according to its best purposes, respectfully, though not always deferentially. Upon encountering a new entity, I must not ask what it can do for me; I must first ask what I can do for it (JFK). And it is by treating others with nurturing respect that I release the well-hidden spark within myself. In fact, care of others is care of self because your neighbor is yourself. ( Great Commandment ) By the grace of God, you save yourself by saving others: ‘Forgive us…as we forgive!’ ( Lord’s Prayer ) And who is my neighbor? Well, you are, of course, dear reader, but also the stranger, the sojourner, the refugee, and the outcast. And the coral reef, the bumble bee, the quaking aspen and the wood wide web; Gaia , kosmos , ‘Brother Sun, Sister Moon’. (St. Francis) The Torah may be read as the user’s manual for Planet Earth - 613 ‘DIY hacks’ for dealing ethically, and effectively, with the world of persons, places, and things. I only come to be in the context of you, the other: you individually (reader), you collectively (society), you transcendently (God). The network precedes the nodes. Therefore logos cannot be an emergent property of physis (sorry Muster Mark…Karl). Logos must be substructural. “It from bit.” (Wheeler) You’ve heard of the Higgs Boson, the newly discovered particle that gives matter its mass? Well, it is logos that gives entities purpose, meaning, and value . But if anything has purpose, meaning or value, then everything , every entity, is potentially a signifier and therefore everything we do, however local, however trivial, has cosmic implications. Every thing is in every thing (Anaxagoras Hot Link ) and we are called “to see a world in a grain of sand.” (Blake) If every entity is potentially purposeful, meaningful, or valuable, does the Cosmos as a whole, Being itself, also have significance. Is what’s good for the goslings good for the goose? According to academic logicians (e.g. Bertrand Russell Hot Link ) the answer is ‘no’: no set can be a member of itself, and the set of all entities, the Universal Set (U), is not itself an entity. But this is obviously just a convention. For example, the set of all mathematical objects is itself a mathematical object. Of course, we’re free to define this relationship any way we want but to say that no set can be self-referential seems a bit silly and makes the whole enterprise suspect. On the other hand, not every set is a member of itself. The set of all horses, for example, is not a horse. So which is it? Is the set of all entities (U) an entity in its own right, and therefore its own member, or is it merely an inert, purely conceptual, collection? This is perhaps Cosmology’s most important question. It is a fundamental tenet of this site that concepts, if valid, should apply across all scales. There is not one rule for a quantum and another for a queen; the fundamental structure of the Universe must be scale-agnostic. The so-called Universal Set (U) goes by many names: Cosmos, Universe, World, Being, God. What’s your Ultimate Reality? Regardless of labels, the question is the same: Is Reality, at the level of ultimate generality (U), a real thing or just an idea? To answer this question, we need Gregory Bateson! So many phenomena can be defined by applying his catch-all criterion - a difference that makes a difference. The nexus of all entities is certainly different from any subset of those entities and from the mere multiplicity of the elements themselves. So, different? Check! But is it a difference that makes a difference ? For that, we need to take a step back. What would it mean for the Universal Set (U) to make a difference? It can’t make a difference to something outside itself since by definition there is nothing outside it. So if it makes a difference, it must make a difference to itself and that means it must make a difference to at least one of its members (elements). But if it makes a difference to one member it makes a difference to all members (Principle of Solidarity). Of the world’s major religions, Christianity is perhaps the most explicit in its doctrines surrounding the reality and efficacy of the Universal Set: “In the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and the logos was God and…the logos become flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1: 1 – 3, 14) Translation : the Universal Set is an actual entity and so it is a member of itself. U є U; Incarnation! So we find ourselves in the position of the residents of Jerusalem c. 500 BCE, hearing the Book of Deuteronomy read out for the first time: “I set before you life and death; therefore, choose life.” (30: 19) I set before you everything ( panta ) and nothing ( nihil ); therefore, choose everything. Either the universe is an unimaginably huge pile of steaming excrement ( nihil )… or it is thoroughly saturated with Purpose, Meaning, and Value ( panta ). And if panta , then U itself is an actual entity that makes a difference in the careers of every other member, every other actual entity. In my view at least, there can be no middle ground. “Mademoiselle, may I take your order? Will you have Panta or Nihil today?” 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 Do Nebulae Think? David Cowles May 16, 2026 “If nebulae do think they, if they are conscious, we may assume that they integrate information…across light years.” In 1974 Thomas Nagel earned himself a permanent position in the Intellectual Pantheon of the Western World. His signature essay, What’s it like to be a Bat , Hot Link catalyzed the Search for Intelligent Life on Earth (SILE): “There is something that it is like to be a bat…what it is like for a bat to be a bat…because we know what it is like to be us.” (Do we?) At least since 1500 CE, folks in the North Atlantic Community have imagined themselves as ‘little less than angels’. Prior to Darwin, any suggestion that we were more Gorilla than Gabriel would have been considered preposterous. And prior to Nagel, extending monikers like ‘conscious, intelligent, sentient’ to non-human life forms was a non-starter. Besides, we were occupied with more serious questions: Should we extend these monikers to women, to children, to members of other races, other ethnic groups, other nationalities, other age cohorts, other ideologies, other social castes or classes? Heady stuff! I’m pleased to report that we’ve made uncharacteristically significant progress in these areas over the half-century since Nagel. There is something approaching a consensus that certain non-human life forms are intelligent and conscious. Primates and Sea Mammals make almost everyone’s list. Corvids (ravens, parrots, crows), Cephalopoda (octopus), and Pachyderms (elephants) show up frequently as well. They know what they know, and they know that they know it, and they project similar self-awareness onto others in their community. There is even serious conversation now about the mental status and intellectual life of unicellular organisms. The average adult human body consists of about 30 trillion of the little critters – we call them ‘cells’ - organized into semi-independent organs, all working together to promote the survival (and fecundity) of the host….i.e. you! Now as far as our fellow human beings are concerned, we’ve still got aways to go, but the best of you are working on it and have made some headway! Phenotypically, life on Earth could not be more varied - from figs to ferns, bats to bacteria, cabbages to kings. But structurally, behaviorally, even morphologically, all life on Earth is remarkably similar. Birds fly, so do bats, so do bugs, and so do we (thanks to our technology). Different structures support similar functions. On the other hand, fish have gills and we have ears: same structure, different function. Evolution, the wellspring of biodiversity, is also convergent: several organisms from different limbs on the tree of life may evolve similar traits/structures via radically different pathways. The features in question confer survival (reproductive) advantage across phyla and a variety of unrelated structures can serve as ground zero for their development. Plus every member of every species now living on Earth is descended from a single DNA molecule synthesized about 4 billion years ago. How’s that for bio-similarity? For convergence? So on the one hand, no two cells are identical (mutation, epigenesis) but on the other hand, all cells are clones of a single aboriginal cell. Can we find similarly homologous structures in the inanimate world as well? *** No self-respecting middle school geek has failed to notice similarities in the structure of atoms, fundamental units of physics, and that of cells, fundamental units of biology: ‘nucleus & electrons’ meet ‘nucleus & mitochondria’. Our cognitive lenses seem to work better as a microscope than as a telescope. We can detect congruent patterns in regions of the cosmos twenty orders of magnitude smaller than us, and we are not shy about attributing common functions to such congruent structures. We are less apt to recognize congruence on larger scales, and we are much less willing to posit homologous function on that scale. That said, the same structure we noticed in atoms and cells appears in solar systems, galaxies, and galactic sheets. At the highest level of generality, the network of galaxies in the universe forms a pattern eerily similar to the network of neurons in the human brain. A recent photo taken by the JWST of Nebula PMR 1 (top of this article), stretching more than 5 light years across and located some 5,000 light-years from Earth, reveals a structure similar to that revealed by an MRI of an unremarkable human brain. Note especially (1) the inner concentration of structural elements protected by an outer membrane, and (2) a division of those elements into two hemispheres, separated by a longitudinal fissure. Co-incidence? Sure. An example of the self-similar organization of the cosmos? That too! According to the popular holographic model of cosmology, the universe is self-similar across all scales, so we will not be surprised if it turns out that the Cosmos is self-similar to the Quantum. *** Consciousness is deeply associated with patterns. First, it seems to be an emergent trait in entities with certain structural similarities. Second, consciousness consists of patterns it discovers in the external world. Finally, consciousness appears to impose its own patterns on random sensory input. Patterns are often self-similar across scales and across various material substrates. To bastardize Stephen Hawking, et al., “it’s patterns all the way down”. Perhaps a more useful phrasing (imitating Gregory Bateson) would be, “it’s patterns discovering other patterns.” That suggests that the phenomenon of patternedness , the propensity of entities to form patterns ( logoi ), may itself be substructural. (John 1: 1 – 3) According to Arthur S Reber , there is a growing sense of unease among biologists re shortcomings in the Neo-Darwinian framework. For example, epigenetic effects are not only real but critical for the evolution of cells. Further, it is increasingly clear that the central assumption of Neo-Darwinism, that mutations occur randomly and that natural selection operates to conserve the most adaptive variations, is simply wrong (Miller et al, 2023 ). It is virtually certain that cells control gene expression by the decisions and choices they make. Likely, all cells are sentient and self-aware and capable of decision-making and problem-solving at some level. These cellular faculties rely on information integrated across the entire cell (Baluška et al, 2022 ). Consciousness seems unrelated to the volume of information. Instead it is a function of, and a driving force for, information integration and that interconnectedness becomes the measure of consciousness. If nebulae do think, if they are conscious, we may assume that they integrate information, not just across nanometers but across light years. So are the pattern of celestial objects in Nebula PMR 1 and the pattern of neurons in our skulls sufficiently similar to allow both to support consciousness; if so, wh at do such nebulae think about …and what do they think about it? Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back JD Salinger vs Wally Shawn David Cowles May 18, 2026 “Rather than reject Salinger’s derogatory depiction, Shawn leans into it… He dismisses the Gregory/Salinger aesthetic and lifestyle as fantastic, illusory, arbitrary and magical.” Any mildly competent Intellectual History of the US post WW II would have to recognize the contributions of J.D. Salinger (JD) and Wallace Shawn (Wally). (Although we’ve never met, I feel as though I grew up, culturally, alongside Mr. Shawn so referring to him as ‘Wally’ does not seem irreverent.) JD, of Catcher in the Rye fame, is known for his eccentricity, his physical isolation, and his meagre, if cherished, literary output. Wally, on the other hand, seems to have two fingers in every cultural pie. Actor, director, author, critic, and TV celebrity, Wallace Shawn is an iconic member of the post-War literary scene. Respecting your time, dear reader, I will mention just a few of Shawn’s many credits: My Dinner with Andre , Vanya on 42 nd Street , The Princess Bride , voice roles in Toy Story and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine , and of course, the olive in every martini, Young Sheldon . He’s collaborated with everyone from Woody Allen (6 films) to Louie Malle ( Atlantic City ), Bill Cosby ( The Cosby Show ), and Noam Chomsky. Nor did the apple fall far from the tree. For several decades, Wally’s father, William Shawn, edited America’s literary magazine of record, The New Yorker . During that period the elder Shawn was close friends with Salinger and they dined regularly at the Algonquin. JD was not yet 25 when Wally was born. It is likely that he followed his maturation closely and was no doubt aware of his emergence as a cultural icon in his own right. How JD felt about that, however, is unknown, at least by this commentator. In 1961, in the third of his four published works, Franny and Zooey , Salinger gives Wally a cameo role that I don’t think was meant to be flattering. JD presents Wally as unmemorable, as someone who looks, talks, dresses and acts like everybody else. He has the sort of face that you keep seeing, but not seeing, in every crowd. Salinger presents Wally as a charmer and a gossip, one who drops a name only to disparage its nominee. “It’s not just Wally…it’s everybody. I mean everything everybody does is so…tiny and meaningless,” says Franny Glass, JD’s anti-hero. According to Franny, Wallace Shawn is a poster boy for banality; but worst of all, Wally is introduced to us, and to Franny, as a friend of Lane, Franny’s foil, a shallow, entitled, prep-school frat boy living a life utterly devoid of authenticity. 20 years later (1981), almost to the day, the world got Wallace Shawn’s reply in the form of a full length feature film, My Dinner with Andre (Louie Malle, director). As you know, the film consists almost entirely of conversation over dinner between Wally and fellow director, Andre Gregory. Trust me, you’ll be on the edge of your seat for the full 110 minutes. There is no direct connection between Gregory and Salinger, except for a shared eccentricity that borders on the anti-social and a total disdain for the ordinary and the everyday. However, there are certainly notes of similarity between Salinger’s version of Wally and Malle’s kinder, gentler treatment. That said, Wally’s apparent identity across 2 decades begs us to seek a parallel identity between his interlocutors, Salinger and Gregory. In a style fully suggestive of Salinger, Gregory savages the mundane. For an hour and a half, Gregory holds court, only briefly interrupted by the baffled Shawn and their slightly annoyed waiter. But reminiscent of Molly in Ulysses , Wally gets the last word with a 10 minute virtual soliloquy that shreds the Gregory/Salinger aesthetic: “I’m trying to earn a living. I’m trying to pay my rent and my bills… I have a list of errands and responsibilities that I keep in a notebook, and I enjoy going through my list and carrying out the responsibilities and doing the errands and then crossing them off my list… I don’t feel the need for anything more than this… A delicious cup of coffee and a piece of coffee cake, why is it necessary to have more than this or to even think about having more than this? “You seem constantly to be finding a significance in these things that to me are just facts…that things in the universe are there for a purpose, to give us messages. Whereas I believe that things in the universe are just there. They don’t mean anything.” Here, Wally is aligning himself with such luminaries as Epicurus, Voltaire (“tend your own garden”) and Solomon (traditional author of Ecclesiastes ): “I know that there is nothing good for man (sic) except to be happy and live the best life he can while he is alive. Moreover, that a man should eat and drink and enjoy himself in return for all his labors is a gift of God… “Go to it then, eat your food and enjoy it, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for already God has accepted what you have done… Whatever task lies to your hand, do it with all your might.” Rather than reject Salinger’s derogatory depiction, Shawn leans into it. He turns vice into virtue and in the process he dismisses the Gregory/Salinger aesthetic and lifestyle as fantastic, illusory, arbitrary and magical. Truth to tell, there is much to admire in the works of Salinger and Gregory… but no more than in the work of Wallace Shawn. Ecclesiastes can be read as a commentary on Deuteronomy : “I set before you life and death…” becomes “I set before you the fantastic (nihilism) and the mundane (quietism); therefore choose…” What world do you live in, dear reader? ‘Wally World’ (Solomon & Shawn) or its ‘Anti-World’ (Salinger and Gregory)? 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 Jesus & the Prime Directive David Cowles May 19, 2026 “Are we growing into a civilization governed by the Prime Directive? Or are we finally heeding Jesus’ call to keep off the grass?” “The Prime Directive, or Starfleet General Order 1, is the foundational, non-interference principle of the Star Trek United Federation of Planets. It prohibits personnel from influencing or intervening in the natural, cultural, and technological development of alien civilizations…” (Wikipedia) Wisdom is universal and eternal; but expressions of that Wisdom vary by culture and era and, who knows, perhaps by species, chemistry, planet or galaxy as well. In that light, Starfleet General Order 1 makes a useful contribution. But we should not lose sight of the fact that it restates an expression of Wisdom at least two millennia old: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us…” ( Lord’s Prayer ) If it is not immediately obvious why these two statements are semantically equivalent, you may be forgiven – forgiven because these two pearls connect only through the mediation of an obscure 6 th century BCE Greek philosopher (Anaximander) and his less obscure 20 th century avatar (Heidegger). Intrigued? Homo Sapiens did not evolve in isolation. We exist only in the context of community and community comes about only when you and I grant each other ‘reck’ (i.e. recognition, deference). We grant reck when we sublimate our own interests to those of another. I ‘make space’ for you; and when you, simultaneously and without any expectation of reciprocity, make space for me, then voila , we have community ! The unobvious opposite of ‘reck’ is ‘trespass’. Instead of making room for you to emerge and grow, I impinge upon you, stunt your growth, expropriate your property and perhaps cut short your stay or even abort your arrival. In short, I ‘trespass against’ you. We ask God to overlook, to overcome, to forgive all our trespasses, i.e. all the ‘days and ways’ we use to limit others’ being, growth, or optimization (“be all that you can be”). “As we forgive those who trespass against us.” Forgiving others’ trespasses is granting them reck, granting and forgiving being two sides of the same coin. “Whatever you bind on earth (in time) will be bound in heaven (eternally) and whatever you lose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 18: 18) God operates in the world through the world. Granting reck and forgiving trespasses, we become co-creators and co-redeemers with God. When we forgive, we operate in loco Dei . We realize God’s eschatological objective in a concrete context. What happens in spacetime ‘happens’ (potentially at least) in eternity: “On Earth as it is in Heaven.” Forgiveness of others is Step One in the process of universal reconciliation and redemption. We’ve come a long way since Anaximander, 2500 years to be exact, but our progress has not been entirely fortuitous. The local (in space & time) successes of our engineers and our generals have convinced us that qualia (values) are best realized when imposed externally, not cultivated internally or agreed mutually. We have built an entire language around this ethic. Sentences are our ‘quanta of meaning’ and in modern Indo-European (IE) languages, most sentences connect a subject with an object through the mediation of an active (or passive) voiced verb. In the raging ‘60s, Marshall McLuchan famously said that ‘the medium is the message’. Extending that insight, we can say that the structure of language (medium) determines what is communicated (message) through that language. Example : A baseball bat and ball are lying together on the ground. We immediately imagine someone using the bat to hit the ball which we would express as “the bat hit the ball” (subject-verb-object) or “John hit the ball with the bat”. We do not consider that the two artifacts might have an entirely different relationship: Perhaps we are playing a darts-like game where the object is to throw the ball from a distance to hit the bat. Or the object of the game is to balance the ball on the knob of the bat for as long as possible or to use the bat as a chute, seeing how far you can roll the ball at a 45° angle before the ball hits the ground. Inquisitive? Use the bat as a tool to crack open the ball so you can explore its rubbery core and the clump of elastic string tightly wound around it. Hostile? Attach the ball to the end of the bat and use it as a mace. Cheeky? Place the objects in the royal nursery and watch them instantly transubstantiate into orb-and-scepter. Pragmatic? They form a clock ‘hand’ worthy of Big Ben…or a measuring rod for surveyors. Add a swivel and you have ‘spoke and rim’ construction. When writing a message on a deserted beach for a passing plane to read, use our combo to create the letter ‘i’ or better yet, as the exclamation mark ‘!’ at the end of “Help!” But to fully understand the semantic range of a ‘sphere and cylinder’, hand the ball and bat (taking all necessary precautions of course) to a 3 year old; she will show you things you can do with them that neither you nor I could possibly imagine. Civilization evolves organically and holistically. Our need for tools and weapons prompts us to scan the environment for suitable objects. We name those objects, we transform them, and we create a language around their role in hunting, herding and construction. Language, in turn, draws our attention to additional objects that might thrive in our technosphere. Like the set of a Disney movie, our ho-hum world is instantly transformed into a wonderland of obstacles and tools, somehow magically suited to our projects; our language itself is one such talisman. The traditional values of Beauty, Truth and Justice are reinterpreted in context as Efficiency, Efficacy and Economy. We have embedded this ethic in our language; we have divided the world into intentional actors (subjects), passive ‘beneficiaries’ (objects) and their transformations (verbs). *** It doesn’t have to be like this…and it isn’t. Ancient IE languages and some modern non-IE languages have a much richer and more deeply expressive syntax. Ancient Greek and Old Norse, for example, had a dominant Middle Voice that interprets events as products of mutuality rather than agency. In such a grammar, nouns are co-subjects and co-objects, verbs are recursive, and process is reciprocating. A variety of non-IE languages, some perhaps with Neolithic roots (e.g. modern Basque), solve the problem of Active Voice bias by different means. For example, Basque uses ergative-absolutive alignment (rather than the nominative-accusative system universal in IE languages). In ergative grammar, the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb both take the absolutive case, which has no suffix — it's the bare form of the word, the root. The implication is that this is the primordial case: being, not doing. The subject of a transitive verb (doing) takes a different case entirely — the ergative, marked with the suffix -k . Ergativity is found in other languages worldwide (Chechen, Tibetan, many Australian languages, some Mayan languages) but is completely absent from the IE family. Another grammatical feature characteristic of Basque and, perhaps, certain Neolithic languages, is polypersonality - a single verb form simultaneously encodes the person and number of the subject, the direct object, and the indirect object. The verb also encodes the tense, aspect, mood, and the social register (formal vs. informal, and in informal speech, the sex of the person addressed). Polypersonality is found in other unrelated language families, perhaps most notably, in the indigenous languages of North America and the Arctic Rim. Let’s revert to our original example: ‘John hit the ball with the bat’. There is just one event here; it is a singularity in space and time. But our IE syntax breaks down that event into its participants and presents it as something that unfolds in time. Our language draws attention away from the event itself and focuses instead on its various parties (John, bat, ball; it distorts a quantum event so that it appears to occupy a region of spacetime. This is a highly structured view of reality that requires a library of metaphysical assumptions. Ergative, polypersonal, and middle voiced languages are more respectful of the ontological integrity of the event itself. This cross cultural analysis of language shines a light on a familiar problem: the chicken or the egg! Ergative, polypersonal, and middle voiced languages see the event as primary and its participants as secondary. On the other hand, our modern IE languages reverse the gestalt: participants are primary, events secondary. Who am ‘I’? An intentional subject who makes things happen…or the distillation of a process? Philosophically, the Middle Voice paradigm is reflected in the philosophies of Anaximander, Buber, and Whitehead (among others). But how does any of this connect to Jesus or the Prime Directive? Modern IE is the language of imperialism – military, political, economic, cultural and spiritual. That is why our ‘Enlightened’ civilization (1492 – 1969) was so determined to convert ‘savages’ and ‘heretics’ to the ‘right shade’ of Christianity…and to exterminate all others. After Columbus and Machiavelli at least, all history is the history of trespass . Our so-called ‘explorers’ raised cultural, and sometimes ethnic, genocide to an art form, all in the name of God and civilization. Columbus was the anti-Kirk. Far from preserving indigenous culture, its extermination was Job One. It was not until the global Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s that diversity was recognized as something worth preserving. The advent of political liberalism in the second half of the 18 th century extended only to propertied while males of European extraction, the guardians of modern Indo-European. It became the life’s work of the post WWII generations to extend the franchise to people of different classes, races, genders, cultures and even perhaps to some non-human life forms; we are still in the middle of this process with no defined end in sight. Are we growing into a civilization governed by the Prime Directive? Or are we finally heeding Jesus’ call to keep off the grass, i.e. to avoid trespassing against others and to forgive those who trespass against us? Either way, we are hopefully in the throes of the greatest cultural transformation in 500 years…or not! 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 Got Money? David Cowles May 20, 2026 “The main reason that people who don’t have money don’t have money is that they don’t have money.” Recently, I retired from a job that had occupied my attention for a mere 45 years. It was the worst of jobs, it was the best of jobs, but thank God, it paid well. I was able to provide my family with material advantages intended to make up for the lack of a fully engaged spouse or parent. Since I retired, I have made more money each year than I ever did working! It’s called investing. Now, of course, we happen to be living in a charmed era, investment-wise. You’d have to be a pretty poor money manager not to have made gains over the last 10 years. However, I now suffer from the conviction, possibly delusional, that I could have made money in less advantageous periods as well. There’s precedent. In early 1970’s Boston, two friends of mine purchased a six family residential structure now valued at $6,000,000. Cost: $10,000. I myself had an opportunity to buy a popular neighborhood bar…for $10,000. Or I could have bought a working farm in Maritime Canada…again, $10,000. It gets worse. In both ventures I would have had partners so I would not have needed the full 10k…but I did need a seemingly unattainable 1k just to be included in the conversation. No joy! In those days, George McGovern was running for President on a platform that included a $1,000 minimum annual income for all Americans. No need to ask what I was doing on election day! Like Jacob in the Old Testament, I had to work - in his case for 14 years, in my case for 45 years - just to create the capital we lacked at the beginning of our careers. Did someone say ‘Wage Slaves’? Both Jacob and I (several orders of magnitude below) went on to live economically comfortable lives. But at what cost? Arguably, I worked 45 years to get to where I could have been Day One if I’d had $10,000 in my sock drawer. (Burglars take note, I will be moving my money later today.) In every economic epoch, the generation of wealth relies on the same three sources: Inspiration (innovation, imagination, ingenuity), Perspiration (labor), and Capital (money, land). Inspiration derives its economic value from its future utility, Perspiration from our present exertions, Capital from wealth created in the past, conserved, and now unlocked. In every era, all three sources necessarily contribute to the generation of wealth, but in proportions that vary depending on the means of production characteristic of the epoch. Likewise, all three sources share in the fruits of economic activity but not necessarily in proportion to their actual contributions. The relationship between contributions made and rewards received is called Political Economy . The disparity between the two is called Alienation . Examples : Much of the wealth generated in the ante-bellum American South was attributable to Labor (slavery) but that wealth was routed primarily to the holders of Capital (plantation owners). The Industrial Revolution substituted the factory (wage slavery) for the plantation. Marxists proposed to invert the distribution of rewards between capital and labor. Fatally, they failed to acknowledge the crucial role played by Inspiration and so failed to reward those contributors appropriately. Hyper-materialism turned out to be Marx’s Achilles Heal. Happily, the Industrial Revolution is behind us… along with the Enlightenment philosophy that grounded it. We are now in the third stage of the Cyber Revolution: (1) Computerization (PC and the smart phone). (2) Socialization (internet, the web, and social media). (3) Artificial Intelligence (the democratization of information and agency). The Cyber Age age puts a premium on Innovation and rewards it accordingly. Capital remains essential to meet infrastructure demands so stock market returns are healthy. The odd person out, as usual, is Labor. In a world where much of what we have traditionally thought of as work can be automated with gains in both quality and efficiency, grunt work has become the least important leg of the economic tripod. We’ve come a long way from Tara and the assembly line. We are truly in the process of turning the economic paradigm on its head. For millennia Labor has been over-exploited and under-rewarded. Now that must change! As Labor becomes less essential, and solidarity more so, compensation must exceed contribution. At least since the Middle Ages, Labor has played a disproportionately important role in wealth creation – a role that has been systematically under-rewarded. In order to sustain productivity, it was necessary to embed non-economic, quasi-economic, and meta-economic memes into our culture; for example: He (sic) who works, eats. Work earns respect; idleness…contempt. We have a moral obligation to contribute to the commonweal. Work provides an opportunity for us to express our creativity. Work ennobles the spirit. The Intellectual History of the late 19 th century can be understood as a contest between Marx and his foil, Pope Leo XIII. Interestingly, both agreed on the primacy of human labor on the spectrum of social goods. We can no longer afford such ideological illusions. Yes, ‘work’ will continue to be a necessary part of life for the foreseeable future…but not 100,000 hours of work in a lifetime. Technology allows us to leverage our efforts to generate much greater productivity in many fewer hours. The character of work will need to change; emphasis must now be on the 3 C’s: Creativity, Craft, and Care. We’ll need to find new ways to distribute societal wealth, ways that are not hog-tied to Labor. At this early stage, it would be a mistake to hyperfocus on any single solution. We are in the ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ stage; but several ideas have already surfaced: A 30 hour work week (40 hours pay) Sabbatical years (at full salary) A minimum annual income, not tied to Labor, for all legal residents These are worth exploring. But we should also be considering a more fundamental reorientation; for example: (1) A national bank created specifically to provide no interest, low verification, micro capital investments to budding entrepreneurs, perhaps piggy-backing on the current student loan infrastructure or using blockchain to create a secure, anonymized, decentralized application and distribution network. If I can borrow public money to pay for college, why not for alternative skills training or to finance my own start-up? The main reason that people who don’t have money don’t have money is that they don’t have money. We can fix that! (2) A sovereign wealth fund that invests in bleeding edge technology and vests every legal resident with an equal share over time. This fund would supplement existing public and private retirement plans (e.g. social security, pensions) but without any tie to employment. (3) A pre-K through 12 educational system, finally liberated from the need to train children to be ‘productive’ members of the workforce, now dedicated to stimulating curiosity, promoting creativity, and empowering problem solving. I envision a blizzard of public and private school alternatives offering a variety of foci, loci, teaching styles, even languages of instruction. When it comes to curriculum, N=1. (4) A pervasive recognition that we prosper not at the expense of our neighbor (class war), but in solidarity (community). The grandfather of Western Philosophy, Anaximander Hot Link (6 th century BCE), taught that ‘actual entities’ come to be when 2 or more ‘potential entities’, freely and without expectation of reciprocation, grant each other ‘reck’ ( chreon ), i.e. ‘what’s due them’ or ‘what they need’, e.g. respect, the space to become all that they can be, agape (love), shalom (peace). They template one another and the potential becomes actual in the process. I am (self) only because ‘you’ (other) are! I am in the context of you, the ‘other’. This concept resurfaces in the New Testament, primarily in the writings of Paul and John, as koinonia (communion). The 1 st Letter of John is particularly explicit: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have koinonia (communion, fellowship) with one another…” (1: 7) Again ‘light’ suggests reflection: if we walk together in the same light, we reflect one another, we template. In this way the early Christian church recaptured the primacy of mutuality that inspired Western philosophy prior to the Platonic catastrophe. Fast forward another 1500+ years and we rediscover the ontology of mutuality in Hasidic Judaism and later still in the 20 th century existentialism of Martin Buber. The emphasis on mutuality in the ontologies of Anaximander, Jesus, the Baal Shem Tov and Buber ran counter to the cultural norms of their day: slavery, imperialism, serfdom, laissez-faire capitalism, nationalism, and even fascism. Regardless, mutuality remained a moral imperative for those who recognized it. But ‘the times that are a-changing’ (Dylan): figuratively speaking at least, we are at ‘the dawning of the Age of Aquarius ’ ( Hair ). It is not for nothing that Pisces , the fish, is an important symbol in the New Testament. Fish represent wealth and the abundance of nature, but abundance that can often be unlocked only at the expense of backbreaking, alienated, labor. How naïve am I to suggest that we may finally be entering an era when ethics and economics harmonize! And yet… Mutuality, the key to the Good Life, indeed the key to life itself, promises to unlock prosperity for the entire planet, if only our ancient idolatries (race, class, caste, etc.) don’t get in the way. 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.

Philosophers Philosophers are artists working in the medium of ideas. They function both as landmarks and as signposts in our never-ending search for Truth. After Parmenides What to "Western philosophy is the history of our effort to understand the silence of Parmenides, or to break it." Read More Causes of the Civil War “Chaos is not an absence of causality, as is generally supposed, but an excess.” Read More Beyond Pascal's Wager “Once we get past skyscrapers and suspension bridges, we really have no idea what’s going on, do we?” Read More Robert Frost Was Wrong “Waiter, bring me one order of everything on the menu and when I’ve finished, I’ll pay for whatever dish I liked best.” Read More Philip Goff “You’ll end up living life as though you were counting cards at a Black Jack table in Las Vegas – in other words, profitably! But it’s still gambling.” Read More Bakunin Nailed It “Writing at the same time as Kierkegaard, 10 years before Nietzsche, and 50 years before Heidegger and Sartre, Bakunin got it right.” Read More Boethius “The ultimate pattern of events is determined, while the specific events that form that pattern are entirely undetermined.” Read More Thrown by Heidegger “Of course, I have no name, no face, no identity; I belong nowhere.” Read More Albert Camus “Either death is ultimately subjected to something greater and more general than itself (Being) or death ultimately subjects everything to itself and then nothing else has any meaning or value.” Read More Friedrich Nietzsche “Value-based judgments assume a transcendent point of view and sooner or later, that way of thinking leads to God-talk and any such talk is strictly verboten.” Read More Chatting With C.S. Lewis “It is the very mark of a perverse desire that it seeks what is not to be had… As long as you are governed by that desire, you will never get what you want.” Read More LEIBNIZ “In this model, God is a giant switching station, sharing qualities among myriad monads.” Read More