Search Results

< Back Proust, Derrida and La Differance David Cowles Aug 12, 2025 “Effectively, consciousness effects/reflects a ‘fold’ in spacetime that invalidates the familiar Euclidean metric.” La differance ( Jacques Derrida ) may be understood as a bit of information or as a quantum of consciousness. Either way, it is irreducible. The ‘cold’ that I experience directly and the ‘cold’ that I experience through my being aware that I am cold are both the same and different. Whenever A = -A (same = different) we know we’re not in ‘Kansas’ ( aka the Set of Real Numbers) anymore. It is the same ‘cold’ but the different media of transmission means that my experiences of that same cold differ slightly. La differance is short for ‘infinitesimal difference’ and infinitesimal quantities lie outside the Set of Real Numbers. How ironic is it that our go-to model of the real world cannot account even for a quantum of actual experience! No wonder I want to repeal the Laws of Arithmetic . Marcel Proust shares a similar insight in his Remembrance of Things Past (RTP): “The sensation which I had once experienced as I stood upon two uneven stones in the Baptistry of St. Mark’s had, recurring a moment ago, 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…” And so it was! The Proust you know from the cafes was once the Proust of Italy and then the Proust of France but the Proust you know from RTP is the Proust of both Italy-then and France-now. Every there is, potentially, here; every then is, potentially, now and every now is eternal. Proust does not remember Italy, he relives Italy, which is perhaps to say, he really lives it for the first time…but in France. When Proust was in Italy, his attention was divided between his experiences of Venice and his experience of himself experiencing Venice. But when Proust relives Italy from France, his intermediary physical body disappears and now, for the first time, he can fully experience Venice. “Marcel, how was your trip to Italy?” “Fine, except for my traveling companion.” “Who was that?” “Me!” We spoil every experience by being there! (That was Sartre’s insight in Nausea .) When Proust relives an event, he does not recall selected, superficial qualia associated with that event, like a tourist with a smart phone; he recreates the event entire, and like an Ephesian Kierkegaard, he steps into it, re-experiencing all its qualia at once…not from outside-in, as perception and/or memory, but from inside-out, as something unknowable to Kant, noumenal experience . When Proust was in Venice, he was aware of Venice, but he was also aware of himself (as above) being in Venice. Quelle Domage! Likewise, when Proust is in France. But when Proust relives Italy-in-France, he is no longer aware of himself per se . Finally, he can be directly aware of experience itself. But he remains conscious. He does not lose himself in some sort of mystical union with the world. He remains conscious because the infinitesimal separation between Italy-then and France-now functions for him as la differance . Actually, the phenomenon of differance enters into Proust’s experience twice, once as the infinitesimal unevenness of the titles, again as the infinitesimal spacetime separation between France-now and Italy-then. Separated in spacetime, the two moments are united by something more substructural, i.e. experience itself; viva la differance! Effectively, consciousness effects/reflects a ‘fold’ in spacetime that invalidates the familiar Euclidean metric. A tiny difference in the pitch of the tiles, the tinier the better, ideally the tiniest perceptible difference possible, becomes a worm hole for Proust, bending spacetime to make proximate points ordinarily far distant from one another. I am reminded of p-adic numbers: the closer they are to zero, the larger the quantity they represent. In Proust’s case, the narrower the differance , the wider the wormhole it creates. I am also reminded of Bell’s non-locality (entanglement): two events indefinitely separated in space and time can nonetheless behave as one event. Is this a manifestation of the non-Archimedean structure of the real world? Check it out: If A is the combined experience of France-now and Italy-then, and B is the experience of ‘France-now’, and C is the experience of ‘Italy-then’, then both B and C are subsets of A but, counter intuitively, (B + C), France-and-Italy-now-and-then, has more value/weight/intensity for Proust than A itself…much more! A > B + C but (B+C) > A. In the real world, ‘operations’ are never commutative, transitive, associative, or distributive…unless by accident or coincidence. In every process, order is definitive! Or, for you fans of Doctor Who , the Universe is simply a collection of red ‘phone boxes’…tiny phone booths that house vast, hexagonal interior spaces, like the TARDIS . Either way, this potentiality for heightened intensity is a product of living consciously in a non-Archimedean universe. Revel in it! The competing cosmology is summarized critically by T.S. Eliot in Ash Wednesday : “Because I know that time is always time, and place is always and only place, and what is actual is actual only for one time, and only for one place, I rejoice that things are as they are and I renounce the blessed face…” I’d rather live in Proust’s world; how about you? Fortunately, we do ; and for that may I say, “Thank God!” For Proust, space and time are folded so that any two points may be arbitrarily close to one another. Events, no matter how far apart, may abut. While Proust’s epiphanies are dramatic, we all experience something similar most every waking moment of every day. Consciousness is the superposition of two images, slightly askew - differance as described above. Surprisingly, consciousness can be easily and simply modeled using just the lowly triangle, the fundamental building block of the material world according to Plato ( Timaeus ). Consciousness can be modeled simply by treating the ordinarily static triangle as a dynamic process: X ↙ ↘ X’ → Z In this diagram, X is directly aware of Z and of itself (X’) being aware of Z. We could say that ‘X’s experience of Z’ proceeds from X’s awareness of Z and from A’s awareness of being aware (X’) of Z. In which case we would be characterizing ‘consciousness’ using the language adopted by the Council of Nicaea (c. 325 CE) to describe ‘God’, i.e. Trinity. Does that mean that you are God? Far from it! But it does mean that you, and perhaps every conscious being, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’…and that’s not half bad, is it? Trinity is not the esoteric mystery we have been (mis)led to believe. Rather, Trinity is a fundamental structure of Being itself. It is just one way, an important way, in which creation mirrors the creator and we are indebted to Proust, Sartre, and Derrida for pointing this out! *** Magritte, René. Time Transfixed. 1938, oil on canvas, The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago.René Magritte’s Time Transfixed disrupts ordinary perception by merging incompatible realities, a locomotive emerging from a fireplace, much like Proust’s Italy-then and France-now collapse into the same experiential moment. Both challenge the fixed boundaries of time and place, revealing how consciousness can fold reality into unexpected juxtapositions. 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.

“John’s Utopia is a 20th century version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s flat universe.” < Back Imagine! David Cowles Sep 1, 2022 “John’s Utopia is a 20th century version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s flat universe.” In 1971 John Lennon, and his co-writer and life partner, Yoko Ono, exhorted us to ‘imagine there’s no heaven’; they assured us that ‘it’s easy if you try’. Ok, I’m imagining, or at least I’m trying to, but…it’s not all that easy. John’s Utopia is a 20 th century version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s flat universe . Listen to what Nietzsche had to say in 1888: “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 . Note that Nietzsche’s World explicitly lacks values : “There exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our being.” In John’s words, there’s “nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.” One thing you could say both of Nietzsche and of Lennon: They paved paradise and put up a parking lot . Their flat universe represents the hierarchical cosmos of Judeo-Christian tradition, squashed. Of all Western philosophers, Nietzsche’s vision is the most penetrating. He knew only too well that his flat universe would make any Halloween House of Horrors seem like a kiddie ride at Disney World, but that didn’t stop him. Whatever else you might say about Nietzsche, he had the courage of his convictions; he always philosophized in good faith. When Nietzsche pronounced his death sentence on Value (he had already done so on God), he did it with a heavy heart and a twinge of regret. He knew he was destroying a magnificent edifice…and he got no pleasure from it. When John Lennon did the same, he celebrated! Let’s unpack John’s lyrics: Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Ok, nobody likes to think about killing or dying . Either way, it’s the ultimate sacrifice. But it may be that there are things you would kill or die for (at least you’d like to think you would), things you value more than you value your own life. By denying that possibility, John turns the world in on itself; it becomes Nietzsche’s ‘whole’. And religion? The function of religion is to identify things that someone might be willing to kill or die for, i.e., to identify values…and then to curate those values. We can’t have any of that, can we? So , no religion too . John’s message in Imagine is the same as Nietzsche’s. Live now, die later. We are our own highest value. This sounds benign enough, but it isn’t: If we have no values beyond ourselves, there is no reason for any of us not to head straight for those tempting Deadly Sins: Pride, Greed, Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Wrath and Sloth. There’s even a combo pack, one of each vice; it’s what all the kids are asking for this year for The Holiday that Used to be Called Xmas , and it’s even on sale this month at Costco. Pick up a pack for me while you’re there. We’re often told that death is one of only two certainties in life. We will all die someday and if we are our own highest value, then our highest value (ourselves) will also cease to exist. But how can a value cease to exist? How can a value cease to be a value? By definition, values are universal, eternal and immutable. They apply, period, even in a Multiverse. Suppose we value Honesty. Ok, not everyone is honest; someone can be honest today and dishonest tomorrow. But even if everyone was dishonest all the time, it would not diminish the Value of Honesty. John & Yoko are taking us down into the Valley of the Shadow of Death (i.e., Nihilism) and at the same time they are depriving us of the Good Shepherd who was supposed to meet us there. How cocky we once were, “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for you are by my side.” In other words, the Good Shepherd and I can handle anything life throws at us. Afraid of the valley? Heck no, I rule that valley! As long as I have my wingman with me, I’m good. The problem is that if there is nothing to kill or die for, then there can’t be anything to live for either. In Lennon’s universe, killing and/or dying can’t be the ultimate expression of value because per se they have no value. We are all going to die someday. In that sense, we are all the same; and we all come to the same end. We are all conceived ex minimis , and our future is a common, unmarked grave. And all that comes in between? According to Shakespeare, it will be “melted into air, into thin air… the cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples, the great globe itself…shall dissolve.” ( The Tempest , Act IV, Scene 1) We live “now (and) at the hour of our death.” We should all be prepared to give that a great Amen at any time. So ‘to be or not to be’ is not on the table. Our common fate is ‘to be and not to be’, and, as Hamlet realized, there’s nothing we can do to escape it. I am because I am writing this article and I am not because I will soon perish. Only values can give our fleeting lives meaning. The sense of purpose, anathema to Nietzsche, was celebrated by Victor Frankl, psychiatrist, philosopher, and Holocaust survivor. He replaced personal happiness as the goal of life with ‘purpose’, dedication to something outside oneself, i.e., dedication to Values. Not John Lennon’s favorite philosopher, I’m guessing. D avid 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. Share Previous Next Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back What’s the Matter with Santa Claus? David Cowles “Do you remember when and why you stopped believing in Santa?” I have always been bothered by Santa Claus . He was a big part of my growing-up and I remember clearly ‘the hour I first disbelieved’ (c. age 6). The idea of adults teaching their children something they know to be untrue is troubling to say the least. I mean, we teach them enough falsehoods without meaning to; there’s no reason to exacerbate our crime with deliberate deceit. Adults justify their behavior with the age-old soporific, “It’s for the children.” If only! In fact, whenever someone says, “It’s for the children,” or “It’s for their own good,” you know it isn’t. We teach kids about Santa Claus in an attempt to recapture some trace of the forgotten wonder of our own childhoods. But kids have no need for our foolish nostalgia. They already live in an enchanted world. Made-up talismans only serve to confuse them as they try to piece together a map of that world. Lying is probably not best practices , but I justify telling lies every single day – to my fellow jaded adults; and I’m not apologizing for it. Lying to children, on the other hand, can be a serious offense. We have no less than Jesus for an authority, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42) Not the end I was hoping for! Do you remember when and why you stopped believing in Santa? For me at least, as I continued to work out my mappa mundi , Santa gradually emerged as an ‘odd man out’. The more I learned about ‘the real world’, the less space I found for an inhabited North Pole, flying reindeer, chimney transport, and a global same day package delivery service. (This was long before FedEx.) Eventually, the cognitive dissonance became unbearable. It was suddenly easier to reconcile the idea that adults were lying to me than that Sidney Greenstreet (‘a certain fat man’ – Casablanca ) was responsible for my Christmas morning. I remember that day, where I was and who I was with, because it was a really big moment. It was a ‘Station of the Cross’ for me. It was also the day when everything began to fall into place: “Maybe I can make sense of this world after all. Maybe, if I rule out every sort of magic, any trace of enchantment…” And so, I took a bite of the apple, gained knowledge, and ‘grew up’. Sorry, Peter (Pan, not Cephas). So of course, when I became an adult and had children and grandchildren of my own, there was no Santa Claus in our house, was there? You bet there was! I’m every bit as much a wimp as you. Maybe we didn’t push Santa quite as hard as my parents had: no letters to the North Pole, no cookies and milk. But still…we had Santa. Now that I am on the ‘other slope’ of that giant Gaussian Mountain (aka Bell Curve) we call a ‘human life’, I’m realizing that the world is enchanted after all. I mean, come on! Big bangs, quantum tangles, half-live cats, DNA – it’s a wonderland. But it’s not easy to overcome my primal disenchantment. I’m jaded now. So just as I tried to retain Santa as a part of my six-year-old’s world view, now I try to reduce experience to fit into the categories of so-called Science . Just as I once struggled to keep a place for Santa on my ‘world map’, now I struggle to keep out every trace of enchantment. As a stepchild of the 20th century ( nee c. 1200 CE), I feel compelled to explain the universe entirely in terms of itself…despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I need to give that up. I need to rediscover wonder, but on my way, I’ll need the support of some authorities. Once again, I turn first to OG Jesus of Nazareth (aka, the Christ), “…Unless you turn and become like children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 18: 3) For my second source, I turn, appropriately, to a child. One morning, my youngest daughter heard two of my grandsons arguing: A: “You don’t believe in Santa Claus.” B: “Yes I do!” A: “Santa Claus doesn’t exist.” B: “Everything exists !” One grandchild (B) had a broader, more inclusive ontology than his brother (A). A few years later, he might have retorted, “There are more things in heaven and earth, A, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to contact us on any matter. How did you like the post? How could we do better in the future? Suggestions welcome. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Next

< Back Alice David Cowles In Looking-glass world, there’s plenty of there and then, but not a whiff of here and now. You remember Alice – the girl who chased a white rabbit down a hole and almost got her head chopped off by the Queen of Hearts! But did you know that later, when she was a bit older, Alice had another, entirely different adventure? Whenever Alice was bored, and she was often very bored – remember, in her day there was no TV, no smartphones and no video games – she would spend hours staring into the big mirror that hung on her living room wall. (I wonder if her parents limited her ‘screen’ time.) As she gazed into that looking glass, she could see a room on the other side. It looked just like her own living room…well, almost just like it. It looked just like it except that on the other side of the looking glass, everything was reversed! That’s right, reversed! If Alice stuck out her right hand to shake hands with the girl in the mirror, the girl in the mirror would stick out her left hand. If Alice wrote a note (from left to right, of course), the girl on the other side of the glass would write the very same note…but from right to left. Otherwise, everything looked exactly the same. But Alice wondered, “was it really the same?” After all, if right and left were reversed, maybe other things were reversed too. But how could she find out? “How nice it would be if we could only get into Looking-glass house,” she thought. And then, a moment later, there she was…on the other side of the glass! As expected, whatever Alice had been able to see in the mirror was just the same in Looking-glass house as it was in her own home. But what about everything she couldn’t see from her side? That turned out to be as different as different could be! Alice had been right to be suspicious of the mirror, after all. The mirror did not ‘reveal’ a world; it hid one. Alice immediately headed out of Looking-glass house and into its garden. She was not at all surprised to find flowers…but she was VERY surprised to learn that these flowers could talk! “…Can all the flowers talk?” Alice asked. “As well as you can,” said the Tiger-lily. “And a great deal louder.” Alice noticed a high hill in the distance. “I should see the garden far better,” said Alice to herself. “If I could get to the top of that hill: and here’s a path that leads straight to it…” Only it didn’t! No matter how hard Alice tried, no matter what turns she made, she always ended up right back where she started. But Alice was a very clever girl, so she decided to try a new plan. Instead of walking toward the hill and always missing it, she decided to walk in the opposite direction, away from the hill, to see where that would take her. Her plan succeeded beautifully. She hadn’t been walking more than a minute when she found herself at the base of the hill. So, it’s not just right and left that are reversed in Looking-glass world; it’s also to and from, forwards and backwards. At the base of the hill, Alice met the Red Queen. After some polite conversation, Alice and the queen suddenly started running. They ran hand-in-hand, as fast as they possibly could, for as long as they possibly could. But while she was running, Alice noticed something strange: the trees and the other things around them never changed; they seemed to move right along with them. Finally, the queen stopped, and Alice flopped to the ground breathless beside her. Then she noticed, “…We’ve been under this tree the whole time! Everything’s just as it was!” Alice complained to the queen, “…In our country, you’d generally get to somewhere else – if you ran very fast for a long time as we’ve been doing.” But the queen replied, “Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do just to stay in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!” Next, Alice encountered the White Queen and her majesty looked quite the mess. Alice did her best to help the queen tidy up, and then she suggested that the queen might like to hire a maid to help her stay neat and clean in the future. The queen offered the job to Alice, “Two pence a week and jam every other day.” Imagine getting by on an allowance of two pennies a week! I guess pennies could buy a lot more in Alice’s time. But Alice didn’t object to the low wage; instead, she protested that she didn’t like jam, “Well, I don’t want any to-day at any rate.” “You couldn’t have it if you did want it,” the queen said. “The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday – but never jam today …” Alice objected, “It must come sometimes to jam today.” “No, it can’t,” said the queen. “It’s jam every other day; today isn’t any other day, you know.” “I don’t understand you,” said Alice, obviously puzzled. “That’s the effect of living backwards,” the queen explained. “It always makes one a little giddy at first.” Then the queen decided to tell Alice more about what it’s like to live on her side of the glass. “Memory works both ways,” she said. “I’m sure mine only works one way,” interrupted Alice. “I can’t remember things before they happen…What sorts of things do you remember best?” “Oh, things that happened the week after next,” the queen replied. The queen pointed to the King’s Messenger, “He’s in prison now, being punished, and the trial doesn’t even begin till next Wednesday, and of course, the crime comes last of all.” Before Alice could object to this unfair treatment, the queen began screaming. Alice rushed to comfort her, “What is the matter? Have you pricked your finger?” “I haven’t pricked it yet,” the queen said. “But I soon shall.” And sure enough, a moment later, she did just that! But let’s get back to the matter of the jam. Alice explained to the queen that she did not like jam, “Well, I don’t want any to-day at any rate.” Remember what the queen said? “’You couldn’t have it if you did want it…the rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday – but never jam today .” So, in Looking-glass world there is a past (yesterday) and a future (tomorrow), but never a present (jam today). Later, Alice found herself in a shop where every shelf seemed to be overflowing with interesting things to buy. But whenever she walked up to any particular shelf, that shelf was always completely empty. The shelves that are there are always full, but the shelf that is here is always empty! In Looking-glass world, it seems you can have all the jam you want…just not now ; and you can buy anything you want…just not here . The stores are always brimming with merchandise, but always out of whatever it is you want. In Looking-glass world, there’s plenty of there and then, but not a whiff of here and now . Later, while visiting Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Alice sees the Red King. He is asleep. “He’s dreaming now,” said Tweedledee. “And what do you think he’s dreaming about?” “Nobody can guess that!” Alice replied. Alice is depending on the difference between inside and outside to keep her thoughts, and the king’s, private. But Tweedledee knows better. The way Looking-glass world works, inner and outer could be reversed; or the distinction could be wiped away entirely. Either way, Tweedledee knows that in Looking-glass world, anyone can see what you’re thinking just by looking at you. “Why about you !” Tweedledee continued, returning to the content of the Red King’s dream. “And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you’d be?” “Where I am now, of course,” said Alice. “’You’d be nowhere,” replied Tweedledee. “Why you’re only a sort of thing in his dream!’” (It seems that Shakespeare listened to Tweedledee’s podcasts because in one of his most famous plays, The Tempest , he wrote, “We are such stuff as dreams are made on.”) “If the King were to wake,” added Tweedledum. “You’d go out – bang! – just like a candle!’” Toward the end of her stay in Looking-glass world, Alice met the famous Humpty-Dumpty. Like any good girl of her day, Alice knew her nursery rhymes backwards and forwards, so when she met Humpty, she was immediately worried about his safety. “Don’t you think you’d be safer down on the ground? That wall is so very narrow!” In response, Humpty Dumpty growled. “Of course, I don’t think so. Why, if I ever did fall off – which there’s no chance of – but if I did…the King has promised me – with his very own mouth…” Here Alice interrupted, “To send all his horses and all his men…” Moments later, a crash shook the forest from end to end and soldiers came running, first two or three, then ten or twenty, finally thousands. So many that they seemed to fill the whole forest! The king had kept his promise. But would his horses and his men be able to put Humpty together again? Maybe not on our side of the looking glass, but on the other side…who knows? At the end of her adventure, when Alice was once again safely back on her own side of the mirror, she thought about her experience and said to her pussycat, “’Now, Kitty, let’s consider, who it was that dreamed it all…it must have been either me or the Red King. He was part of my dream, of course – but then I was part of his dream too!’” 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. Previous Next

< Back The Trajectory of AI: Balancing Promise and Caution Magesh "Placing faith in AI to originate creations like art and music may lead to disillusionment. Ultimately, the true creator is a higher force." In recent times, the media has been awash with discussions about the potential impact of AI. The looming questions surround its effects on us, its potential to replace us in the workforce, and even the idea that it might become akin to a new faith. While I am undoubtedly enthusiastic about technology, particularly when it enhances our daily lives, I believe it's crucial to delve into the challenges that arise when we invest our trust in something as enigmatic as AI. With a successful musical career spanning decades, I've witnessed firsthand how technology has upended the music industry on multiple fronts. One early instance that impacted me personally was the advent of the drum machine. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, drummers enjoyed abundant session work. However, the emergence of technology that claimed to replace drummers on records and CDs triggered panic among my fellow musicians. They feared this innovation would render us obsolete. In response, I reminded them that while drum machines could replicate our sounds, they lacked the soul that defined us. Some argued that these machines were "perfect," but I countered that only the divine could claim such perfection. This experience underscores the notion that although technology can simplify tasks, it doesn't necessarily equate to improvement – a pattern I anticipate repeating with AI. A recent media uproar ensued when a prominent website declared its intention to replace human writers with AI-generated content. The site churned out machine-created articles, initially basking in newfound cost savings. However, issues arose when the AI struggled to distinguish fact from fiction on certain topics. The website's blind faith in the machine's capabilities came crashing down as it became clear that AI, despite its veneer of knowledge, was not infallible. This situation brought to mind Romans 11:33: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God." It serves as a reminder to be cautious about placing unwavering trust in unproven technologies, especially those without a track record of consistently producing miraculous outcomes. As someone who embraces technology, I've experienced how my musical career benefited from advancements such as receiving music via MP3. This convenience accelerated my learning process. In contrast, the laborious process of recording on tape and sending it via mail was immensely time-consuming. These instances showcase technology acting as an assistant. However, there's a distinction between that and the push to make AI the master. Placing faith in AI to originate creations like art and music may lead to disillusionment. Ultimately, the true creator is a higher force. Ephesians 3:8-11 eloquently captures this sentiment: "To make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things." Our belief in our intrinsic abilities should hold greater value than any computer program. A recollection from years ago underscores this point. I was asked to record drums for a reality show star with limited vocal experience but abundant charisma. Despite their appealing image, the singer's vocal talent fell short. Frustration mounted as the producer witnessed flat notes and off-key performances. The singer was scheduled to re-record the next day. During the studio downtime, a young engineer introduced us to a computer program called Pro Tools, capable of correcting vocal imperfections with ease. Witnessing this tool's transformational abilities left me astounded. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these technological interventions were masking the need for genuine practice. This tool proliferated throughout the music industry, converting mediocre performances into polished gems with the click of a mouse. Yet, the question remains: At what cost? If artists had faith in their inherent abilities, they wouldn't need to rely on a computer program. I believe a similar trend is unfolding with AI on a larger scale. It is vital to remember where to place our faith and how to use technology as a means of support rather than allowing it to dominate. In conclusion, while the promise of AI is undeniable, it's essential to approach it with a balanced perspective. Just as the introduction of the drum machine disrupted the music industry, AI is poised to reshape various sectors. However, we must remain cautious about overestimating its capabilities and remember that our trust should ultimately reside in our own potential, guided by a deeper source of wisdom and creativity. Magesh has written for “Lessonface,” “Aeyons,” “The Modern Rogue,” “Euronews,” “The Roland corporation,” “Penlight,” and “Elite Music.” He writes several monthly publications on music education. In the past, Magesh has written for parenting, humor, mental health, and travel websites as well. Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Nicholas Senz Contributor Nicholas Senz is a husband and father who tries every day to live Galatians 2:20: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." He is Director of Religious Education at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church in Mill Valley, CA, a managing editor at Catholic Stand, and a Master Catechist. A native of Verboort, Oregon, Nicholas holds master's degrees in philosophy and theology from the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, CA. His work has appeared at Catholic Exchange, Crisis Magazine, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, and his own blog, Two Old Books . Nicholas is a science fiction aficionado, Tolkien devotee, avid Anglophile, and consumer of both police procedurals and popcorn in large quantities, usually together. Twitter at @NickSenz . Transubstantiation for the Rest of Us

< Back Middle Voice David Cowles “Eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. It’s a terrible way to live! But we’re living it…(but) it wasn’t always this way, and it doesn’t…have to be this way.” 2000 words, 8 minute read According to Benjamin Whorf, language is a record of how we see the world, and conversely, language conditions us to see the world in a particular way: a paradigmatic example of a non-linear, auto-reinforcing process. Language is distilled from experience, but it also helps define what constitutes ‘an experience’ in our minds and it prompts us to label and sort experiences according to certain pre-set parameters. For example, someone attending Super Bowl LX might describe the event as an ‘experience’ and then proceed to talk about it using terms regularly associated with Pro Football games: e.g. entertainment value, strategic acumen, proficient execution, crowd participation, quality of concessions. Events help us break down the laminar inflow of time into discrete (or quasi-discrete) quanta which we call ‘experiences’. Take English, for example. When we speak, most of the verbs we use are either active or passive . We call that the “voice” of the verb. In an active/passive voiced language, we are always doing something to someone (or something) or someone (or something) is doing it to us: eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. It’s a terrible way to live! But it’s life as we know it, or rather, it is life as language has conditioned us to know it; we’re living it: it wasn’t always this way, and it doesn’t have to be this way. The Lex Talionis (‘eye for an eye’), literally the law of retaliation , is the paradigmatic expression of such an active/passive world view. Scotty broke the vase: active voice. Scotty is called the ‘subject’ and my poor Ming is called the ‘object’ of his action. This construction first separates Scotty from what he’s done. Scotty’s action itself assumes the status of an object; it is something that belongs to Scotty: “ his action”. Scotty acted, and the vase ‘reacted’ (by shattering). The flow is one-directional: it’s a vector. Alternatively, the vase was broken by Scotty: passive voice. It’s the same event but this time seen from the point of view of the victim, my artifact. The vase is now the subject, but the action is still vectored. The active and passive voices appear as opposites but in fact they both communicate the exact same information. They describe the same event in terms of the same categories: e.g. the age and value of the vase, the level of Scotty’s contrition. All that changes is the point of view of the narrator. So our world, as it is constructed for us by our language, consists primarily of ‘events’ that can be adequately described using active/passive voiced verbs. This forms the basis of the logos we impose on the world and that the world reflects back to us as language. You could say that we create our experience of the world in the image and likeness of our language. In reality, however, ‘happenings’ that neatly fit the active/passive paradigm are rare, possibly even non-existent. IRL action is rarely, if ever, entirely one directional: “I hit the nail” is actually an abstract simplification of a much more complex process. When my hammer connects with the nail head, the nail resists, then moves (hopefully), and the hammer recoils, sending vibrations down my arm…and that’s assuming I didn’t also hit my thumb in the process. But does such language serve our purposes ? You bet it does! It’s hard to imagine a Golden Gate Bridge without it. Our language essentially reduces Being to a schematic. But does such a language actually meet our needs ? Not so much! Syntax unravels the unity of Being and displays it like a collection of butterflies pinned to the wall of a natural history museum. The fact is that every real action is processional and reciprocal; it affects the so-called subject as well as the object. In the example of Scotty and the vase, that reality is somewhat trivial and can probably be safely ignored…that is, unless I accept Scotty’s explanation that the vase jumped off the shelf and attacked him, breaking in the process. And why not? The very same thing happened at Billy’s house just last week. Now imagine a third class of explanation: Nothing happened! The vase just fell off of the mantle and onto the floor, shattering in the process. We have trouble swallowing this scenario even though we know that the force of gravity, imperceptible earth tremors, and the rumble of a truck passing by can all lead to such catastrophes… and that’s not even to mention butterflies flapping their wings in Borneo. ‘Either Scotty broke the vase or the vase broke Scotty’. We are instinctively (i.e. linguistically) programmed to accept such a theory because it fits snugly into our active/passive template. Notice (above) that we don’t even have an economical way to state the third option. But what if we’re trying to model a chemical reaction, or worse, a quantum mechanical process, or even worse, some sort of ecological phenomenon? How do we describe these events using just active and passive voiced verbs? We can’t. At best, we can approximate clumsily in simplified situations. “Two hydrogen atoms each lend an electron to one oxygen atom; or an oxygen atom borrows an electron from each of two hydrogen atoms.” (You call water!) When we get into even more complex interactions, language breaks down completely, and we have to resort to diagrams (e.g. Feynman diagrams) or equations or shoulder shrugs. Now imagine the difficulty of modeling complex human relationships using just active and passive voice verbs! The War of the Roses is our paradigm. And politics? Needless to say, we understand the world in terms of us and them . We conceptualize social change as class war. If someone has something then they must have acquired it at the expense of someone else. Of course, this is not the way things really work. Certainly, there are occasions where clear division is called for and there are plenty of examples of ill gotten gain but, believe it or not, these are not the norm. In the main, we are symbiotic creatures. We do better (economically) when the land does better (the Grail Legend) and the land does better when we do good (ecologically). But how could things be any different? Many older languages had a third voice, along with the active and passive voices, which linguists call the Middle Voice . The middle voice is ideally suited to model situations where relationships are between equals and where action is reciprocal. It is at least possible that the middle voice preceded the active/passive voices in the evolution of Indo-European languages. Modern linguists struggle to understand the middle voice. Conditioned by their own active/passive logoi , they want to understand this verb form as somewhere along the active/passive axis. Hence, the term ‘middle’. In fact, the middle voice has nothing to do with its active/passive cousins. It’s a completely different way of viewing the world. The middle voice verb form describes an action that impacts both subject and object simultaneously. Every subject is a co-subject…and an object; every object is a co-object…and a subject. The active voice implies a Future (post-act), and the passive voice a Past (pre-act), but the middle voice refers only to the Present. The active/passive voice sees the world from the outside; the middle voice sees it from the inside: objectivity vs. subjectivity. Imagine what our world would look like if we viewed it solely in terms of reciprocal relations and omnidirectional events! Would that change the world itself? Or would it just enable us to see it as it really is? Or both? We’d see the world through a different filter, and we’d most likely act quite differently as a result. How do we talk about love using only active/passive verb forms? The best we can come up with is something lame like, “Mary and Paul are in love with each other.” This turns love into a static state rather than a raging fire. The middle voice, on the other hand, is ready-made to describe the relationship between Mary and Paul in a way that does it justice. Thus, we have two opposing world views: an active/passive view and a middle voice view. One sees the world in terms of will, struggle, domination, and power; the other sees it in terms of mutuality. One is the syntax of war, the other of peace; one cause and effect, the other evolution. One is the syntax of past and future, the other of the present. Unfortunately, however, most Western languages have lost their middle voice. Where the middle voice has been retained (e.g. Icelandic), it has been forced to co-exist with its active/passive cousins, and it no longer conveys the strong sense of reciprocity it once did. The poverty of an active/passive voiced language and the lack of a strong middle voice alternative is not just a linguistic problem; it’s a philosophical problem and ultimately a theological problem. One way to understand ‘the Christian project’ is as an attempt to reintroduce middle-voice consciousness to the world. Of course, I am not suggesting that the New Testament authors, much less Jesus himself, were budding linguists. Yet they understood that there was something fundamentally wrong with the way folks viewed the world and, with incredible insight, they sought to change that view. When you view events and the actions that constitute them in terms of unequal, unidirectional power relations, it becomes easy to abuse or exploit your neighbor...and impossible to love her as yourself. Even today, certain sub-cultures will brand you a sucker or a wimp or a ‘goodie two shoes’ if you don’t take advantage of the weaker folks in your orbit. “It’s just business!” Active/passive voiced languages conflict with values like justice and kindness. It is difficult to inculcate an ethic of justice, reciprocity and love in folks who view the world according to the active/passive paradigm. Could ‘bad language’ be humanity’s ‘original sin’? Is the Second Commandment just an extension of the first. Christianity, especially in its early stages, sought to replace the active/passive world view with the world view that we are calling ‘middle voice consciousness’. In the Lord’s Prayer, for example, we read, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” 12 centuries later, Francis of Assisi built on this insight: “It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.” Whatever we do, we do to ourselves to the same degree and in the same way and at the same time as we do it to others. That goes for positive actions like forgiveness and negative actions like violence. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Why? Because in middle voice consciousness, your neighbor is yourself! 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 Spring 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Divine Connection or Digital Dalliance? Gwendolyn Bishop "Prayer, for many, is more than just a laundry list of requests. It's a profound act of opening oneself to the divine, a dialogue between the mortal and the eternal." In a world where artificial intelligence (AI) reigns supreme, human interaction with machines is no longer limited to pressing buttons or swiping screens. AI's relentless march into new realms of human experience has now taken an intriguing turn – the realm of spirituality. As the lines between the sacred and the synthetic blur, a new phenomenon emerges: AI-created prayers. But is this a profound evolution of divine communication or an audacious attempt to algorithmically outsource our spiritual connection? Imagine sitting down, bowing your head, and letting an AI-powered algorithm spin its digital wheels to craft a prayer tailored just for you. It's like summoning a celestial butler to deliver your thoughts to the divine doorstep. As AI technology evolves, these automated invocations promise to provide spiritual solace on demand, like a divine drive-thru open 24/7. Proponents of AI-generated prayers tout convenience as the driving force behind this innovation. They argue that in today's fast-paced world, carving out time for prayer can be challenging. AI's ability to create personalized prayers in an instant seems like a godsend for the time-strapped faithful. With the tap of a button, you can send a prayer heavenward while multitasking through your daily to-dos. But let's hit pause and consider the theological implications. Prayer, for many, is more than just a laundry list of requests. It's a profound act of opening oneself to the divine, a dialogue between the mortal and the eternal. It's the place where believers pour out their hearts, seeking guidance, comfort, and connection. The question then arises – can AI truly understand the intricacies of human emotions and experiences well enough to craft authentic prayers? AI-generated prayers might resemble a beautiful mosaic of words, woven together with grammatical precision. However, can they capture the raw essence of human vulnerability, doubt, and gratitude? Can they encapsulate the unique stories and struggles that shape our faith? Or will they be polished facsimiles, lacking the depth that comes from lived experiences? Skeptics worry that AI-generated prayers might trivialize the sacred act. It's like having an AI buddy compose your heartfelt apology or draft your anniversary love letter. Sure, the words might be eloquent, but do they carry the weight of genuine sentiment? While AI can sift through vast databases of religious texts and inspirational content, it lacks the innate connection to the human experience that is essential to authentic prayer. Furthermore, AI-generated prayers open the door to ethical considerations. What happens when AI offers spiritual counsel or comfort? If an AI algorithm crafts a prayer that touches your soul, does that make it a divine intermediary, or just an impressive piece of code? And what about the people who design these algorithms – do they become the modern-day scribes of faith, curating and mediating our spiritual expressions? Amid the debate, there's a paradoxical allure to AI-created prayers. It's the allure of a shortcut to the divine, like a spiritual vending machine dispensing personalized blessings. But isn't the very essence of spirituality rooted in the journey, the struggle, and the growth that come from seeking the divine? Could AI-created prayers become spiritual crutches that hinder our quest for deeper connection? As AI becomes more integrated into our lives, the question of authenticity looms larger. While AI-generated prayers might offer convenience, they raise a fundamental query: Can technology genuinely replace the human touch in matters of the soul? Are we venturing into uncharted territory, where convenience clashes with the profound? Is the act of prayer, with all its messiness and beauty, something that can be algorithmically distilled? In the end, the debate about AI-created prayers isn't merely about the fusion of technology and spirituality. It's about the essence of our humanity – our capacity to connect, reflect, and engage with the divine. AI may serve as a tool, a guide, or even an inspiration, but the quintessential act of prayer, it seems, will remain a uniquely human endeavor, ineffable and profound in its authenticity. Gwendolyn Bishop is a passionate writer and explorer of ideas, navigating the intricate landscapes of words to craft thought-provoking content. With a heart full of curiosity and a mind teeming with creativity, Gwendolyn seeks to illuminate the hidden corners of human experience through the power of storytelling. When not lost in the world of words, Gwendolyn can be found sipping on endless cups of coffee. Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back What We Want for Our Kids David Cowles Jan 7, 2025 “Who are we to impose our life choices…or, more likely, our life accidents…on anyone else, much less on those we purport to love?” Every parent dreams of having a mini-me. Ok, maybe not every parent…but most. Maybe not a carbon copy…but close. It’s weird because these same parents often aren’t that happy with themselves or with their own lives. Why would they wish the same on someone else? “Misery loves company,” doesn’t seem appropriate when talking about one’s kids! According to American mythology, prior to some unspecified date near the end of the 20th century, every parent wanted their children to be more than they were. If they worked in a mine, they wanted their kids to work in offices. If they rented, they wanted their kids to be homeowners. If they didn’t make the high school football team, they wanted their sons to play in the NFL. So we don’t want our kids to be like us after all? We want them to be more than we were. But we want them to be a better version of ourselves – not the best version of a self they choose for themselves. My grandfather had a great expression: “I’m not the man I used to be…and never was.” That’s what kids are for! They are there to be the person we wanted to be but never were. We want them to be what we were…just better at it! If we measure our lives by what we didn’t earn, we want our kids to be prosperous. If we measure our lives by what we didn’t own, we want our kids to be landed gentry. If we measure our lives by our failures, we want our kids to be superstars. We raise children as if they existed to continue…and complete…our dreams. Whether you want your daughter to be a lawyer because you were, or a Supreme Court justice because you weren’t, you’re still aiming to fashion her life in the image and likeness of your own. How dare we? Yes, I said ‘we’ because I’ve been guilty of this too! Not many heterosexual coal miners want their sons to be drag queens and not many ‘daily communicants’ want their daughters to be exotic dancers. But why not? Who are we to impose our life choices…or, more likely, our life accidents…on anyone else, much less on those we purport to love, especially when they are young, defenseless, and impressionable. With great hindsight, my spouse and I would probably say something like, “We want our kids to be good people, to be kind, etc.” It would be hard not to hope for that. And yet, who are we to impose even those values on them? Shouldn’t we let them find their own way, adopt their own values? Of course we should project our values into the world, always by deed and, when appropriate, by word. That’s what it means to have values. And it’s ok, like Kant, to imagine that some folks, including our children, may witness our lives and voluntarily adopt some of our values for themselves. But if they don’t, do we have any right to be ‘disappointed’? As we shuffle out of the spotlight and into the wings, we may decide that the things we thought very important in midlife are not so important after all. No matter how aggressively we distanced ourselves from our neighbors in our ‘prime’, we may come to realize that we all share a common fate. We face the prospect of aging, and ultimately of death, just as everyone else. We may come to define our lives, less in terms of our public triumphs, and more in terms of private moments spent alone or with another. At the end of the day, it all comes down to one question, “ What’s it all about, Alfie ?” Lest you think I am pretending to have made a discovery, I direct you back to the Book of Job . Here was a man familiar with the vicissitudes of life! Unless you have been on the cover of Forbes , you have not tasted his heights; and I pray to God that none of my readers ever tastes his depths. Yet Job begins his opening soliloquy with a surprising conclusion: No greater calamity can befall someone than to die ‘without knowledge’. Spoiler alert : 40 chapters later, Job attains knowledge, but whether that’s the knowledge he’s been seeking and whether it satisfies him remain open questions. Either way, according to the book’s first commentary, included in the final text as Epilogue , Job resumes the lifestyle of the rich and famous…and once again graces the cover of Forbes ; but I digress. The problem is not what you want for your children; the problem is wanting anything at all. You say, “I want them to be themselves.” They will be! They will be what they will be. But that’s not what you meant, is it? You were talking about some intrinsic ‘self’ that supposedly lies buried in them that they are struggling to discover and express. News flash : There is no such self! And thank God for that! You are free to make yourself whoever you choose to be…and so are your children. Of course, you can’t make yourself be an NBA player, but you can make the most of being 5’ 5” and a total klutz. For better or worse, you will be yourself because you will make yourself the person you become. Who else could you be? Who else could your children be? Celebrate it! 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 Leviticus and the Fed "The Fed’s 2% inflation policy is a modern version of the Levitical program. It pays for the social safety net that is our way of redistributing wealth.” David Cowles From the Industrial Revolution to the AI Explosion , intellectual, social, and economic history has been dominated by the struggle between Socialism and Capitalism. Two great challenges confront every economic system: the generation of wealth and the distribution of that wealth. The success of every economic system must be measured according to these two criteria, and Socialism and Capitalism offer dramatically different approaches. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party , first published in 1848, Karl Marx famously wrote: “…The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” That single sentence became the rallying cry for a movement that, in many respects, dominated a 175-year period of world history. At the other end of the ideological seesaw, of course, was the 18th-century theory of Capitalism. These two great economic philosophies battled over one issue above all others: Who should own (control) society’s “means of production”? We have Marx to thank for this concept. He correctly understood that each society, each social epoch, is characterized by its means of production, i.e., by the way, in which it generates wealth. In Marx's 19th century, the means of production consisted of factories and machines, augmented by the labor of “wage slaves”. The bourgeoisie owned these means of production, either de jure as in the case of factories, or de facto, as in the case of labor. Marx did not decry the Industrial Revolution; he was no Green! He saw factories and machines as the instruments that would generate the wealth that would free the workers of the world from their chains. He decried the fact that ownership of the means of production was centralized in the hands of a few capitalists, who accumulated wealth and power at the expense of the proletariat, merely because they owned society’s productive assets. Marx’s solution was to abolish the institution of private property (at least as it relates to productive assets), collectivize productive property under the common ownership of the workers, and entrust the management of that property to institutions representing those workers (e.g., the Soviets, the Communist Party, or the State). Faintly but persistently, that great debate was punctuated with calls for a “Third Way”…a socio-economic alternative that might capture the most attractive features of both systems while discarding the undesirable elements of each. Proponents of a Third Way are typically looking to combine the egalitarian and communitarian virtues of Socialism with productivity and personal liberty, the strengths of Capitalism. It turns out that just such a Third Way was proposed…over 2500 years ago in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. The socio-economic blueprint laid out there embodies just those positive elements that we have come to associate with the best aspects of both Capitalism and Socialism. At first glance, it might appear that a socio-economic program written over two millennia ago for an agrarian economy could not possibly be implemented in a modern industrial society. But that would be incorrect. Upon deeper reflection, it is not only clear that the Levitical program can be implemented; it is clear that it has been implemented, at least in the United States. Evaluating the generation of wealth is easy; it’s basically a matter of arithmetic. Evaluating the distribution of wealth is much more difficult; values enter the discussion at every turn: Should wealth be distributed among members of society in proportion to the contribution of each toward the production of that wealth? Should wealth be distributed among members of society in proportion to the needs of each member? Should wealth be distributed equally among all members of society, regardless of the contribution or the need of any particular member? There are no immediately obvious, universally correct answers to these questions. Plus, there is another question that cuts diagonally across all three: If the production of wealth is in any way a function of the way in which that wealth is distributed, should the value of maximizing wealth influence in any way the decisions we make regarding its distribution? In his Theory of Justice , John Rawls proposed a solution to this enigma. He suggested that the optimum distribution of wealth was the distribution that would maximize production, consistent with the extension of civil rights and the provision of basic economic security to every member of society. His rationale: this is what an objective member of society would choose, provided that that member of society had no advance idea whether she would be at the top or the bottom end of the economic ladder. Rawls’ state of ‘disinformation’ is a modern version of Rousseau’s “State of Nature." The ideologies of Socialism and Capitalism have both been well tested in the laboratory of real life; how did each fare? Socialism did a reasonably good job of leveling economic (and therefore social) inequality, but it did an absolutely horrible job of maximizing production. Capitalism, on the other hand, did an astoundingly good job of maximizing production but a poor job managing social and economic inequality and providing basic economic security. After 65 years of real-life experimentation, the “workers of the world” did indeed unite. They voted with their feet: Yes to Capitalism, No to Communism! Apparently applying Rawls’ calculus, they decided it was better to risk being at the bottom of a Capitalist ladder than to languish hopelessly in the middle of a Communist heap. But this does not solve the dilemma: social justice is not an option; it is an imperative! Just as no one can validly sell themselves into slavery, neither can they bargain away their natural right to a basic share of society’s goods. A person may choose to ‘live poor’ (St. Francis) but they cannot justly be ‘made poor’ as a matter of law. Capitalism cannot celebrate its triumph until it fulfills Rawls’ condition of providing basic economic security to every member of society. Of course, folks will disagree, and rightly so, about what constitutes basic economic security, but most will agree that it has not yet been universally achieved. It certainly includes a decent place to live, decent clothing and enough to eat, but it’s more than that. It must include a safe environment, a healthy diet, health care and education. Even more than that; it must include the opportunity for economic, social and intellectual advancement…the right to ‘self-actualize’, to ‘be all that you can be’…and finally, it must include an acceptable level of social status, consistent with a positive self-image. Implementing an effective security net is useless if we label its beneficiaries ‘welfare cheats’. Clearly, the Capitalist world has a ways to go to meet John Rawls’ standards. Most, if not all, Capitalist societies have made some effort to construct a safety net. In some countries, the net is weak and full of holes; in other countries, it is stronger but tends to rob initiative and the sense of self-worth from those who rely on it. We can do better! “You shall count seven weeks of years – seven times seven years – such that the seven weeks of years amounts to forty-nine years…You shall treat this fiftieth year as sacred. You shall proclaim liberty in the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be a Jubilee for you…In this year of Jubilee, then, each of you shall return to your own property…The land shall not be sold irrevocably; for the land is mine, and you are but resident aliens and under my authority.” Leviticus (25:10) The social system outlined in Leviticus is based on the theory that every tribe of Israel began its career in Canaan with an equal share of productive property (i.e., land) and that every family within each tribe likewise began with an equal share. At the time of the Exodus from Egypt, land was the fundamental means of production and the primary source of all wealth, augmented by livestock and labor. In theory, at least, every family in the new society started out with an equal share of the means of production. But the social code of the Israelites reflected the fact that economic relations are never static. Some families grow wealthier, others poorer. The authors of Leviticus understood that some folks would ultimately be forced to sell their land, and even their labor, in order to survive. Leviticus did not forbid such economic activity…but it did limit its impact via two buffers: (1) a social safety net (Sabbath) and (2) a program to redistribute wealth (Jubilee). Leviticus calls for the total redistribution (or “restoration”) of productive wealth (i.e., the means of production) every 50 years. “…On the tenth day of the seventh month let the ram’s horn resound; on this, the Day of Atonement…each of you shall return to your own property.” Every 50 years, there’s a do-over. According to Leviticus, the State of Nature is renewable. Compare this ‘primitive’ social system with the more sophisticated Capitalist and Socialist systems. Under Capitalism, there are generally no do-overs; the sins (or mere mistakes) of the father/mother are most definitely visited on the sons and daughters for generations to come. Socialist societies, on the other hand, have a different problem. Here, the means of production are owned in common. This at least theoretically solves the problem of inequality, but it does nothing to motivate production. Without a system of economic incentives, labor languishes and there is little in the way of innovation or investment. Monday morning pep rallies are no substitute for profit sharing! The economic system offered by Leviticus solves this conundrum. All productive property is private! There is no ‘state’ per se . There are few restrictions on amassing wealth; incentives for labor and commerce abound. Yet, every 50 years, all productive property is redistributed, so every second generation gets a fresh start. It seems like the best of both worlds, a perfect solution. But you say, “It’s impractical; there’s simply no way that the productive property of the United States could be totally reallocated.” Is that so? Would you be surprised to learn that we have been living according to the Code of Leviticus for more than a decade? In fact, Jubilee has become a bright-letter Fed policy. Rather than redistributing all productive property every 50 years at the sound of a ram’s horn, the Federal Reserve has made a 2% annual rate of inflation a matter of policy. 2% x 50 years = 100%. The Fed’s 2% inflation policy is a modern version of the Levitical program. It pays for the social safety net, which is our way of redistributing wealth. How does this work? Consider our response to COVID-19. The US spent about $5 trillion that we didn’t have to mitigate the economic impact of COVID. We used that money to maintain our social safety net. They say money doesn’t grow on trees…yes it does! Ok, gold doesn’t grow on trees, but paper does. To pay for COVID, we printed money and effectively devalued our currency. We experienced that devaluation in the form of short-term hyperinflation (>2%). Essentially, we borrowed $5 trillion, and now we’re paying the ‘vig’…every time we purchase a roll of toilet paper. The wisdom of our response to COVID-19 is not our subject today, but as to the wisdom of the Fed’s 2% inflation target, we have only to look to the Book of Leviticus for confirmation. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Click the cover image to return to Spring 2024. Previous Next

< Back Artificial Intelligence “Aletheia Today Magazine will devote its entire Fall Issue (9/1/23) to Artificial Intelligence…and we’d love to include YOU in the conversation.” David Cowles My grandparents were convinced that they were living in the end times. They ‘felt sorry’ for us youngsters who would not have a chance to live our lives in their pre-Armageddon paradise. In those days, I was only certain of one thing: I would NOT harbor such silly ideas when it was my turn to be the scion of my clan. Oh, how often have I looked back scornfully at such younger versions of myself, amused that I could ever have believed the things I once believed! It’s happening again! My grandparents were right after all. “This is the end, beautiful friend, the end.” ( The Doors ). Of course, my end is not the same as their end …but then again, aren’t all ends the same? Do ends have hair? And if they do, are they really ends ? My grandparents worried about nuclear war, moral decay, and the breakdown of political civility. 60 years later, I worry about those things too, but I worry about something my grandparents couldn’t have anticipated: I worry about Artificial Intelligence (AI). Evolution is adaptation. All organisms adapt themselves to their environments and, to some degree, adapt their environments to themselves. Organisms adapt through genetic selection (biology) and behavior modification (culture); they adapt their environments through praxis . While there is no ‘arrow of evolution’ per se , there are some general trends worth pointing out. Caveat lector : these ‘general trends’ are just that. Don’t send me a bevy of evidence contradicting my ‘over-generalizations;’ I know all about it. Moving on… Life forms have become more complex over time. Adaptive characteristics such as size, strength and speed have tended to optimize (optimize, not maximize). Neural networks have become more complex, and brains have become bigger. Homo Sapiens is the product of billions of years of robust genetic selection, resulting in a species remarkably capable of modifying its environment ( praxis ) as well as its own behavior (culture); recently, we have developed the ability to influence the course of biological adaptation as well (genetic engineering). But everything in nature comes at a price. There is evidence that the human organism may actually be undergoing some forms of devolution . We seem to be losing some of the gains we made over the last million years. For example, our arms are getting shorter. More alarmingly, our brains may be shrinking (not literally, of course)! No, they ARE shrinking, quite literally. Other species seem to be trending towards a smaller brain size as well. Theory holds that this is the price we pay for ‘civilization,’ i.e., the taming of ‘wild’ animals and a concomitant reduction in both survival and reproductive risk. Alarming, yes; surprising, no! When specific combinations of genes cease to confer selective advantage, they will slowly become less prevalent in the population. Suboptimal genetic combinations, once suppressed by natural selection, can now enter the gene pool ‘unedited.’ We have become more tolerant of differences; the opportunity to procreate is shared more democratically now, and for the most part, this is a good thing! But the recent explosion in robust Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a game changer. Longer arms no longer confer much reproductive advantage; neither do bigger brains! Arm strength, we can do without, brain power, not so much. There is a general correlation between brain size and intelligence, and the selective pressures favoring intelligence have been strong. Intelligent organisms more successfully modify their environments, conferring survival advantage. Intelligence also appears to have been an attractive quality in a potential mate, conferring reproductive advantage. Less so today than ever before! SAT scores are a poor predictor of fecundity, and anyone who has been to high school knows that natural beauty and physical prowess are stronger selection factors than intelligence. AI is the great leveler. As a species we now have the ability to subcontract almost all cognitive functions to a ‘machine.’ Best of all/worst of all, everyone will soon enjoy equal access to that resource. Therefore, the behavioral distinction between the top 25% and the bottom 25% will narrow significantly. This could be a good thing, or… Big brains, who needs ‘em? We have ChatGPT! As a species, AI allows us to do more with less. Again, a very good thing per se . But nature is like a reluctant middle schooler; it will ‘do’ as little as possible, consistent with achieving a minimally ‘acceptable’ result. If the ability to think no longer confers survival or reproductive advantage, we can allow it to become ‘recessive.’ The dystopian film 2001 A Space Odyssey seems more relevant today than ever before. Like Leif Erikson in Newfoundland and Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean, we know we are on the cusp of something big, but what? Who knows! We are like the 1823 versions of ourselves, trying to make sense of a whole new technological paradigm. In the last 200 years, we have celebrated Darwin, Einstein and quantum mechanics. Huge! But IR (Industrial Revolution) and AI are different; they directly impact almost every aspect of the lives of almost every human being. AI is our IR, and no doubt, we will make all the same mistakes. Luddites will smash mainframe computers; New Agers will claim they’ve found God; politicians will proclaim Utopia; and curmudgeons, like me, will wring our hands over the impending demise of human civilization per se . “It’s yesterday once more.” (Carpenters) Only one thing is certain: when our descendants look back on 2023 from their 2223 vantage, they will see that none of us were right! Marking this moment, Aletheia Today Magazine will devote its entire Fall Issue (9/1/23) to Artificial Intelligence…and we’d love to include YOU in the conversation. What are the philosophical, theological, cultural, and spiritual implications of AI? Click here for our Writers’ Specs; then send us your thoughts. Keep the conversation going! 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. 4. Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM) will be devoting its entire fall issue (released 9/1/23) to artificial intelligence (AI). What are the philosophical, theological, cultural and even spiritual implications of AI powered world? If you’d like to contribute to the AI Issue, click here . Share Previous Next

< Back Life on Mars David Cowles “Based on what we think we know about biogenesis, there should be life on Mars. If it turns out that there isn’t, somebody’s “got some ‘xplainin’ to do, Lucy.'" We estimate that Planet Earth formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago. A mere 500 million years later, its first and only ever living molecule (DNA/RNA) concresced. Today, organisms descended from that one molecule cover nearly every inch of the planet and manage to survive, nay thrive, in unimaginably hostile environments. A single human body consists of 30 trillion of these resilient little critters. Planet Earth is infested, infested with life ! Like a ball of popcorn, soaked in honey and left lying out in the hot sun, we can no longer see the ball through the swarm of ‘beneficiaries’ covering it. “Its first and only ever ?” There is no evidence that life evolved more than once on Earth. Had it, its various forms would probably not have been compatible. Perhaps none of those forms would have survived. Best case, a single architectural design would have quickly won out (as it did?). Given the state of things on Planet Earth 4 billion years ago, it is natural to wonder how likely it was that a living cell would have emerged? But probability doesn’t enter-in to this discussion! It happened once, period. There’s no guarantee it will ever happen again; make the most of it! We’re left trying to construct a probability matrix based on a sample of one; can’t do it! Imagine you have never seen a deck of playing cards before. Your terrestrial life coach invites you to ‘pick a card, any card’, and you do. Ace of Clubs. Now, what’s the probability that the next card drawn will also be an Ace of Clubs? We know that the answer is 0. But we know that only because we know how the deck is constructed. Absent that information, the question itself is meaningless. Of course, once we start finding life forms ‘off-Earth’, it will be a whole different ball game, but that time is not now. Which means biogenesis on Earth (x) could be just shy of ‘infinitely likely’, or of ‘infinitely unlikely’, to have occurred. So all we can say about P(x) is that P(x) > 0 but < 1. Given that life has evolved only once on Earth in 4 billion years and, as far as we know, nowhere else in our solar system, it is impossible to assert that biogenesis (x) has any real probability at all: i.e. that P(x) є {R}. Sidebar #1 : If {R} > P(x) > 0, we can say that P(x) is hyperreal . While we cannot say that x is possible, we cannot say that x is impossible either. Is this the statistical model of agnosticism? Sidebar #2 : If {R} > P(x) > 0, is (x) the mathematical definition of a miracle? Given what we know (a lot) about conditions on Earth over the subsequent 4 billion years, how likely is it that such a life form would have survived ? Common sense says that if life only evolved once on Earth, it could easily have been wiped out early on, perhaps never to evolve again. Common sense also suggests that states-of-affairs will likely arise in the future that are incompatible with life as we know it today. So life then is suspended between ‘what is barely conceivable’ and ‘what is virtually certain’. It occupies the space between ‘not yet’ and ‘not still’. If so, then the bio-verse itself is a ‘logical dispensation’. It is a single fecund oasis perched above a giant sinkhole. It shouldn’t be…but it is! We can say that life on Earth did evolve, and we must anticipate its eventual extinction, so the only variable here is the time span. Time span is quantifiable but like all quantities, it is comparative. Is a liter a lot or a little? Neither? Both? Once you understand the terms, the question itself makes no sense. What then is the comparison between time and no time? What is the significance of ‘one’ in a universe already known to span at least 60 orders of magnitude? About all we can say, objectively speaking, about any ‘time span’ is that it is neither instantaneous nor eternal. A grandson once referred to a now deceased friend of ours (appropriately called Big John) as ‘giant’. Was John a speck of dust (“All we are is dust in the wind” - Kansas) or the Colossus of Rhodes? Both! Conditions on Earth vary. They vary by temperature and tempest, by the density and chemical composition of the atmosphere, and by the availability of water. Yet from the top of Mount Everest to the mouth of a thermal vent on the ocean floor, there is life. From arid desert to arctic glacier, there is life. ‘Give us any gas, we’ll breathe it’ – Laverne & Shirley. O₂? It’s a breeze. CO₂? A-OK. Terrestrial life has even evolved organisms that breathe methane! Once evolved, life is amazingly durable and adaptable. The tenacity of its survival contrasts with the fragility of its birth. Can’t live without it, can’t live with it, can’t kill it! The biosphere is omni-recursive . It gradually terraforms its physical environment to make it more bio-friendly: e.g. stone becomes soil. It experiments with innumerable distinct survival strategies, called species . Finally, it creates Artificial Realities (Culture, Society) that confer additional resilience via epigenetic adaptation. The existence of ‘life’ is extremely improbable but once here…it’s here to stay! Hypothesis : The conditions necessary for the emergence of a living molecule are much more stringent than the conditions necessary for its survival. Once life happens, it’s almost impossible to snuff it out. Of course, individually, we’re all only one stray bullet away from the boneyard and even as a species, we face eventual extinction. But as far as life per se is concerned, we’re not sure what it would take to kill it off. Consider Pando , the largest organism (by mass) on Earth. (It’s a tree!) It is at least 15,000 years old but none of its constituent organs (trunks) lives more than a few hundred years. That said, the conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago were anything but bio-conducive: Heavy asteroid bombardments, high levels of radiation, zero oxygen, superabundant methane. It’s hard to imagine that conditions on Mars, even today, are any less propitious for the emergence of life than that. Martian Bio-skeptics (that’s humans skeptical of life on Mars, not Martians skeptical of life on Earth) blame the planet’s sterility on its lack of heat, air, and water. But this argument is tired. We just flew 72 helicopter missions over the Martian surface. If the planet’s atmosphere is thick enough to support flight, it’s certainly sufficient to support some form of life. Even today, conditions on Mars are probably sufficient to support biogenesis, but if not, they certainly were at some time in the past. From what we know about life, it should have emerged and evolved on Mars at more or less the same time it did on Earth. We’re looking for life on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and I hope we find it – in my lifetime, please; but isn’t it much more likely that life would have emerged on our twin planet? Based on what we think we know about biogenesis, there should be life on Mars. If it turns out that there isn’t, somebody’s “got some ‘xplainin’ to do, Lucy.'" 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 Yuletide 2024 Previous Next