Search Results

< Back Voice Verbs David Cowles “I am stuck on Band-Aid ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me!” So says the jingle for one of the world’s most iconic products. But more importantly, and quite unexpectedly, this slogan is one of the best examples of ‘middle voice thinking’ in American pop culture. “I am stuck on Band-Aid ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on me!” So says the jingle for one of the world’s most iconic products. But more importantly, and quite unexpectedly, this slogan is one of the best examples of ‘middle voice thinking’ in American pop culture. We are used to sentences built around active (or passive) voice verbs. (The passive voice is just the active voice turned around.) ‘Billy hit Tommy’ and ‘Tommy was hit by Billy’ describe the exact same event but each with a different focus. The active voice puts the focus on Billy (the one who hit) while the passive voice focuses on Tommy (the one who was hit). But what about the more likely scenario that Billy and Tommy are simply fighting. In English, we have to say, “Tommy and Billy hit each other.” Clumsy! Other languages, especially ancient languages, often include a third voice, the ‘middle voice’. If English had a middle voice, there would be a form of the verb ‘to hit’ that would convey simply the ‘middle voice’ reality of this event. In Icelandic, the language with a middle voice that is closest to English, you usually just add ‘st’ to the end of the root verb to make it middle voice: “Billy and Tommy hitst,” for example. The band-aid jingle highlights this dilemma. Is the bandage stuck on you (active voice) or are you stuck on the bandage (passive voice)? Or are you and the bandage ‘stuckst’ (middle voice)? See how the active and passive voices distort slightly what happens with a band-aid. It takes a middle voice verb form to properly convey what is actually going on. So, who cares? Well, we all do or at least we all should. The current active-passive dualism makes us prone to think in categories such as ‘maker-made’, ‘employer-employee’, ‘ruler-ruled’. I’s exploit it’s. For some purposes, the dominance of active/passive voice verb forms may make practical sense. After all, this is the language of the industrial revolution: skyscrapers and assembly lines. But it is decidedly not the language of interpersonal relations. The philosopher Martin Buber called the proper relationship between two persons ‘I thou’ (rather than ‘I it’). ‘I thou’ is Buber’s way of introducing middle voice thinking into languages (German and English) that do not have a middle voice verb form. One of the most profound lessons of the New Testament is that what I do to another is simultaneously done to me. I am both the subject and the object of my actions. But without a middle voice verb form, we Anglophones have no easy way to express this ethos – and therefore we tend to lose sight of it in our everyday lives – at immense personal and social cost. Previous Next

< Back A Very Brief History of Monotheism David Cowles Oct 14, 2025 “Once again, civilization has descended into a version of polytheism, and we are all poorer as a result.” Monotheism is an intellectually attractive representation of the ‘God’ concept. It stands behind such great works as the Torah and the New Testament ; it is the soul of Israel’s Judges and Prophets, and it was inspiration for Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides and Avicenna. But politically, it’s a tough sell. The enigmatic pharaoh, Akhenaten (d. 1370 BCE), was one of the first recorded advocates for the one-God (‘Aten’) hypothesis in the Western world. He is loosely, perhaps mythologically, associated with the Hebrew Exodus and the growth of the ancient Greek settlement at Thebes. It is certainly attractive to imagine Moses (c. 1250 BCE) as heir to Akhenaten’s monotheism, but intellectual history is rarely quite so neat. In any event, Akhenaten’s attempts to reform the Egyptian belief system did not end well. Upon his death, his social reforms were quickly unwound…and the monotheism he was selling? No one was buying it! (Except perhaps the Hebrew slaves.) The details of Akhenaten’s demise remain unknown – suspicious in itself for a society that kept such good records and typically treated its dearly departed pharaohs to a ‘divine’ send-off. Akhenaten’s body was never placed in the tomb he had built for himself. (Is an empty tomb to be the common fate of all great monotheists?) To this day, his remains have never been reliably identified. Plus, in a manner reminiscent of a Stalinist purge, all public reference to the reformer ceased upon his death. Of course, the fact that he was succeeded by his much more famous son, Tutankhamun (‘King Tut’ to you), a staunch polytheist, could not have helped. One thing for sure, Tut’s flair for pomp more than made up for his father’s more austere style of statecraft. So, what did happen to Akhenaten? The most probable hypothesis is that he was deposed, assassinated, and buried in an unmarked grave (or, possibly left unburied, like Polyneices in Sophocles’ Antigone ). Following Akhenaten’s fall, the Egyptians were only too eager to restore the many gods of the Pantheon to their rightful status. Which leads us to Moses. Irrespective of his origin, there is little doubt that the Hebrew Exodus brought monotheism to the Near East, but again, not without a terrible struggle. Not long after their historic Exodus from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and his brother Aaron, the rank and file were caught smelting a Golden Calf to replace the existential YHWH ( I am who am ). And once secure in the Promised Land Israel’s leaders constantly, and often in vain, struggled to keep the people from worshiping the local Canaanite deities (the Baal). Fast forward 1500 years. Judeo-Christian monotheism is finally gaining the upper hand in its struggle with Greco-Roman paganism. What a film! YHWH vs. the Olympians ! Polytheism sure dies hard. How come? What’s the attraction? The concept of God shared by the People of the Book (Jews, Christians and Muslims) is relatively abstract. We even apply terms such as ‘transcendent’ and ‘ineffable’ to describe God’s relationship with the world. The Pagan gods of Europe, in contrast, intervene much more obviously in the mundane events of everyday life…and they are apt to do so capriciously. They are quick to anger, slow to forgive. Their concept of Justice is Draconian, more so even than ancient Talionic Law (‘an eye for an eye’). The Greco-Roman gods are motivated by pride, lust, and jealousy…like us. They can be manipulated, even tricked, like us. We like to think of ourselves as ‘made in the image of God’; but the Olympians are clearly made in our likeness. They behave like we do. They are more akin to the Marvel Superheroes of modern mythology than they are to St. Paul’s abstract, “unknown” God. ( Acts 17: 23 – 31) Now skip ahead another 1,000 years to Florence, Italy toward the end of the 15 th century CE. The first shoots of the Renaissance are visible everywhere. And what is it that is being reborn? Athenian democracy? Spartan heroism? Roman jurisprudence? Of course not! What is being reborn is, you guessed it…polytheism (passed off as a revival of Classical culture)! But not without a fight. In the tradition of Akhenaten, Moses, and the Fab Four (John, Paul, Mark and Jesus), one man makes one last attempt to overcome ‘modernism’ by putting Christendom on a more secure anthropological footing. The man’s name: Savonarola. The death of Lorenzo de' Medici (1492), the French invasion of Italy and the subsequent expulsion of the Medici from Florence (1494) created a power vacuum into which Florence’s ‘spiritual leader’ was prepared to step. Preaching that Florence could become a “New Jerusalem”, he established a theocratic republic in the city. Perhaps anticipating the Protestant Reformation, the friar advocated for broad reform in the Church, condemning papal corruption and the practice of simony. “The People’s Government” did not last long. By 1497, the reactionary forces of status quo ante were gathering strength. Arrested in April 1498, he was tried for heresy and schism, convicted and sentenced to death. On May 23, 1498, he was hanged in Florence's Piazza della Signoria, his body then burned, and his ashes scattered in the Arno River, presumably to prevent his followers from collecting relics and visiting his tomb. The republican form of government continued in Florence until 1512 when the Medici family returned to prominence. However, following Savonarola’s execution, a new constitution, eliminating the theocratic elements of the 1494 republic, was adopted. The ‘Reign of God’ had ended once and for all in Europe. The tumultuous events of 1498 created a second vacuum which was quickly filled by the younger, more secular and more pragmatic Machiavelli. The author of The Prince did not advocate polytheism, but he did advocate divorcing ethics from politics. Just imagine how popular he would have been in today’s world! Machiavelli’s rise to power, politically and intellectually, kicked off a 500 year period of ‘rational pragmatism’. The material quality of life improved markedly. Now that God was ‘out of the way’, folks could pursue economic advantage unencumbered by eschatological angst. “There’s an app for that!” The magical, mystical world of the Middle Ages was suddenly transformed into a tangled web of levers and pulleys. “Press here and receive a reward.” Our new gods reside, not on the top of Mount Olympus but in La Technique – the tools and processes of the material world. Once again, civilization has descended into a version of polytheism, and we are all poorer as a result. *** Julie Mehretu’s Stadia II (2004) transforms the architecture of stadiums into a vast, abstract swirl of color, line, and form that evokes both celebration and chaos. Layers of transparent marks and vector-like arcs suggest flags, maps, and digital interfaces—symbols of modern life’s speed and multiplicity. The painting captures the tension between collective energy and information overload, turning the visual language of globalization into a meditation on the complexity of contemporary experience. 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.

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. < Back Magesh Contributor 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. Navigating Easter to Pentecost Choices that Lead to D eception The Trajectory of AI: Balancing Promise and Caution Mentoring for His Kingdom Credit Where Credit is Due The Barrier-Breaking Power of Music Drumming to Inner Peace

< Back My Breastplate David Cowles Apr 15, 2023 Christ within me, Christ outside me, Christ before me, Christ beside me. Christ in everything I do, Christ in everything I think, Christ in everything I touch, Christ in everyone I meet, Christ my origin, Christ my destiny, Christ in all things, All things in Christ. 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 Holy Days 2023 Table of Contents, Previous Next Share 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 the Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back The Time Trap David Cowles Dec 8, 2022 “The future is hurtling toward us at the speed of a runaway train…Now is the hour of our death…Memento Mori does not go nearly far enough. Try Vivo Mori instead.” When do you begin to think about your life in terms of a lifespan? At age 5? Before that, you are aware of older people (e.g., grandparents) and you’ve been told that they will ‘die’ (whatever that means) long before you do. To you, however, that has no significance because, for you, there is no continuity between a person who is 5 years old (you) and a person who is 80 years old (grandparents). Adults are a different life form, a different species. Like dogs in a park, kids immediately recognize other kids, even if there is a significant age difference, and they instinctively gravitate away from any adults and toward those kids. Sometime during your 5th or 6th year, however, you’re likely to begin to grasp that ‘old folks’ are actually just like you, only projected forward in time. Sobering! Or is it? I’m 5. I have lived 5 years – that’s a long time. I don’t even remember when I was a baby, but I’ve seen pictures. I guess that looks like me. I have lived one lifetime (5 years) so far…and it hasn’t been easy. My octogenarian grandparents are 16 lifetimes old by my count, 15 lifetimes more than me (one lifetime = 5 years from the perspective of a 5-year-old). My first 5 years were a bit of a schlog, and now I’m destined to repeat that 15 times? Functionally, that’s ‘forever’; death is not a material factor in my life at age 5. But now I’m 10, twice as old. No matter how old I get, I will always have lived just one lifetime. Now an 80-year-old has lived only 8 lifetimes (vs. 16), 7 more than me. Still death is remote…but a little less remote than before. Now I’m 20 with just three ‘lifetimes’ left to burn. Then 40 with just one lifetime (40 years) ahead. This sh*t is gettin’ real! I’m crossing into ‘negative territory’ now: 1 (first 40 years) + 1 (last 40 years) = 0 (aka death). 15, 7, 3, 1. It gets real, real quick! But even this is not what I mean by the ‘time trap’. When I get to age 40, and half my life is behind me, it still doesn’t feel that way to me. At 40, I’m not even close to thinking I’m ‘half-baked’. I ‘know’ it, but I certainly don’t feel it. How come? It turns out that we are born looking at life through the wrong end of a telescope. The road ahead is 15, 7, 3 or 1 lifetimes long, but that feels like 30, 14, 6 or 2 lifetimes. Then, more or less suddenly, everything changes! Somewhere along the way, at the age of 60 or 65 or 70+, we realize that we’ve all along been looking at time through a concave lens. Belatedly, we turn the telescope around. What felt like 30, 14, 5 and 2 should have felt like 7.5, 3.5, 1.5 and 0.5. Time is not a kid hanging on a corner, reluctant to go home. Time is not lingering somewhere out there on the horizon, as we had supposed; rather time (aka the future) is hurtling toward us at the speed of a runaway train. Objectively, at age 40, I had a whole lifetime ahead of me. Subjectively, I had 2 lifetimes. Experientially, I had just ½ a lifetime left. I’m 40 years old and, experientially, my life is already 2/3rds over. Objectively, my life expectancy is 80 years; subjectively, it’s 120 years; experientially, it’s just 60! Like H₂0 in a freezer, time is subject to phase change. In one phase, we experience time as through the medium of a concave lens; in the other phase, the focus reverses and the concave becomes convex. The Ave Maria makes sense: “now and at the hour of our death.” Now is the hour of our death! We are all always living in the valley of the shadow of death (Psalm 23), at the hour of our death (Ave Maria). Memento Mori does not go nearly far enough. Try Vivo Mori instead. 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 Abraham Lincoln and the Book of Judges David Cowles Jun 30, 2022 “If time travel is perfected in my lifetime, I know exactly where…and when…I’ll visit first!” “…That government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” – Abraham Lincoln ( Gettysburg Address ) Shall not perish ? Where can I find this imperishable utopia of which Mr. Lincoln speaks so reverentially? I’m googling it…waiting…ah, got it, Israel. Ok, but Israel between 1250 and 1000 B.C. Well, if time travel is perfected in my lifetime, at least I know exactly where I want to go… and when ! “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes,” (Judges 21: 25) During this period, Israel had no formal political authority. It was ruled by so-called ‘Judges.' Caveat lector ! Do not confuse these Judges with the sober men and women, often unelected, often with life tenure, who preside over our courtrooms, gods of guilt. Old Testament (OT) judges were nothing like that ! In the absence of traditional institutions of government, charismatic leaders emerged from among the people to secure and advance the collective welfare of the people. These leaders relied for their authority, not on power, but on (1) their devotion to the law of God (Torah) and (2) the popular, if informal, consent of the governed. In our era, a variety of actors compete to fill the role of an OT judge: populist politicians, military heroes, movement leaders, mob bosses, even celebrities. But the influence of these modern day pseudo-judges , unlike ancient Israel’s judges, is tightly circumscribed by our formal institutions of government. During the period of Judges, there were no formal institutions of government in Israel. People did what was right in their own eyes and the Judges were their instruments. OT judges did not make law! It was assumed that all laws had already been made…with direct input from God. These are the 613 statutes, the Torah, now recorded in the first 5 books of the Bible. Judges ruled Israel from the death of Joshua (following Moses) to the coronation of Saul (prior to David). They settled disputes and they defended Israel ‘against all enemies, foreign or domestic.' Along with the priests, they saw to it that God’s statutes were observed, but they were less about enforcement than they were about consensus. For 250 years, Israel prospered under informally chosen, but popular, Judges. But the Israelites looked around and saw the pomp and power of neighboring nations, all of whom we governed by kings. So, Israel wanted a king…and eventually they got one: Saul. And the rest as they say is ‘history,' quite literally! **** Image: Gideon Gathering His Army, Scene from the Book of Judges. Etienne Parrocel (French, Avignon 1696–1776 Rouen), Formerly attributed to Anonymous, Italian, first half of the 18th century. As part of the Met's Open Access policy , you can freely copy, modify and distribute this image, even for commercial purposes. Public domain data for this object can also be accessed using the Met's Open Access API . Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! 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 03/18/2022 And then? What comes next? After 50 years of doing everything for everybody, you can do things for yourself…to the extent that you’re able–to the extent you’re not able. You must now learn to let other people do things for you. More later… -David And then? What comes next? After 50 years of doing everything for everybody, you can do things for yourself…to the extent that you’re able–to the extent you’re not able. You must now learn to let other people do things for you. More later… -David Previous Next

< Back Memes About Animal Resistance Are Everywhere Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond "Nonhuman animals do, in fact, engage in resistance, even if their defiance is futile. The will to prefer life over death is a primary act of resistance, perhaps the only act of dissent available to animals who are subject to extreme forms of control." Memes galore centered on the “orca revolution” have inundated the online realm. They gleefully depict orcas launching attacks on boats in the Strait of Gibraltar and off the Shetland coast . One particularly ingenious image showcases an orca posed as a sickle crossed with a hammer. The cheeky caption reads, “ Eat the rich ,” a nod to the orcas’ penchant for sinking lavish yachts. A surfboard-snatching sea otter in Santa Cruz, California has also claimed the media spotlight. Headlines dub her an “ adorable outlaw ” “ at large .” Memes conjure her in a beret like the one donned by socialist revolutionary Ché Guevara. In one caption, she proclaims, “ Accept our existence or expect resistance … an otter world is possible.” My scholarship centers on animal-human relations through the prism of social justice. As I see it, public glee about wrecked surfboards and yachts hints at a certain flavor of schadenfreude . At a time marked by drastic socioeconomic disparities, white supremacy and environmental degradation, casting these marine mammals as revolutionaries seems like a projection of desires for social justice and habitable ecosystems. A glimpse into the work of some political scientists, philosophers and animal behavior researchers injects weightiness into this jocular public dialogue. The field of critical animal studies analyzes structures of oppression and power and considers pathways to dismantling them. These scholars’ insights challenge the prevailing view of nonhuman animals as passive victims. They also oppose the widespread assumption that nonhuman animals can’t be political actors. So while meme lovers project emotions and perspectives onto these particular wild animals, scholars of critical animal studies suggest that nonhuman animals do in fact engage in resistance. Nonhuman Animal Protest is Everywhere Are nonhuman animals in a constant state of defiance? I’d answer, undoubtedly, that the answer is yes. The entire architecture of animal agriculture attests to animals’ unyielding resistance against confinement and death. Cages, corrals, pens and tanks would not exist were it not for animals’ tireless revolt. Even when hung upside down on conveyor hangars, chickens furiously flap their wings and bite , scratch, peck and defecate on line workers at every stage of the process leading to their deaths. Until the end, hooked tuna resist, gasping and writhing fiercely on ships’ decks. Hooks, nets and snares would not be necessary if fish allowed themselves to be passively harvested . If they consented to repeated impregnation , female pigs and cows wouldn’t need to be tethered to “ rape racks ” to prevent them from struggling to get away. If they didn’t mind having their infants permanently taken from their sides , dairy cows wouldn’t need to be blinded with hoods so they don’t bite and kick as the calves are removed; they wouldn’t bellow for weeks after each instance. I contend that failure to recognize their bellowing as protest reflects “ anthropodenial ” – what ethologist Frans de Waal calls the rejection of obvious continuities between human and nonhuman animal behavior, cognition and emotion. The prevalent view of nonhuman animals remains that of René Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher who viewed animals’ actions as purely mechanical , like those of a machine. From this viewpoint, one might dismiss these nonhuman animals’ will to prevail as unintentional or merely instinctual. But political scientist Dinesh Wadiwel argues that “even if their defiance is futile, the will to prefer life over death is a primary act of resistance , perhaps the only act of dissent available to animals who are subject to extreme forms of control.” Creaturely Escape Artists Despite humans’ colossal efforts to repress them, nonhuman animals still manage to escape from slaughterhouses . They also break out of zoos , circuses, aquatic parks, stables and biomedical laboratories . Tilikum, a captive orca at Sea World, famously killed his trainer – an act at least one marine mammal behaviorist characterized as intentional . Philosopher Fahim Amir suggests that depression among captive animals is likewise a form of emotional rebellion against unbearable conditions, a revolt of the nerves . Dolphins engage in self-harm like thrashing against the tank’s walls or cease to eat and retain their breath until death . Sows whose body-sized cages impede them from turning around to make contact with their piglets repeatedly ram themselves into the metal struts, sometimes succumbing to their injuries . Critical animal studies scholars contend that all these actions arguably demonstrate nonhuman animals’ yearning for freedom and their aversion to inequity . As for the marine stars of summer 2023’s memes, fishing gear can entangle and harm orcas . Sea otters were hunted nearly to extinction for their fur . Marine habitats have been degraded by human activities including overfishing, oil spills, plastic, chemical and sonic pollution, and climate change. It’s easy to imagine they might be responding to human actions , including bodily harm and interference with their turf. What is Solidarity with Nonhuman Animals? Sharing memes that cheer on wild animals is one thing. But there are more substantive ways to demonstrate solidarity with animals. Legal scholars support nonhuman animals’ resistance by proposing that their current classification as property should be replaced with that of personhood or beingness . Nonhuman animals including songbirds, dolphins, elephants , horses, chimpanzees and bears increasingly appear as plaintiffs alleging their subjection to extinction, abuse and other injustices. Citizenship for nonhuman animals is another pathway to social and political inclusion. It would guarantee the right to appeal arbitrary restrictions of domesticated nonhuman animals’ autonomy. It would also mandate legal duties to protect them from harm. Everyday deeds can likewise convey solidarity. Boycotting industries that oppress nonhuman animals by becoming vegan is a powerful action. It is a form of political “counter-conduct,” a term philosopher Michel Foucault uses to describe practices that oppose dominant norms of power and control. Creating roadside memorials for nonhuman animals killed by motor vehicles encourages people to see them as beings whose lives and deaths matter , rather than mere “roadkill .” Political scientists recognize that human and nonhuman animals’ struggles against oppression are intertwined . At different moments, the same strategies leveraged against nonhuman animals have cast segments of the human species as “less than human” in order to exploit them. The category of the human is ever-shifting and ominously exclusive . I argue that no one is safe as long as there is a classification of “animality.” It confers susceptibility to extravagant forms of violence , legally and ethically condoned. Might an ‘Otter World’ Be Possible? I believe quips about the marine mammal rebellion reflect awareness that our human interests are entwined with those of nonhuman animals. The desire to achieve sustainable relationships with other species and the natural world feels palpable to me within the memes and media coverage. And it’s happening as human-caused activity makes our shared habitats increasingly unlivable. Solidarity with nonhuman animals is consistent with democratic principles – for instance, defending the right to well-being and opposing the use of force against innocent subjects . Philosopher Amir recommends extending the idea that there can be no freedom as long as there is still unfreedom beyond the species divide: “While we may not yet fully be able to picture what this may mean, there is no reason we should not begin to imagine it ”. This is a republish in its entirety through permission from The Conversation . Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond works at the intersection of critical animal studies, decolonial studies, and comparative race and slavery studies. Above all, she is interested in troubling the human/animal divide, anthropocentrism, and the entanglement of animalization with racialization. Her publications include the book chapters, "Dogs without Masters: Astray with Akbar and in André Alexis' Fifteen Dogs" (2022), "A Pale Shade of Violet: Animals and Race in Machado de Assis" (2022), “Haunting Pigs, Swimming Jaguars: Mourning, Animals, and Ayahuasca” (2020), and "Slave Barracks Aristocrats: Islam and the Orient in the Work of Gilberto Freyre" (2014). She has also authored articles such as "Of She-Wolves and Mad Cows: Animality, Anthropophagy, and the State of Exception in Cláudio Assis's Amarelo Manga" (2011) and “Akbar Stole My Heart: Coming Out as an Animalist” (2013), as well as the monograph, "White Negritude: Race, Writing, and Brazilian Cultural Identity" (2008), and the edited volume, "The Masters and the Slaves: Plantation Relations and Mestizaje in American Imaginaries" (2005). In addition to her scholarly publications, she has contributed to various media outlets, including The Advocate, The Conversation, CounterPunch, Ms. Magazine, Persianesque, the Folha de S. Paulo, and Truthout. Return to our Harvest Issue 2023 Previous Next

< Back How to Build a Warp Drive “Buckle up! While your friends are lining up for a trip to Mars, you’re headed for Alpha Centauri…and beyond!” David Cowles Panta Re , “Everything moves”, the wisdom of Heraclitus (5th century BCE), proven 2500 years later by Einstein & Co. Everything that is moves in space or time or both. A photon in a vacuum, for example, moves in space but not in time. It transverses 186,000 miles in one second. A couch potato, on the other hand, moves in time but not in space. He traverses Normal Life Expectance (85 years) without going even once to the kitchen for a beer. We call that ‘aging’. Photons don’t age. They have found the fountain of youth. It’s called perpetual motion. But unfortunately, the motion you generate on your treadmill won’t do the trick…unless you can jog at the speed of light (like Usain ‘Bolt’). Proposed : Age is a measure of our inactivity. To the uninitiated, space seems vast and time interminable, but in fact the fabric known as spacetime is constricting; it imposes severe limitations on our Wanderlust . My friends ridicule me, with reason, because I’ve never been to Asia. I could have done but I didn’t and now I can’t; oh well! I have the last laugh: they’ve never visited Proxima Centauri (PC), the closest star to Earth (besides our sun). Poor them! (Not that I’ve been there…yet; but I know how to get there which most of them don’t: it’s ‘second (star) on the right and straight on till morning’, right?) A photon travels from PC to Earth in ‘just’ 4 years (the time between one US Presidential election and the next) but it will take Voyager One almost 75,000 years to reach our nearest neighbor. Talk about Little House on the Prairie ! Even today’s most energetic space probe would take 7,500 years to reach PC. If my fellow Earthlings are ever to have the thrill of visiting this nearby star, they will need to start shredding the fabric of spacetime. And don’t despair: we have the technology! Well, to rephrase: we know what we need the technology to do. We don’t quite know how to build it…yet, but the principles are clear enough. We need to ‘fix’ the ludicrous disproportion that exists between spatial distances and temporal intervals in our frame of reference. The ‘cosmic ratio’, as we experience it, is 186,000:1 (miles per second). By comparison, most of us will never travel faster than 0.2 miles per second. We imagine that we live in a 4 dimensional spacetime. The 3 spatial dimensions appear to be interchangeable; a common metric applies. By comparison, from our perspective, the temporal metric seems wildly distorted. One second in time equivalent to 186,000 miles in space. Even the world’s most traveled human is still more than 99.99% potato and less than 0.01% photon. Fortunately, there is a simple way to make our experiences of time and space congruent. In Yellow Submarine , an icon of 20th century mythology, John Lennon adjusts the onboard clocks (metrics) to slow the flow, and even reverse the direction, of time. IRL, we estimate that the edge of the non-visible universe is receding from us at about 1,000 times the speed of light. So superluminal speed is no problem; we just need to change the metric, i.e. shrink space. For space travel to be routine, we’d probably need to be able to zip across our home galaxy in about the time it currently takes to circumnavigate our globe (about 40 hours). This gives whole new meaning to the term, Road Warrior . The problem is that it would take a photon about 80,000 years to make the trip. So even light is a slow poke by these standards. To achieve an acceptable galactic navigational speed we would need to compress space by a factor of 10^9 (vs. 10^3, above). Easy! We just need to create a soliton (a wave that travels through space with virtually zero environmental interference and nearly zero dissipation) and invest it with enough energy to carry us at a speed 10 billion times light. Surfing the cosmos? Hang10! So where do we find these magic beans? Right under your nose. All you need to do to create a Star Fleet worthy warp drive is to subject conducting plasma to ‘stress’ and allow it to interact with the electromagnetic fields surrounding it. An ordinary plasma wave packet becomes a soliton when nonlinear effects in the plasma exactly balance out the natural tendency of waves to disperse. Importantly, once this balance of amplifying and dispersing forces is achieved, it naturally tends to self-perpetuate. It forms a sort of ‘energy sink’; only an outside force (like interaction with the environment) can disrupt the balance. Actually, several different types of solitons occur in plasma: Acoustic solitons : These act like sound waves: the ions move together with the electrons to maintain charge neutrality. The plasma pressure and electric fields balance each other perfectly. Electronic solitons : These involve oscillations of the electrons while the heavier ions remain relatively stationary. The envelope of these high-frequency electron oscillations can form a stable packet. Magnetic solitons : In magnetized plasmas, you can create stable structures in the magnetic field that propagate as solitons. “Ok, this is all very interesting, but why do I feel like I’m still in the realm of science fiction? I’d feel better if the mathematics was fully developed and if there was empirical evidence to support the concept.” Feel better! The math is fully developed; it’s called the KdV equation: ∂u/∂t + u∂u/∂x + α∂³u/∂x³ = 0 Where - ∂u/∂t is the term for evolution in time, u∂u/∂x is the term for nonlinear (u∂u) amplification and α∂³u/∂x³ is the term for dispersion. The zero testifies to the fact that these variables are in perfect balance. Calculus buffs (not me) will note that these terms represent first, second, and third order derivatives Feel better, again! Satellite observations have detected solitary waves that maintain their structure while traveling through the Earth’s plasma core. So buckle up! While your friends are lining up for a trip to Mars, you’re headed for Alpha Centauri…and beyond! Image: "Allegory of the Planets and Continents," Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, 1752, oil on canvas, 73 x 54 7/8 in. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, 1977. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Share Previous Next

< Back Returning to Andromeda David Cowles “What sort of God would throw candy wrappers on a pristine beach? I mean, burning someone at the stake, well maybe, but littering, no way!” It’s time for me to return to my home planet in the Andromeda Galaxy. For over a year now, I’ve been researching intelligent life on Earth and documenting suspected occurrences. I think I’ve done good work here, but I know my superiors are going to want a lot more from me than just a collection of anecdotes. They’ll want to know what intelligent life forms on Earth think about themselves and Universe and their place in that universe; and frankly, I’m at a loss to know what to tell them. Got a minute? Can I explain my conundrum? Maybe you can help! For the most part, Earthlings agree on the ‘data’, what happened and when, but the way they interpret that data sorts them into two possibly irreconcilable camps. First, the data: At the birth of time itself, an event occurred which everyone affectionately calls ‘Big Bang’. Then in the first fraction of a nanosecond, that universe ‘inflated’ by a factor of 10^26…to the size of a small marble. Over the next three seconds, all the forces of attraction and repulsion and all the known subatomic particles, in other words all the building blocks of the universe, precipitated . The Universe cooled from 10^32 degrees Kelvin all the way down to a chilly 10^9, still 100,000 times hotter than Earth’s Sun, but below its own ‘dew point’; and below its dew point, the universe rains fermions and bosons. Crazy, right? Well, hang on, we’re just getting started. As you know, the universe is incredibly fine-tuned. It depends on dozens of apparently unrelated parameters; a variation of less than 1% in the quantitative value of any one of these parameters would have aborted the universe sometime during its first three seconds. Over the next 14 billion years or so, the universe ‘gradually’ expanded to its current size (45 billion light years across); the subatomic particles and their related forces combined to form elements, then molecules, then galaxies, and finally, black holes. The first three seconds were incredibly eventful! Then, nothing much happened for the next 10 billion years. Oh, galactic sheets formed along with stars, planets, and moons; new, heavier elements emerged, and together with hydrogen, combined to form an inconceivably vast array of molecules, exhibiting many bizarre and unexpected properties. In other words, yada, yada, yada… Then came the next Big Day! I call it ‘Big Bang 2’. A little less than 4 billion years ago, precursor molecules (organic) combined to form the first (and only) living organism; et voila, biogenesis. Biogenesis happened almost as suddenly as cosmogenesis. One day lifeless, next day life! No wonder Earthlings are dizzy! At least as far as Earthlings know, reproductive ‘life’ can only occur in the presence of DNA, a single molecule painstakingly assembled from a ‘string’ (actually a ‘double helix’) of molecules. DNA is made up of just 4 molecules, bases, arranged ‘vertically’ in triplets and ‘horizontally’ in pairs. No big deal, right? Except that an average DNA molecule consists of three billion base pairs. A change in the composition or position of a single base pair may (or may not) impact the phenomenal characteristics of the host organism. So, kind of a big deal, after all! So far, so good, right? But here’s where things start to get interesting. Some Earthlings believe that ‘life’ arose independently on many different planets and moons across many different galaxies; they tend to underestimate the nearly incalculable precision required to generate a single living organism. Others believe that life evolved only once…on Planet Earth; they tend to underestimate the vastness and variety of the universe. Of course, Earthlings have no access to any real evidence either way. Here’s where you’d like me to step in and give my ‘study subjects’ additional information that might help clear things up for them but, of course, I can’t do that: I am prohibited by the Prime Directive from sharing any information with Earthlings that they have not already discovered on their own. I’m told, “Lose lips implode galaxies!” So my lips, unfortunately, must remain sealed. So this welter of seemingly disconnected ‘facts’ forms what Earthlings call their ‘Standard Model’ (of cosmogenesis and of biogenesis). These ‘models’ are widely accepted; but their interpretation is an entirely different matter. Sidebar : While most Earthlings accept the Standard Model , some prefer a version of that model that telescopes the entire process down to 7 days. Potato…potato! Now things get interesting. Consensus turns to conflict, sometimes armed combat, once the discussion moves from science to philosophy. So far, we’ve focused on the ‘what and when’ of things…that’s the easy part; but now that we’re starting to look at the ‘how and why’, it’s a very different story. Here, seemingly, the human population splits into two apparently irreconcilable camps. One crowd takes the science at face value. It is what it is. There’s no need to look further. Universe just is! WYSIWYG: What you see is what you get. We’ve pushed the envelope to the limit of its elasticity. In the language of Earth’s scholastic philosophers, Universe is causa sui . It has no proper cause; it is the product of no agency. You are your own grandmother. Shut up and enjoy! Or not, suit yourself. Perhaps this is the only possible universe (the Anthropic Principle), or perhaps it is the best of all possible universes (Leibniz), but in fact, no one knows, and no one can know, and no one could do anything about it if they did know. So all you can say is: This is how it is! The other camp takes a very different view of the same data. “ Causa sui …phooey!” Obviously, something as complex as Universe must be the result of an intentional act by a supremely creative intellect. Earthlings usually refer to this ‘creative intellect’ as ‘God’. The ‘God Hypothesis’, as I call it, is potentially useful; but perhaps it raises as many problems as it solves. Who is this God, and why did he exercise his creative intellect in just this way? If this impossibly intricate universe is the product of a creative intelligence, why is everything so messed up? That question splits itself into two versions. The first is the age-old Problem of Evil . As I write this report, tens of thousands of human beings have just died horrible deaths as the result of an earthquake in Turkey. Many were crushed to death, others smothered, others buried alive. The ‘lucky’ survivors had to wait to be rescued, immobilized and without food or water for as much as a week. If Universe is the intentional act of a creative intelligence, is that intelligence malevolent? As in Earthlings’ Book of Job , should God be brought to the dock to face charges of Crimes Against Humanity? (If you’re interested in the outcome of this ‘trial of the millennium’, I recommend an article in Issue #1 of Aletheia Today Magazine , " The Riddle of Job .") But I don’t want to get into the ‘Problem of Evil’ right now. If you’re interested, check out " The Problem of Good ." also in Issue #1 of Aletheia Today Magazine . In any event, it is the less challenging version of our problem. The second version is of much greater concern. If God is benevolent and created Universe, why did he do such a lousy job? I’m passing over God’s alleged crimes against humanity so that I can focus on a much more serious crime, cosmically speaking, the crime of Littering. What sort of God would throw candy wrappers on a pristine beach? I mean, burning someone at the stake, well maybe, but littering, no way! Sidebar : What’s happening to me? Have I spent so much time on Earth that its values (or lack thereof) are rubbing off on me? What does it say about me that I condemn careless inefficiency over intentional cruelty? Anyway, according to the Standard Model, genesis is nothing but a bunch of wrong turns. It’s like a stopped clock – it’s only right twice a day. 24 hours of noise gets you two bits of information! For example, genes mutate randomly. Almost all such mutations are harmful to the host species and therefore do not pass on to future generations. Once in a great while, a particular combination of mutations works to produce a new phenomenal characteristic that confers a selective advantage on its host species. Such mutations may be conserved and passed on. The universe as is cannot possibly be the intentional product of a creative and benevolent intelligence… unless that intelligence has done a brilliant job of covering its tracks. But if so, for what purpose? Just to fool the already cognitively impaired members of Homo sapiens ? So, I am faced with the fact that Earthlings understand the common data in two diametrically opposed ways. The Standard Model, by itself, is hardly convincing, and it’s anything but beautiful. Some Earthling once wrote, “Beauty is truth and truth beauty.” If that’s so, goodbye Standard Model! Where’s Occam’s Razor when you’re so desperately in need of a shave? At first glance, the so-called ‘God Hypothesis’ looks more appealing. For one thing, it allows for the operation of real, objective values (e.g., Beauty, Truth, and Justice) in the creation and maintenance of Universe. It allows Einstein to claim, rightly or wrongly, that Universe has a built-in bias toward Good . For another thing, it solves the problem of ‘particularity’ – how is it that something as precisely tuned as the cosmos and the biocosm came to be just the way it is? The answer is simple, “God made it that way.” But if so, why does it look like it came about by blind chance? As if this were not enough, I have another problem! Earthlings have a useful epistemological principle that could apply here; it takes various forms: “Actions speak louder than words; by their fruits you shall know them," etc. In other words, don’t tell me what you believe; show me! Is Universe the product of spontaneous generation, i.e., a random, purposeless accident? Or is it the brainchild of an intelligent, powerful, benevolent Creator? Naively, one would expect that people in Camp #1 would behave somewhat differently from those in Camp #2 – and so they do…but only on the margins. There are living members of genus nihilist, as there are of genus credulous . The problem is, there are only a few of each. The actions of the vast majority of human beings don’t betray an allegiance to either ideology. Some label themselves ‘theist, idealist, spiritual’; others prefer ‘atheist, materialist, secular’. Can you tell me who is in which group by examining the way they live their lives? I can’t! Avowed theists are capable of unimaginable cruelty. Avowed atheists are capable of incredible charity. Absent, the one-percent at either end of the spectrum, people don’t seem to care one way or the other about these issues. They deny the existence of God but behave like Mother Theresa; or they affirm the existence of God but behave like Josef Stalin. To the extent they care at all, human beings seem to wall off their cosmological ‘beliefs’ from their terrestrial ‘duties’: Church is for Sundays while business…is ‘just business’. Or do I have it backwards? Should I have said, ‘cosmological duties’ and ‘terrestrial beliefs’? Either way, there’s a disconnect. I am particularly intrigued by older Earthlings, many of them retired from what they call ‘the daily grind’. As far as I can tell, most of them are spending their final years perfecting their golf swings, travelling to exotic destinations, or seeking out hidden culinary gems. Few see ‘financial freedom’ as an opportunity to turn their attention from the ridiculous to the sublime. Recently, many have taken to enshrining their post-retirement activities in the form of something they call a bucket list , a compendium of things they hope to experience before... You’re 75 years old and now you want to see the Grand Canyon? Why? To check it off some imaginary list? To say you’ve seen it? After all, you’ve lived on Earth for 75 years. How can it be that you haven’t even seen the Grand Canyon, or eaten a meal in Paris, or shopped in a Kasbah! What a waste of a life…or not! The best explanation I can come up with is that Earthlings regard their lives as ‘works of art’. Prior to age 25, they are priming the canvass. From 25 to 65, they lay in the broad strokes. After 65, it’s time to add the finer details. To what end? Have they even read their own poets? “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings; look upon my works ye mighty and despair…nothing beside remains.” (Shelley) What is the purpose of this finished product humans call ‘a life’? It’s not for God, they’ve ruled that out; and it’s not for others, obviously. People seem hell-bent on making themselves for themselves . The competition characteristic of the commercial realm spills over into the existential. I am ‘better than you’ if I have ‘more’ experiences than you. But what does it mean to ‘have more experiences’ than someone else? Longer life? (Is life an endurance contest?) More variety? (Is life a travelog ?) Greater intensity? (Or should I say, “Cheap Thrills” ) ? I heard one person describe life as making memories : but memories for what? Making memories, some no doubt painful, that will shortly be erased? Is life a punishment? (A ‘bad boy’ is made to write 25 humiliating sentences on a blackboard, and then later that same day is made to erase them.) I am told that once upon a time, things were different: humans regularly devoted their later years to prayer, study, and various spiritual practices. Well, no more! Teenagers talk freely about ‘the meaning of life’, but not seniors! In fact, it is considered déclassé for an older person to raise such concerns, even in casual conversation. It is considered morbid, a memento mori for a society that has effectively lost sight of its mortality. So, I must report that human beings are split into two diametrically opposed factions when they consider ‘the ultimate question’: what’s it all about, Alfie? (Title of a movie from the 1960s.) But must I also report that they don’t really care about the answer? For the most part, they live their lives as they want to live them, with no regard for where those lives fit into the totality of things. Curious, don’t you think? This is the spot where you’re wondering if I know something that you don’t. Come on, admit it! Well, maybe I do and maybe I don’t, but either way, as you know, I can’t tell you. I am prohibited by the Prime Directive from sharing any information that might prompt folks to change their behavior. So I’m afraid you’ll have to figure things out for yourselves…if there’s anything to figure out…and I’m not saying there is! BTW, I appreciate the hospitality you’ve shown me throughout my stay. I’ll find a way to muddle through my report. In the meantime, my thanks to all of you…and good luck with your quest! Image: Perseus and Andromeda (1720). Hendrick Jacob Hoet (c. 1693–1733). Credit: The Bowes Museum. 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 AI - Our New Frenemy AI and the Human Quest for Love AI - The Next Big Test of the Human Soul Hadassah Treu "The longing is powerful. Perhaps because this is the longing for unconditional love and acceptance with which every human being is born." When I grew up and even as a mature adult, I was fascinated by Isaac Asimov's books about robots. Asimov is the one who invented in his books the so-called Three Laws of Robotics. These instructions are not scientific laws, but they are built into every robot in his stories to prevent dangerous malfunctions. According to the first law, robots must not cause harm to humans or allow humans to be harmed by not taking action. However, the laws underwent an interesting development because the robots themselves added a 4th law, the so-called Zero law. In "Robots and Empire," the robots Giscard and Daneel devised a law that put the needs of humanity first before the needs of the single individual. The Longing for a Perfect Companion These books thrilled my imagination, and they also sparked a powerful longing in me. I was longing to have somebody by my side, somebody like "Daneel." The robot had a human-like appearance, beautiful and perfectly resembling a human. He was available 24/7 and possessed superhuman strength, intelligence, and access to limitless information. The positronic robot Daneel Olivaw was something between a superhuman and a faithful servant. Who didn't want to have a perfect friend like this? Asimov wrote six novels about robots and a lot of short stories. In these novels, he explores different scenarios of the robot-human society, whereas the ratio and the role of the robots in society differ. It is noteworthy that all robot-human societies developed dysfunctions, eventually leading to humanity's extinction. This was, for example, the case on the planet Solaria, described in the novel "The Naked Sun." A tipping point in Asimov's robot stories was when one robot (Giscard) gained telepathic abilities. Namely, he gained the ability to read and influence minds. From this moment on, he gradually took on the role of a god, changing events and decisions throughout society. In fact, he took responsibility for the whole human race! AI Is Our New Reality Nowadays, surrounded by artificial intelligence (AI) in our daily life and sitting on the brink of a technological revolution, I can't help but think about Asimov and his robots. AI is not a sci-fi fantasy. It's reality. AI is everywhere, and it has become an integral part of our daily lives; it doesn't matter whether we recognize it or not. AI is on our smartphones, the chatbots, and the virtual assistants, on social media feeds, not to speak about Alexa or generative AI like ChatGPT. But we always need to remember that technology is a tool. And as a tool, it is our responsibility how to use it. We can't define it as good or bad because it doesn't have a moral value, but we can use it for good or for evil. We also need to remember that even as a tool, this technology is extremely valuable and powerful. So, we have to train ourselves not only to have a balanced and realistic attitude but also how best to interact with this technology. The output we will get from our interactions is largely based on the input we are feeding. Most probably we will need such jobs shortly like AI whisperers and prompt engineers, fact-checkers (yes, AI can give misguided and untruthful information – remember the input!), and creators who will co-create with AI. But most of all, we will need some kind of ethical guardians and voices of the societal conscience who will spur us to act with integrity and ensure the proper development of the human-machine relationship. Is AI Really Our New Best Friend? Is AI like us? Why do we have such a longing for a relationship with artificial intelligence? Artificial intelligence is a type of nonbiological intelligence. Machines are given instructions to complete tasks using a set of rules. Because it's nonbiological, AI can be copied and reprogrammed and can be very flexible. AI has no conscience like human beings, and it lacks emotions, beliefs, and desires. However, research shows that even though machines and computer programs don't have sentience, the people interacting with them, give the machines human characteristics—like feelings, beliefs, desires, and understanding. This is dangerous because we begin to trust them and treat them the way we treat other people. This is exactly what happened in the robot novels of Azimov – the robot Daneel (although lacking emotions) was treated by the main hero, detective Elijah Baley like a human, like a friend. When we talk, for example, with a generative AI like ChatGPT, we can get a good imitation of what a human might say. However, we need to remember that AI lacks real feelings, empathy, or awareness. So we need to approach every AI output with an open but critical eye. Another substantial difference is that as a machine, AI looks back to gather information. Unlike humans, AI can't have visions, imagine futures and outcomes, invent things, or even plan. These are high-level skills that still belong only to humans. People are forward-thinking, and machines are retrospective. And yet… The longing is powerful. Perhaps because this is the longing for unconditional love and acceptance with which every human being is born. Disappointed and disillusioned on the quest for love, struggling with intense loneliness in an overpopulated world, where does the human soul turn next? A new study explains that robots with artificial intelligence can help fight people's loneliness. These mechanical companions could help isolated people by reducing the potential health risks that come with chronic loneliness. Researchers claim that interacting with a robot can have the same impact on humans as interacting with a person. So, companion robots can alleviate stress and loneliness and provide a promising "quick fix" to the problem of making new friends in adulthood. However, despite how promising this sounds, the issue with the moral and trustworthiness of such mechanical companions remains. The Big Temptation Are we tempted to treat AI as more than a tool? Definitely, yes. This is dangerous ground because AI has the potential to influence our theology and become our new idol. We should be careful not to become too dependent on AI but use it wisely and with caution. Part of this process is to admit the fact that AI influences us and even changes us when we use it. It expands our possibilities as humans. It opens for us new opportunities to live, work and create. So, AI is a powerful change agent. The question is, will it sparkle good and positive changes or not? Ultimately, it is our responsibility to use AI for the glory of God and the good of society. Perhaps you guess the end of Asimov's robots saga… The robots Giscard and Daneel chose to be humanity's saviors and concluded that the only way to help humanity advance was to break free from the robots. What was meant to be humanity's aid has turned into an obstacle. The strength has turned into weakness. The friends have turned into enemies. What they meant for good, brought evil. Is this where we are heading to? Hadassah Treu is an international Christian author, blogger, and poet, and the Encouraging Blogger Award Winner of 2020. She is passionate about encouraging people in their journey to faith and a deeper walk with God. Hadassah is a contributing author to several faith-based platforms and devotional and poetry anthologies. She has been featured on (In)courage, Living by Design Ministries, Thoughts About God, Today’s Christian Living (Turning Point), and other popular sites. You can connect with Hadassah at www.onthewaybg.com. Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Arithmetic David Cowles “I want to repeal all the fundamental laws of Arithmetic.” In the age-old battle between primary school students and their ‘minders’, we come down squarely on the side of the little Cherubs. Teachers never tire of drilling the rules of Arithmetic into their reluctant pupils’ skulls…even though Zeno proved 2,500 years ago that Arithmetic cannot adequately model any universe that includes motion . A pretty big miss, wouldn’t you say? Arithmetic may apply to any universe with ‘continuous structure’ (remember the real number line ?) but we don’t live in such a world! As Democritus conjectured and Planck, et al. proved, our Universe is quantized. “Whoa!” you say, “Calculus solved that problem.” And so we all thought…until Bertrand Russell showed that tacking Calculus onto Arithmetic doesn’t help at all. Both Arithmetic and Calculus are ‘non-physical’. They are useful tools for calculating certain quantities, but they are structurally inconsistent with the real world . They treat the world as if rather than as is …which is fine, so far as it goes: Euclidean Geometry does the same thing. That’s okay for most purposes. We make simplifying assumptions all the time. We treat the Earth, for example, as if it were a perfect sphere – it isn’t. Zeno could not reconcile the continuous nature of real numbers with the discontinuous (quantum) nature of reality. Neither could Stephen Hawking! But I have a somewhat different bone to pick. I want to repeal all the fundamental laws of Arithmetic. If I have my way, Jack and Jill will no longer have to hear about Commutative, Associative, or Distributive Properties, but I want to start my crusade with the Transitive Property (TP): If a > b and b > c, then a > c. Seems pretty innocuous, doesn’t it? Unless you’ve seen an episode of Doctor Who . According to the BBC, our wide but finite world contains a certain average-sized phone booth (or ‘box’)… remember them? The best adjective would be ‘cramped’; but inside this box, known as the Tardis , space is infinite: World > Booth (exterior) > Booth (interior) > World. Clearly, TP does not hold in the ‘real world’, at least not as it is defined by the BBC. Turns out, it doesn’t hold anywhere , no matter who’s defining it – all of which makes the 5 years kids spend in elementary school (US) ‘problematic’ at best. BTW, I pointed out this apparent anomaly to an avid eight-year-old Doctor Who fan. I expected, “Aha!” To my surprise, this bright kid just stared at me and shrugged. He was struggling to be polite. He did not see this as a contradiction. He was not yet TP-poisoned. He was still neuroplastic , and I am grateful to him for showing me the limitations of TP. Axioms (like TP) are funny things. They are assumptions, not subject to logical proof or requiring empirical validation. An axiom is falsified when normally intelligent people no longer see it as ‘obvious and incontrovertible’. An eight-year-old showed me that a ‘normally intelligent’ person can doubt the universal validity of TP. I’m afraid if I say that the transitive property (TP) is the root of all evil, you will stop reading this post, so I won’t. However, I do have (t)issues with TP. (No snickering, under 12s!) TP’s the very model of a modern ‘meritocracy’; it makes ‘hierarchy’ a fetish. I’m better than you, but that’s OK because you’re better than someone else – right? You were abused by your father because he was abused by his, but don’t worry, you’ll get even; you’ll abuse your own children someday too. Fair enough? The Untouchables is not a reference to Eliot Ness but to India’s ancient caste system. Fortunately, we don’t live in a world like this! To whatever extent the world is like this, we alone have made it that way. This is not the state of nature we inherited from Genesis…or from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. But you know that! How often have you said, “What goes around comes around”, and so it does. But then you go right back to teaching TP to your eight-year-old. Shameful! I propose we build a new mathematics, replacing TP with a new paradigm, the Circular Property (CP): a > b, b > x … x > a. CP describes a Chain of any length. The initial term and the final term of the Chain must be the same, and that term cannot appear anywhere else in the Chain. Whenever any initial term reappears as a final term, a complete Chain (loop) has been formed. Any term can be the initial term (or the final term) of a Chain - alphabetical order not respected. “Pick a card, any card!” It’s like that cool trick your dad tried to teach you when you were small. At the end of the day, every Chain forms a loop. Any term in one loop can be a term in multiple other, intersecting (tangent) loops. The fabric of the universe may be a tight weave of such loops: Penelope and the Norns! Weaving as Sacrament: the whole is represented by, and instantiated by, the part. Knitting is liturgy! CP corrects TP’s hierarchical bias. Imagine the social impact if we all knew that every subject is the ultimate object of its acts. Being as boomerang! No more child abuse, that’s for sure! Little crime, few murders. On the economic front, no more Class War. Workers win when owners win, and owners win when workers win! Instead of late-night bargaining sessions in smoke-filled rooms across from chanting picket lines and cops, negotiating teams will meet on the company lawn and sing Kumbaya – police welcome to join in. You’re chuckling. It’s one heck of a vision, that’s for sure. “But it’s not real,” you say. “It’s not physical.” Except it is! It’s entirely physical: Every action entails an equal and opposite reaction (Newton). Every action! Today, bleeding-edge scientists are working with a state of matter they call Time Crystals . In these event chains, time is effectively suspended (‘crystallized’). Process occurs outside of time. It mimics CP: If this sort of order is so natural and so clearly advantageous, why hasn’t anyone ever tried to build a social system around the CP Principle? Well, have you heard of the Lex Telonis , an eye for an eye? It’s an attempt to implement CP, but it requires a huge, unmanageable intermediary apparatus: a police force, a judiciary, and, of course, executioners willing to blind a man with a hot poker. What could possibly go wrong? Ok, then, how about the Beatitudes : “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Again, what goes around comes around. Jesus dispenses with the administrative burden of a secular state, but he injects the process with his own intermediary, God. Christianity accepted God as the Uber-Omega but added back an infrastructure: Eschatology, Church, Clergy, Sacraments, etc. One can imagine Jesus, channeling Prufrock, “That is not what I meant; that is not what I meant at all”… or not, but that’s what Ecclesiology is all about. 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