Search Results

< Back The Science Behind the 7-Second Rule Dr. Stuti Pardhe "First impressions swiftly shape neural pathways, steering our social interactions through rapid cognitive processes." The concept of the "7-second rule" is often linked to swift assessments or forming initial impressions in the first moments of an encounter. While not a strict scientific principle, it resonates with the notion that our brains excel at swiftly processing information, potentially tied to creating and activating neural pathways. Neural pathways are links between neurons (nerve cells) in the brain, enabling signal transmission. The brain's capability to establish and reinforce these pathways is termed neuroplasticity. Here's how the 7-second rule might relate to neural pathways: Rapid Processing and First Impressions: The brain can handle a vast amount of information quickly. When meeting someone or encountering a new situation, the brain promptly evaluates visual cues, facial expressions, body language, and other nonverbal signals. This rapid processing contributes to forming initial impressions within seconds. Thin Slicing and Neural Efficiency: "Thin slicing" means making quick judgments based on limited information. This swift cognitive process likely stems from neural efficiency—the brain's adaptation for rapid decision-making crucial for survival. In the context of the 7-second rule, thin slicing aids in forming initial impressions, possibly activating specific neural pathways linked to swift decision-making. Neural Plasticity and Adaptation: Neural plasticity allows the brain to adapt based on experiences. Quick judgments and first impressions can impact strengthening or weakening existing neural pathways. Consistent positive first impressions might reinforce neural pathways associated with positive social interactions over time. Emotional Responses and Neural Connectivity: First impressions often trigger emotional responses. Positive or negative emotions can influence neurotransmitter release, affecting connectivity and strength of associated neural pathways. Over time, repeated emotional responses might contribute to habitual thought patterns. While the 7-second rule doesn't strictly dictate neural pathway formation, it highlights the brain's swift cognitive processes and its ability to form rapid judgments. It's crucial to note that the brain's plasticity permits ongoing adaptation and rewiring based on experiences. Hence, individuals can consciously shape their neural pathways through deliberate thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes. In essence, the 7-second rule corresponds to the brain's quick processing, thin slicing, and neural pathway formation. These mechanisms influence the swift judgments and initial impressions formed during social interactions. Neuroplasticity allows ongoing adaptation, offering opportunities for individuals to consciously impact their thought patterns and responses. Dr. Stuti Pardhe is a dedicated professional with a broad spectrum of experience spanning social work, clinical therapy, and alternative modalities. With a profound commitment to mental and public health, she aspires to be a global Brand Ambassador and Role Model, leaving a positive impact on humanity. Click above to return to Winter 2024. Previous Next

< Back Is 65 the New 45? David Cowles That’s conventional wisdom…and in this rare case, conventional wisdom is not wrong…but neither is it perfectly right. At 65, we do feel about the same as we did at 45…maybe a step slower on the basketball court, but otherwise pretty much the same. So, does that mean that 75 is now the new 55? No way! I’m not sure 75 is even the new 65. 75 might just be the new 75! So, what’s going on here? Gertrude Stein wrote, “We are always to ourselves young men and young women.” Ms. Stein points out that subjective time is very different from objective time. Objectively, we age one year, every year. Subjectively, we don’t! Suppose I’m 65, objectively. According to conventional wisdom my subjective age is 45. But why 45? Why not 35 or 25 or even 15 or 5 for that matter? Ms. Stein anticipated this question…and answered it. At 65 I can be 55 or 45 or 35 or 25…because all of them are really ‘25’ (young men and young women). But 65 can’t be the new 15 or the new 5. Why? Because 15-year-olds are not 15, nor are 5-year-olds 5. Both are ‘25’ too: “We are always to ourselves young men and young women.” How would you graph your age? As a straight line running at a 45 degree angle from birth (0,0) to death? That’s time all right, but it is objective time: y = x. However, subjectively, time is mostly a flat line segment, parallel to the x-axis, running from x = 25 to x = 65. From birth to 25 and from 65 on, subjective age follows a curvilinear track, convex before 25, concave after 65. Is it possible to do an equation for that? In the Beatles movie, Yellow Submarine , John, Paul, George, and Ringo find themselves in ‘the sea of time’. Objectively, they regress to infancy and then advance to old age, all in the space of just a few minutes. But through it all they remain “young men”, i.e., circa 25. They live in ‘Stein-time’. To explore further the wisdom of the Yellow Submarine , stay tuned for Issue #1 of AT Magazine, scheduled for publication on 6/1/22, and check out the feature article, Science and the Yellow Submarine . Bookmark aletheiatoday.com . Society never tires of telling us to ‘act our age’. But which age? We are our own age only three times in our lives: once at birth (or before), once when the two temporal trajectories (subjective & objective) intersect, and finally at the moment of our death. Otherwise, our subjective age is always different from our objective age. How can I act my age if I don’t know how old I am? I’ve always admired children who could accept being children and old folks who could accept being old. Trouble is, I’ve met very few of either! I can’t remember a time when I thought of myself as a ‘child’. My childhood was an unbroken struggle to escape - escape from parents, escape from school, escape from childhood itself! I can’t remember a time when I did not want to be 25, and did not think of myself as 25, until now. I am 75, like it or not, and I’m starting to think of myself as 75, or close to it. My trajectories are converging…for the last time. Previous Next

< Back Is It Time for Really New ‘New Math’? David Cowles Jun 3, 2025 “1 + 1 can be more than 2 or less than 2 but it can never equal 2…Jam yesterday (< 2) and jam tomorrow (> 2) but never jam today (= 2).” Remember the ‘old math’ - ‘rithmetic, taught with a (hopefully metaphorical) hickory stick? Meet the ‘new math’ (scourge of Gen Xers) – same as the old math! ( The Who ) Boomers can at least make change, albeit with ‘fear and trembling’, while Xers just shrug and say whatever ! In this article, I hope to demonstrate that the purported differences between new and old math are superficial at best, imaginary at worst, and that neither has any applicability in the Real World. Today’s math, new and old, is based on premises that I contest. Let’s start with something simple: 1 + 1 = 2… not! 1 + 1 can be more than 2 or less than 2 but it can never equal 2. In fact, 2 is the only value for 1 + 1 that we can exclude ab initio . As in Carroll’s Looking-glass World, there’s jam yesterday (< 2) and jam tomorrow (> 2) but never jam today (= 2). Of course, according to the system known as old/new math, 1 + 1 = 2 just because we say so in our best imitation of a 1950’s parent. And we’re perfectly entitled to do just that! And we have built a magnificent intellectual edifice based on it! And that’s A-Okay, as long as we don’t imagine we’ve created anything relevant to anything real. Math (old or new) is Minecraft! So what’s wrong with 1 + 1 = 2? How could any sane person even question it? (Please don’t answer that, at least not until you’ve read what’s coming.) First, ‘one’ is not a number; it’s a way of referring to an atomic entity, i.e. a quantum of the Real World. It’s roughly equivalent to ‘that’ or ‘this’. There’s nothing in the Real World that corresponds to the number one in math. How could there be? There’s no such thing as a being in isolation, not even (trinitarian) God . Think about quarks in a sub-atomic particle. They cannot exist in isolation. “Three quarks for muster mark.” (James Joyce) And even if an isolated unit of being were possible in some real world, which it is not, ‘1’ would still not properly belong in any number system with aspirations to apply to real events. Case in point : an Amazonian tribe, the Piranha , have no math…and they do not have the concept of one . Instead they use demonstrative pronouns and adjectives (like this or that ) to designate real entities. The concept of ‘number’ only applies once two or more atomic entities are considered as a group . We can measure such ‘groups’ by their size, i.e. by the number of elements in each group. So it’s possible to imagine, again ab initio , that a group might have a value of ‘2’ if it groups two atomic entities together. R. Buckminster Fuller was fond of saying, “Universe is plural and at minimum two;” but as we shall see, even ‘2’ is not a stable state. To make our so-called ‘number system’ work, we postulate that a group can have a ‘value’ (size) of 1, or 2, or 0, or even ø, but there are no such groupings of elements in the Real World. Math, old and new, is based on the premise that atomic entities, even if they are totally unrelated, can nonetheless be grouped together without impacting in any way the contribution of each element to the ‘size’ or ‘measure’ of that group. Of course, this is impossible in any real world. Any real process of ‘grouping’ must impact the value of the group’s elements. If it doesn’t, there’s no process and there’s no group. Why? The real world Law of Recursion : Every ‘process’ (by definition) must alter the values of its elements. The definition of a ‘process’ is an act that modifies the values of its constituents. Of course, here is where professional mathematicians will part company with us, and that’s ok, so long as they don’t expect us to believe that their ‘ice cream castles in the air’ have anything to do with the Real World. If ‘grouping’ is real, then it must be a ‘process’ applicable to real elements and it must then alter the values of those elements. Therefore, 1 + 1 could never equal 2. Here we are borrowing a concept from Gregory Bateson and extending it: A ‘difference’ is a difference only if it makes a difference! The process of grouping two elements must impact those elements in some way; otherwise ‘the process is inert’, meaning that the ‘alleged process’ is not an ‘actual process ’ at all. I can fantasize about a grouping of 2 or more entities where the process of grouping has no impact on the elements grouped…but that’s exactly what it is, a fantasy. Once grouped, the elements co-modify one another. So the process of recursion is self perpetuating and interminable. Fortunately, however, the process tends toward a limit. But what limit? When two atomic elements are grouped, they interact until they result in a stable, concrete value, a ‘steady state’. That interaction can take either of two forms: Fission or Fusion. (No, this is not a category in Jeopardy .) In the case of fission , the grouping of two atomic units automatically generates a third: 1, 1, and (1, 1). (In Trinitarian theology, the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son’; likewise, (1, 1) proceeds from 1 and 1.) So the minimum quantitative value of a group assembled via the procession of fission is 3. ‘3’ is a fundamental unit of quantity – ‘1’ and ‘2’ are not. But what of groups created by the process of fusion ? If Trinity is a model for ‘grouping by fission’, Quantum Entanglement (John Bell) is the model for‘grouping by fusion’. When the solution of 1 + 1 < 2, 1 and 1 are grouped by fusion. According to Bell’s Theorem of Non-Locality, two independent entities, ‘entangled’ by fusion, have the quantitative value we know as √2. The process of fusion eliminates ‘redundancies’ inherent in the concept of two . The resulting ‘simplest possible quantity’ is neither 1 nor 2 but √2. We can think of such a ‘complex unit’ as akin to ‘heavy hydrogen’, deuterium. While ‘normal’ hydrogen consists of 1 lepton (electron) and 1 hadron (proton) and ‘normal’ helium consists of 2 leptons (electrons) and 2 hadrons (protons), heavy hydrogen consists of 1 lepton and 2 hadrons (proton + neutron). To summarize, ‘one’ does not exist in any real world and ‘two’ is inherently unstable. Any two entities must either collapse into a single, complex entity with a quantitative value of √2 or they must generate a third, resulting in a single entity with a quantitative value of 3. In biology, the 30 Trillion cells that make up your body are all descended from a single cell that merged with another cell and formed a symbiotic relationship (cell + nucleus). The resulting organism is clearly ‘more’ than a single prokaryotic cell but ‘less’ than two completely independent cells. Similarly, in math one entity and another entity merge creating a single entity with a ‘heightened value’. As noted above, in the Real World, all process, including the process of grouping, is recursive. Therefore, there are no linear equations. Mathematics begins with equations that have at least two solutions, e.g. √2x or 3x. Note that we seem to be relying still on ordinary ‘natural’ numbers like 1, 2, and 3 to tell our story. But these, obviously, as just placeholders. To avoid massive confusion, we’ll need two new symbols to represent our two quantitative minima. I suggest Δ for the fundamental unit of fission and ꓦ for the fundamental unit of fusion. We also need symbols to represent the two basic arithmetic processes, fission and fusion, replacing addition and multiplication. Instead of + and * from linear arithmetic, I propose ↗ for fission and ↘ for fusion. And for the inverse operations, currently represented by – and /, I propose ↙ and ↖. Armed with these basic symbols we can now build a new algebra. Note that the familiar identities of linear arithmetic 1 + 0 = 1 and 1 1 = 1 disappear since + and are processes and no process in the Real World leaves its elements unaltered; the result of a process can never be the same as any of its elements (except perhaps in a rare case of accidental coincidence). Counting works quite differently in the new new math. There are two different counting systems depending on whether we’re in fusion or fission mode. In fusion mode, instead of n = 1, 2, 3, 4… we count like this: n = 2^((n-1)/n) < 2. I’m looking forward to playing a game of hide and seek with my great grandchildren (my grandchildren have aged out) and asking the cherubs to count using new new math in fusion mode. Where a muggle-child might begin “1, 2, 3, 4…”, my great grandchildren would say “2^(0), 2^(1/2), 2^(2/3), 2^(3/4)…” In muggle-speak that corresponds (approximately) to “1.0, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8…” Bonus : I’ll never have to worry about being found because in the entire history of the cosmos, they’ll never even get to 2. I think a little frustration can be character building, don’t you? Plus, I can head into the house and make up a pitcher of margaritas, no salt…for me, of course, not for them. (They’re still counting, remember?) But take heart, children. Counting in the fission mode is a bit easier…at first; but it gets progressively harder as we climb the number ladder (rather than slither along the Real Number line). Instead of n = 1, 2, 3, 4, we count “Δ^1, Δ^2, Δ^3, Δ^4…” Again, in muggle speak, we’re talking 0, 0, 3 … 9 … 27 … Wait, there’s already a name for these numbers; they’re called p-adic . Obviously, I am limited by space and by ability to this simple outline of new, new math principles. You, dear reader, are better qualified to expand this sketch into a full algebra and to explore the nooks and crannies of this system and I, for one, look forward to the results. 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 What Are My Values Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL. “We live under another emperor today. It is even more insidious than Constantine for it appears that this is all for our good.” As I study the early church, I find it amazing to see how rapidly and widely this new Christian Way spread. The earliest Christians had no power, no political base, no modern media, and little money. It had former fishermen and farmers spreading the word. It had the zeal of a Saint Paul who convinced people of their dignity as based in Jesus Christ. The new church spread to Rome and beyond. And then there followed periods of intense persecution as under the Emperor Diocletian (245-313). The age of the martyrs is filled with great faith and courage. We remember many of them in our liturgical calendar – Lucy, Stephen, Agatha, Agnes, Lawrence, Felicity and Perpetua. Some things changed when Constantine became Emperor in 313 and issued the Edict of Milan which granted religious freedom throughout the empire. He called the Council of Nicea in 325 to help settle disputes among the Christian people. It would be under a later Emperor, Theodosius (379-398) that Christianity would be declared the official religion of the empire. After the early centuries of struggle, many felt Christianity was now too respectable and easy to embrace. The Celts spoke of the need for continuing martyrdom, adding to red martyrdom (shedding of blood) now recognizing green martyrdom (life of penance) and white martyrdom (pilgrimage). The monastic movement flourished as many went to the desert and isolated places to live lives of penance, prayer and service. People wanted to live ascetical lives to be like Jesus. The centuries went by and many things happened, both good and bad. It is a miracle that the Church still exists. I hear some people at times decry that the church was never the same after Constantine. Issues of power, prestige, money became too important for the church leadership. That may be all true. But I would like to direct your thoughts to something happening today. We live under another emperor today. It is even more insidious than Constantine for it appears that this is all for our good. This new empire is unfettered capitalism with its uncritical confidence in market culture. This empire is hand in glove with the growth of our global empire and reliance on the arms race, and the denial of the earth’s climate crisis. Its religion is consumerism, which keeps on pressuring us on television, through social media, and many forms of advertising, telling us that we are what we possess. We are good, important, lovable if we have the latest cell phone and other up-to-date gadgets. I want to be clear that I really believe that most people are truly good. I see acts of goodness and kindness every day. But we live in a culture of fear of not having enough, of losing what we have, convinced that we live in a world of scarceness and no longer the abundance of God’s creation. The reality is we have been given this world for the sake of all, to be commonly shared. But the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer. So people are afraid and, perhaps, they have become accustomed to some self-indulgence and affluence. We have abused the earth and its resources and the earth seems to be striking back but only the rich can stay comfortable. We always have room in our national budget for the military budget but not for health or education, especially not for the poor. I also believe our children are suffering from our misuse of God’s world. They sense our fears, our insecurities. They feel the pressure of keeping up with our way of living. We are grateful to the young for their sensitivity to the climate crisis, for their rejection of racism, for their acceptance of LGBTQ people and immigrants. They are also rejecting their elder’s structures and institutions, including the church. But they are suffering. The rates of youthful suicide, self-mutilation, depression and other mental problems have increased. God has been eliminated from the culture, and our young have nothing beyond themselves to cope with the realities of our world. TikTok holds up the “stealth wealth” and “quiet luxury” of TV’s “Succession.” The weekend with Taylor Swift, a great celebration for the young, also demonstrated the luxury style of many attending and the crush of the merchandise sales at the event. What can we do? First, we have to wake up to the realities of this world and the power of our culture to enslave us. We need a deeper interior life that knows our God is within us, and we have the inner strength to cope if we rely less on things and more on love and caring for each other. We have to be more in tune with nature and the wonder of it all. This may mean some counter-cultural adaptations. We may have to simplify our lives and depend less on gadgets, things, and possessions. We need our spiritual resources to deal with an overly materialistic world. We need to be our true selves who are filled with God’s Spirit. I am sorry if this is too harsh. Maybe I am overdoing it. But we do need to face some realities that are not pleasant. I offer you my opinions; forgive me if I am mistaken. I can be found at my desert monastery where I attempt, not always successfully, to live a counter-cultural life. I am at: joycet@glastonburyabbey.org : Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL. Please note that I do not speak on behalf of Glastonbury Abbey, the Archdiocese of Boston or the Catholic Church, though I hope my faith is in harmony with all these. Any error in judgment should be credited to me and not anyone else. Republished with minimal edits and permission rom glastonburyabbey.org. Fr. Timothy Joyce, OSB, STL continues his regular blog, “ Monastic Scribe ”, where he reflects on "what I may have learned from all these years and what I am still trying to learn." Fr. Timothy notes, “I do not speak on behalf of Glastonbury Abbey, the Archdiocese of Boston or the Catholic Church, though I hope my faith is in harmony with all these. Any error in judgment should be credited to me and not anyone else.” Return to our Beach Read 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Think Like a Bot “We developed AI to simplify the process, and expand the potential of thinking. We did not set out to dictate the content of thought itself…” David Cowles On Friday, September 1, Aletheia Today Magazine will be releasing our Fall Issue dedicated exclusively to AI – its philosophical, theological, cultural, and spiritual implications. In researching material for this issue, I came across something terrifying online ( quelle surprise! ): “Prompt engineering involves more than just typing in a query. It's about understanding the AI's underlying logic…and sometimes even 'thinking like the AI'… (For example) Generate five innovative product ideas for the eco-friendly industry focusing on renewable energy." Why frightening? First, as human beings, we like to think that we create technology to serve our purposes; we bristle at the idea that it is technology that creates us. But over the past 10,000 years or so, it has become increasingly obvious that we are products of our own technique . According to Genesis, God created the world in 6 or 7 ‘days’ (or epochs); technology is creating us in a similar succession of stages. The first transformation occurred with the rise of spoken language. Originally invented to help us accomplish our projects, language has increasingly worked to determine the nature and scope of those projects. Imagine a Stone Age father lecturing his teenage son: “If you can’t say it, you can’t think it, and if you can’t think it, you can’t do it.” Perhaps surprisingly, our Stone Agers were not entirely unaware of their dilemma. The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel is an early, if somewhat confused, attempt to showcase the relationship between speech and act. Minimally, the story makes it clear that ‘saying and doing’ (language and production) are intimately related. Next came the invention of writing. It only happened once in human history, but like Pokémon, Kid Rock, and Pet Rock, it caught on. Written communication greatly expanded the scope of enterprise…but at the same time it further limited the scope of that enterprise. Imagine a Bronze Age mother lecturing her teenage daughter: “ If you can’t write it , you can’t say it, and if you can’t say it, you can’t think it, and if you can’t think it, you can’t do it.” Now technology is about what we can’t do rather than what we can. Our modern Indo-European (IE) languages are semantic minefields seeded over-generously with nouns (subjects & objects) and active voice verbs. If your project doesn’t fit comfortably within this syntactical framework, you’re S.O.L. That’s not a problem for you? Perhaps that is the problem! Have you lost the ability (or inclination) to conceive of a project outside the limits imposed by IE syntax? Writing kept us busy for several millennia. I mean come on, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Goethe! What more could anyone want? Then came the next great tectonic shift – the Industrial Revolution (IR). The technique involved in large-scale manufacture, and its impact on human life, has been identified by countless individuals and celebrated (or castigated) in various media. To cite just a few examples: Prudhomme, Marx, Legere, Chaplin, Brazil , McLuhan and Ellul. To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, “Today, we measure out our lives with coffee spoons.” Following IR…DR, the Digital Revolution. Consider the massive change in communication that has occurred since ‘I’ invented the internet. E-mail, Text, Excel, PowerPoint have all changed the way we express our thoughts…and therefore how and what we think. Begin with the obliteration of orthography (spelling) and grammar, the atrophy of sentence structure, the disappearance of complex verb forms, and, of course, the rise of internet slang and emojis. We’ve witnessed the reduction of mathematics to spread sheeting and rhetoric to bullet points. When PowerPoint first came out, I was resistant. I didn’t like the oversimplification and non-sequiturs I noticed in others’ work products. I wouldn’t use it…until I couldn’t not use it. Now, of course, I use it every day. “I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be.” Now we appear to be riding on the first swell of another technological tidal wave: first language, writing, manufacture, computerization, and now…(drum roll please) Artificial Intelligence. All of which brings us back to what I found so terrifying : “…thinking like the AI.” We developed AI to simplify the process, and expand the potential, of thinking. We did not set out to dictate the content of thought itself…but that may be exactly what we’re doing…which leads me to my second concern: “Generate five innovative product ideas.” Talk about begging the question. Can AI truly innovate? That may be the dominant intellectual question of our time; but according to the quote at the beginning of this article, it’s already a settled matter of fact: AI can innovate! If so, we need to consider our Bots conscious …and therefore entitled to certain civil rights; if not, we need to consider how far we’ve dumbed-down our understanding of innovation . Implicit in ‘in/nova/tion’ is ‘novum’, new. Rearranging deck chairs is not new, but I don’t doubt that AI can do it brilliantly. That’s not the same thing as inventing a new, iceberg-proof hull. On the other hand, where do we draw the line? When does mere novelty become true innovation? Is there any fundamental difference? What a time to be alive! We are at the ‘question forming’ stage of a new anthropological era. Should aquatic organisms colonize dry land? The Iron Age is history; welcome to the Age of Bots. I can’t wait to see where we go from here! 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 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