changed:
-
.. :raw-html:`<input id="toc_button" type="reset" value="Hide Table of Contents" style="align: right" onclick="toggle_toc(); ">`
.. comment; toggle_toc and onload registration done in custom footer template

*[clicking on the footnote links takes you to the footnote or back to the body text.]*

===========================================
My Primary Article of Faith: Reality Exists
===========================================

.. image:: elm_large_oblong.png
   :align:  right

as a suggestible young (science-fiction reading) kid, i was troubled by the
prospect of solipsism - that the world might be a figment of my
imagination.  also, i was informed, perhaps a tad early, that no
measurement is ever completely exact - we can never know reality
absolutely.  together, these ideas opened the door to the troubling
prospect of a false and arbitrary universe.  i pondered, and with some
urgency, i came to hold and take comfort from the notion that reality
exists before any proof.  we influence and are influenced by it, but do not
control its existence.  this has developed over time into my primary
article of faith:

- **Reality exists, it is not altogether different than it seems, and i am
  part of it.**

well, duh? [reality]_

the thing is, some people actually do seem to conduct themselves as if the
universe *is* a figment of their imagination, and treat others as merely
part of their fantasy.  that seems to me a lonely, alienating universe
[metaphor]_ - and not very likely.

that said, the exact story for real-world stuff always does seem to be a
few steps out of reach, no matter how many steps we take [comprehensible]_.
i accept that i can't know anything completely, but believe i know some
stuff that has some bearing on reality.  that it's *worth* knowing stuff,
but it's useful to not get too carried away: there are limits to how
exactly and how completely we can know anything, and much that's important
cannot be navigated merely by knowing [chaos]_.

------------------------
Skepticism and Mysticism
------------------------

believing that reality exists aligns me strongly with naturalistic
philosophy, including fundamental disagreement with the notion of the
"supernatural" [craft]_ [superstition]_.  if something influences/is
influenced by nature, then it is part of nature.  that does not necessarily
mean it's explainable - simple-minded skepticism is as dubious as
gratuitous mystification, particularly the tendency to conclude that an
inability to prove something is sufficient indication that it doesn't exist
[surprise]_.

modern mathematics (particularly, modern algebra - godel, lowenheim-skolem,
etc) can confidently - and sensibly! - prove the existence of a non-empty
class of true assertions which are, themselves, unprovable.

physically demonstrated principles of 20th century physics, like the dual
particle/wave nature of light or quantum tunneling, expose limits of our
ability to know the exact state of real processes at the limits of our
models.

growth in personal and media communications increasingly acquaints us with
the profound intricacy and variation of experiences and perspectives across
the world and from person to person.

all this adds together to make undeniable the mistake in presuming that all
is knowable, and in restricting attention to only that which can be known
[science]_.  "knowable" is not all of "actual".

mysticism, on the other hand, can reflect a lack of faith in the wonders of
the natural world, and/or the need to fabricate *some* explanation, even
though arbitrary and unconfirmable, when uncertainty may instead be
warranted [fuss]_ [faith]_.

desperation for answers, even when their lack means pain, usually isn't
actually resolved by false answers [boat]_.  finding substantial traction in
the world can be challenging enough without willfully introducing
distortion of our own.

both skepticism and mysticism, untempered, distort our view of what is.
yet, each in suitable (modest) proportion can be avenues to touch the
world, and be touched thereby [mythology]_.

so, what actually is?

----------------
Everything Leaks
----------------

while definiteness says "that thing is right there, exactly", the truth is
that the boundaries of that thing are a lot less exact than we like to
think.

physically, particles of that thing are perpetually subliming off into
space, and particles of other stuff - dust, gas, moisture, photons - are
perpetually colliding, disturbing, and sticking to it.

semantically, no thing qualifies exactly against its ideal, it differs.

just like the coastline at the seashore, the more closely you look at any
boundary, physical or ideal, the more intricate and interspersed it becomes
[viewing]_.

haziness of definite boundaries is all the more true for people.

when does the air i'm breathing, the food i'm eating, stop being something
else and become me [eat]_?  when i exhale, excrete, was the stuff already
something separate while residing inside me, or is there some maginot line
the stuff crosses to become not-me?  there is no absolute dividing line.

which is the real me - the one i was yesterday, or the one today?  ten
years ago?  the one they know at work, on the sports field, on the school
board, in bed [self]_?

what about personality - my choices, attitudes, ideas, feelings?  all these
things are *informed* by my experiences - shaped by where i come from and
what i've been through [experience]_.  my very internal landscape is
influenced by the world and others in it, and influences them in turn.
where are the distinct boundaries at which my self can be completely
distinguished from others?

any and all such boundaries *leak* [connected]_.

i do not mean to say that there are no separations.  it's just that those
separations are a matter of degree.  i am situated more ``here`` and you
are more ``there``, yet i am not completely here and not completely not
there.  my influence (both deliberate and inherent) extends me, but my
presence and my influence are stronger the closer you get to my center.

(i hardly even touch on the elusiveness inherent in communication - how can
we know how close what you think i'm saying about all this is to what i
think i'm saying [differentiation]_?  or, might what i am saying admit many
actually distinct interpretations, intended and otherwise?

my response to these semiotic issues is the same - though relative, the
differences are not arbitrary, they are a matter of degree, and there is
some baseline closer or further from the intended message.
deconstructionists may not agree, but if so, i suspect they're making this
more complex than is necessary or useful.  then again, i might not know
what i'm talking about [is]_ [music]_.)

------------------------------
Free Will vs Predetermination?
------------------------------

if everything leaks, and i can't even say exactly where the boundary is
between "me" and "not me", what can i hope to say about how much control
i have over my fate?  in fact, questions of free will versus predetermination
seem vacuous to me - ultimately, i don't see practical difference between the
two.

being part of the play of events means i am a conductor of that play -
*conductor* as in both "conduit" *and* "cause" [playing]_.  everyone is a
process where all the influences of their experiences come together, to
weigh into and constitute their choices, decisions, reactions.

the useful questions are not about being forced by those factors
(predetermination), nor about dominating our experience with something
completely outside the system (free will).  the useful questions are about
our connections - we are agents in and by which our conditions all come
together and emerge, mutually changed.  we are dancers in a big, big dance,
influenced by and influencing the music and one another.

-----------
Blind Faith
-----------

esteem for religion, as a dogmatic institution, tends to be polarized -
often venerated by religious adherents and villified by skeptics.  it seems
to me that the truth of its role in human cultural development is somewhere
in between the two extremes.  (most partisans on either side would probably
take offense at the allowance of the opposite view.)

in particular, blind faith seems to be a great mechanism to support useful
viral memes, like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
these kinds of memes have helped foster the practices of cooperation, even
in those that would otherwise fail to see the simple pragmatic advantages
when looking at the big picture.  i have little expertise with history, but
i have noticed the threads of this kind of benefit woven into the histories
of the various world societies, often for the good.

on the other hand, these kinds of memes can be for the bad, as well.
religious intolerance and antagonism, just like nationalism, have been
behind some of the largest-scale and most terrible aggressions in human
history.  what's interesting is that some of the same memes so useful for
promoting cooperation can also be behind the antagonism, when formulated
and/or interpreted in simplistic ways.

what when the brother you are to love includes only those that believe the
same as you?  some religious opportunists amp up their influence by
delineating non-believers as exempt, or worse - strengthening the
propagation of their meme in some ways, but setting bounds on them in
others, and ultimately, distorting the principles on which the long-range
benefits depend.

this is my perspective on where religion, including particularly
blind-faith religion, can be helpful and harmful.  in particular, i suppose
that *any* oversimplification is fraught with peril, and in time will
cause increasing harm.

i'm not saying the harm of institutional religion outweighs the benefits -
i'm just in no position to measure that, and it may be too much of a
hypothetical question.  i would say, though, that overly stooping to
simplistic is the underlying cause of much of the harm, and efforts to
"shine the light" as a critical component of the practice is the only
antidote [look]_.  this strengthens the resolve behind my credo, "reality
exists", with the notion of benefit to be found in reality's unfolding
discovery.

--------------------------
How Useful Is Any of This?
--------------------------

when faced with the eternal abyss prior to and following my life and that
of those i love, how does any of this offer comfort?  how does this help
reconcile when the world seems grim and full of pain, or worse?  where is
my lasting reward for being nice?

first of all, if my soul is of my experience in reality, not some
supernatural element, i then have more stake in the world as it is.  being
part of reality along with everything else means my well-being and legacy
depends on the well-being of others, and vice versa [religion]_.  fostering
well-being in the world - of which my own well-being is part - is the goal,
rather than attainment of unmitigated well-being (heaven), elsewhere.
(what actually fosters well-being then becomes the - worthwhile -
question/quest.)

second, once i'm (apparently) gone, my influence and the things that
informed me will reverberate.  the shape of the world will be affected by
the shape i had, just as my shape has been informed by the world.  in some
real sense, i will still exist by what i've influenced, and even by the
aspects of the world that influenced me.  i am not separate from the world
- everything leaks.

(in my view, the notion of a soul is a shorthand - a metaphor - for this
reverberation/non-separation.  that's what i take r.d. laing to mean by
[experience]_.)

third, and most directly, this perspective is a counterpoint to
self-delusion and selfish deception [look]_ [truthiness]_.  my own actual
presence and vitality is in the fidelity of my engagement with the world.
distortion almost always diminishes that, and is harmful to myself and
others [fanaticism]_.

this is what i believe.

a la taoism, and `finite and infinite games` (see SomeBooks), i play to
continue the larger game, and sometimes i am amazed at my part, both
mundane and exotic [openness]_.

===================
Notes
===================

(these quotes and related ones can be found in QuotesCollection.)

.. [reality]
   Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

   -- Philip K. Dick

.. [metaphor]
   Those at the center can imagine what it is to be outside.  The
   strong can imagine what it is to be weak.  Illuminated lives can
   imagine the dark.  Poets in their twilight can imagine the borders
   of stellar fire.  We strangers can imagine the familiar hearts of
   strangers.

   -- Cynthia Ozick, *The Moral Necessity of Metaphor*, Harpers 5/86

.. [comprehensible]
   The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is
   comprehensible.

   -- Albert Einstein

.. [chaos]
   You have to be willing to go into the chaos to bring back the beauties.

   -- Tess Gallagher

.. [viewing]
   What will undo any boundary is the awareness that it is our vision, and
   not what we are viewing, that is limited.

   -- james p. carse, *finite and infinite games*

.. [eat]
   (have you ever really considered the visceral reality that you are
   composed of what you eat?  that your hand is made of material from the
   broccoli and/or potatoes, or whatever, that you recently ate?)

.. [self]
   "Selflessness - the central concept of Buddhism," he explained, "doesn't
   mean that you don't have a self, but that you understand the self is a
   constantly changing, interdependent process, that you don't have a
   fixed, rigid identity.  Selflessness erodes racism, sexual and
   nationalistic differentiation.  There is no male or female self in
   relationships, for instance."

   -- from Vanity Fair, Jan 1996 article on Uma Thurman

.. [experience]
   Experience used to be called the soul.

   -- r.d. laing, *The Politics of Experience*

.. [connected]
   Tug on anything in nature and you will find
   it connected to everything else.

   -- John Muir

.. [differentiation]
   This does not mean that i can see what you see.  On the contrary, *it is
   because i cannot see what you see that i can see at all.* The discovery
   that you are the unrepeatable center of your own vision is simultaneous
   with the discovery that i am the center of my own.

   -- james p. carse, *Finite and Infinite Games*

.. [is]
   The sky exists and it is blue.  'Is' serves to unite everything and
   at the same time 'is' is not any of the things that it unites.

   None of the things that are united by 'is' can themselves qualify
   'is.'  'Is' is not this, or the next, or anything.  Yet 'is' is the
   condition of the possibility of all things.  'Is' is that nothing
   whereby all things are.

   -- r.d. laing, *The Politics of Experience*

.. [music]
   Music is the cup that holds the wine of silence.  Sound is that cup, but
   empty.  Noise is that cup, broken.

   -- Robert Fripp


.. [playing]
   Completely un-selfconsciously, without purpose, [the infant] turns
   from one to the other, and we would say that it was playing with the
   things, were it not equally true that the things are playing with the
   child.

   -- awa kenzo / eugen herrigel / komachiya sozo, *zen in the art of archery*

   [debunked in
   http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/pdf/586.pdf , the
   book still has some incisive stuff.]

.. [craft]
   The way of the mystic and the way of the artist are related, except that
   the mystic doesn't have the craft.

   -- Jean Erdman

.. [superstition]
   it's no accident that the words "supernatural" and "superstition" build
   on the same root.  it is unlucky to be superstitious, in just the same
   way that it's unlucky to drive with your eyes closed.

.. [surprise]
   The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
   discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'

   -- Isaac Asimov

.. [science]
   science [...] means a form of knowledge adequate to its subject

   -- r.d. laing, *the politics of experience*

.. [fuss]
   In the years since, Alice, too, has seen the ones who shake and
   scream and roll their eyes back as if snakebit, but she has always
   doubted the sincerity of this.  Anybody can get worked up if they
   have the intention.  It's peacefulness that is hard to come by on
   purpose.

   -- Barbara Kingsolver, *The Bean Trees*

.. [faith]
   "Faith can cut in so many ways," he said.  "If you're penitent and not
   triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us
   reach for something higher than ourselves.  That can be a powerful thing,
   a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King
   did.  But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be
   a dangerous thing.  Then it pushes self-criticism aside.  There's no
   reflection.

   "Where people often get lost is on this very point," he said after a
   moment of thought.  "Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection
   and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want."

   And what is that?

   "Easy certainty."

   -- Jim Wallis, from Ron Suskind NYT Magazine article of Oct 17, 2004:
   `Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W.Bush`_

.. [boat]
   Affability keeps the boat from rocking, but truth keeps it from sinking.

   -- ?

.. _`Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W.Bush`:
   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html

.. [mythology]
   Let us say, then, to summarize, that a mythology is an organization of
   images conceived as a rendition of the sense of life, and that this
   sense is to be apprehended in two ways, namely: 1) the way of thought,
   and 2) the way of experience.  As thought mythology approaches - or is a
   primitive prelude to - science; and as experience it is precisely art.

   -- Joseph Campbell

.. [look]
   Everything in the world is wonderfully and magnificently mixed up.
   It is exactly like a woven tapestry.  A tapestry to bring tears to your
   eyes...

   True, it is very easy to get into a muddle, but there is one magic
   formula for keeping out of muddles.  I'll sell you that formula, oh
   dreamer.  There, take it.  Here it is: look.  Look.  Look.  That's all
   there is to it.  Look - and that's all.  Look, even when you want to
   screw up your eyes.  Look, even when you don't like what you see.
   Look, even when it's not what you expected.  Remember, the world is
   never wrong.  What is - is.  Even if you hate something in the world
   and want to destroy it - look.  Otherwise you will destroy the wrong
   thing.  Get me?

   -- Yevgeny Shwartz

.. [religion]
   When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my
   religion.

   -- Abraham Lincoln

   [though that doesn't always work...]

.. [truthiness]
   It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their
   own facts.  But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at
   all. Perception is everything.  It's certainty.  People love the
   President because he's certain of his choices as a leader, even if the
   facts that back him up don't seem to exist.  It's the fact that he's
   certain that is very appealing to a certain section of the country.  I
   really feel a dichotomy in the American populace.  What is important?
   What you want to be true, or what is true?

   -- stephen colbert, `Onion interview <http://www.avclub.com/content/node/44705>`_
   and `truthiness wikipedia entry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness>`_

.. [fanaticism]
   Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort
   when you have forgotten your aim.

   --  George Santayana

.. [openness]
   Because infinite players prepare themselves to be surprised by the
   future, they play in complete openness.  It is not an openness as in
   *candor*, but an openness as in *vulnerability*.  It is not a matter of
   exposing one's unchanging identity, the true self that has always been,
   but a way of exposing one's ceaseless growth, the dynamic self that is
   yet to be.  The infinite player does not expect to only be amused by
   surprise, but to be transformed by it, for surprise does not alter some
   abstract past, but [i think, by illuminating it,] one's own personal
   past.

   --  James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games

.. image:: elm_large_oblong.png
   :target: elm_large_oblong.png
   :align:  center


-------------------


From unknown Thu Mar 6 11:49:22 -0500 2008
From: 
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:49:22 -0500
Subject: picture of stems
Message-ID: <20080306114922-0500@www.myriadicity.org>

K, where did you get the illustration? did you create it? it's very sweet and complements your musings. -shaun


From unknown Mon Aug 4 21:45:01 -0400 2008
From: 
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:45:01 -0400
Subject: On what the soul is
Message-ID: <20080804214501-0400@myriadicity.net>

Your views seem to me to be (mostly) compatible with those of Douglas Hofstadter (of Goedel Escher Bach fame).  His new book, I am a Strange loop, talks about the definition of a "soul" as that part of your brain that is incorporated into other brains.  He is also quite clear that the soul grows gradually as an individual experiences the world -- and that at least some animals have souls to some gradation (though he explicitly excludes mosquitos :-).

--Guido van Rossum

From klm Mon Aug 4 22:01:17 -0400 2008
From: klm
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:01:17 -0400
Subject: On what the soul is
Message-ID: <20080804220117-0400@myriadicity.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080804214501-0400@myriadicity.net>

heya, guido!

nice to hear that this lines up well with anything from hofstadter!  as i hope is apparent from the text, i very much like r.d. laing's casting of experience as the soul.  in my view, that connects the soul with the world (and vice versa), including and overlapping with the souls of other people.  i'm curious how hofstadter came to his conclusion - *I Am A Strange Loop* definitely sounds interesting.  (the title also hints at something in math and programming which i think extends the conceptual range of people familiar with it - recursion.)  good reason to read the book - but we'll see if i ever get around to it...-)

in any case, thanks for the comments.  for reasons i guess i indicate at top, though abstract this stuff is important to me, and it's nice to get input.


From klm Mon Aug 4 22:11:15 -0400 2008
From: klm
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:11:15 -0400
Subject: picture of stems
Message-ID: <20080804221115-0400@myriadicity.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080306114922-0500@www.myriadicity.org>

| > K, where did you get the illustration? did you create it?
| > it's very sweet and complements your musings. -shaun
|
glad you like it shaun!  i'm pretty happy with the way it fits, too.

the budding branch picture is something i did as a logo for rob bettman's journal, `bourgeon <http://www.dayeight.org/bourgeon.htm>`_.  i wish i could take full credit for it, but it's driven by rob's ideas (as was the dayeight icon on that site, which i also did), and is actually adapted from an image of an elm branch that i found online.  i vectorized and did tailor the image pretty substantially, all using the wonderful svg editor, inkscape.