Real Faith

My primary article of faith: Reality Exists. Duh.

My Primary Article of Faith: Reality Exists

As a suggestible young (science-fiction reading) kid, I was troubled and puzzled by the prospect of an idea I encountered in some speculative fiction: the notion that the world might be a figment of my imagination. I was also 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. With some urgency I pondered and eventually came to hold and take comfort in the notion that reality exists ahead of any proof. Further, as participants we influence and are influenced by reality, but do not control it at whim. 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 do seem to conduct themselves as if the universe is a figment of their imagination, and treat others as merely part of their fantasy. It seems like many fall prey to this fallacy to some lesser degree. Sometimes whimsical, often harsh, in any case this seems to me a lonely, alienating perspect ive [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. It's important, though, that this does not necessarily mean everything is 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].

In fact, modern mathematics (particularly, modern algebra - Godel, Lowenheim-Skolem, etc) establishes that substantial, consistent systems of logical axioms, eg for elementary arithmetic, intrinsically allow for statements that are true but cannot be proved within the system. Godel proved that this is the case. (Godel's Wikipedia page has a quick gloss on his Incompleteness Theorem, which is part of that story. See sidenote =>)

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 - unyielding limits of our ability to perceive precisely (Heisenburg uncertainty).

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 - exposes us to limits of our own experiences and perspectives.

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, often seems to me an exaggeration - a kind of lack of faith in the wonders of the natural world, and/or the need to fabricate some explanation, even though arbitrary and unconfirmable. Sometimes, 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, most things do not qualify exactly against their ideals, they differ.

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 not-me while residing inside me, or is there some maginot line the stuff crosses, where it fundamentally changes to become not-me? There is no absolute dividing line.

When you look closely in the physical world, boundaries blur. This phenomenon is even more pronounced in the world of thinking and awareness. 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 values, choices, attitudes, ideas, feelings? How about my ideas, clever or dim?

All these things are informed by my experiences - shaped by where I come from and what I've been through [experience]. My internal landscape is influenced by the world and others who share it, while I influence/inform them. Where are the distinct boundaries at which my self can be completely distinguished from others?

Boundaries leak [connected].

I do not mean to say that there are no separations. It's just that 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. We are not completely separate nor completely interspersed. My influence (both deliberate and inherent) extends me, but my presence and my influence are stronger the closer you get to my center. (Where is that? I find satisfaction in this notion of consciousness.)

Then there's elusiveness inherent in communication. How can we know how close what you think I'm saying is to what I think I'm saying? [differentiation] Or, might what I am saying admit 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 often 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. I believe that, ultimately, there's no practical difference between the two ideals, but they reside within separate domains of discourse [will].

Being part of the play of events means I am a conductor of that play - conductor as in "conduit" and as in "cause" [playing]. We inform and are informed by our experiences.

It seems that the useful questions are not about being forced into a course by those factors (predetermination), nor about dominating our experience with something completely outside the system (free will). The useful questions are about our part - we are dancers in a big, big dance, influenced by and influencing the music, and one another.

Blind Faith

Regard for religion, as a dogmatic institution, tends to be polarized, venerated by adherents and villified by skeptics. The truth of its role in human culture is probably somewhere between the two extremes.

In particular, blind faith can support useful viral memes, like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". These kinds of principles have helped foster cooperation, even in those that might otherwise fail to see the simple pragmatic advantages. I don't have expertise with history, but I've noticed threads of this kind of benefit woven into many histories.

On the other hand, religious intolerance and antagonism, just like nationalism, have underlaid some of the largest-scale and most terrible aggressions in human history. Some of the same principles so useful for promoting cooperation can also be behind the antagonism, when interpreted in simplistic ways.

What happens when the brother you are to love includes only those that believe the same as you? Opportunists amp up their influence by marking non-believers as exempt, or worse - strengthening the propagation of their creed, but narrowing the scope, and ultimately, distorting the principles on which long-range benefits depend.

This is how blind-faith can be helpful and harmful. I suppose that any oversimplification is fraught with peril when it comes to matters of consequence. The antidote is efforts to "shine the light" [look] - education, communication, differentiation. This is part of the reason for my credo, "reality exists", with the notion of benefit to be found in reality's unfolding - though never to be completed - discovery.

How Useful Is Any of This?

When faced with the eternal abyss prior to and following my life and that of those I care about, 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 well-being actually is, and how it is fostered, becomes the 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 by the aspects of the world that influenced me - the myriad threads of which I am part. 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 used to be called the soul." [experience]

Third, and most directly, I consider this perspective to be 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 usually diminishes that, and can be harmful to myself and others [fanaticism].

This is what I believe.

A la taoism, and Finite and Infinite Games (see Some Favorite Books), I play to continue the larger game, and sometimes am amazed at my part, both mundane and exotic [openness].

Footnotes