Rays of Hope

I’ve been thinking how moral proprieties as expressed in popular culture have changed over the generations. Depending on one’s philosophical perspective decadence or enlightenment might be a fairly accurate one-word description, I guess. There have, of course, always been pockets of depraved immorality as well as societies of puritanical absolutes, but what has been found to be acceptable to the cultural mainstream has certainly been changing.

From the standpoint of artistic expression, eliminating taboos regarding visual representation and language usage has certainly been a positive when used to offer insights into the contemporary conundrum, to better express the complexities of daily existence.

But, unfortunately, there appears to be plenty of self-promoters out there who see advantages to be exploited; who use social media to avoid any sort of censorial control. The result being a kind of ugly downward spiral away from thoughtful beneficence and toward anything perceived as attention grabbing, shock value being particularly sought after.

I have to admit I have no solutions in mind to overcome this unfortunate situation other than to continue to live in my increasingly judgmental intuitive world, rejecting or admitting input as I see fit. I will optimistically watch for the occasional rays of enlightenment I know are out there.

dance class

My Intuitive World

Given the uncertainty of the accuracy of any news items these days I continue to exercise my right to accept or disregard what I hear and read according to my intuitive discretion. In my intuitive world, events and reported occurrences, for the most part, pass by, conveyor-like, in a stream that I view from the sidelines. This information elicits from me various responses from mild to vehement, extreme dis-like to guarded optimism.

I wonder sometimes if I should try to take a more active position, assume some sort of public stand, voice my opposition or approval. Except, since I don’t know what to believe, what would be the point?

OK, OK, enough of the negativity, intuitively I know what’s best. In my world I can respond with confidence to my immediate surroundings: the weather, one-on-one interactions with others and so forth; a bit, I suppose, like putting one’s head in the sand, or attaching blinders to block my peripheral vision or wearing ear plugs 24/7. But, who knows, maybe sensory deprivation will yield new and useful insights.

evolutionary truth

 

 

Truth

There’s been a lot of news, lately, about the dissemination of ‘fake news’. Almost daily, it seems, there are reports of ersatz information being spread around, some of which is pretty incredible. Sometimes it’s reported, people will even take actions in response to these ‘fake news’ stories, which, I guess, must mean they can sometimes be pretty believable.

But now I learn that a pretty large percentage of the population distrusts news sources altogether, which makes me wonder, if the news sources are of dubious believability how do we determine what’s fake? And, if we can’t tell what’s fake how can we know what’s true? I guess truth becomes a matter of belief, which works pretty well, I suppose, when it comes to religious issues but maybe not so much when it involves hard facts.

As far as I’m concerned I’ve got this kind of intuitive scenario in my mind that I sort of fit new information in to, selecting and discarding as it suits my world view. My understanding of things may not always be entirely accurate but my method does give me temporary peace of mind.

santa shrine 3

 

Will-less Peace

I’ve been thinking about the will lately, you know, that primal existential drive from which all of our desires, hungers, urges along with the accompanying passions originate. The Will is the very life-force that defines who we are beyond our physical existences in space and time; we are our will. Unfortunately, my will has been imposing extremely negative emotions on me lately: disgust and abstract hatred mostly. I think it may have something to do with current political occurrences.

So, I think it would be good, sometimes, to be able to transcend the insidious demands of my will. I do, of course, appreciate the occasional euphoric satisfaction, but what I get mostly are anxieties and disappointments. And, the way to do that (transcend the will, that is), I’m confidently reassured by that great thinker Arthur Schopenhauer, is to seek beauty. Not the kind of visual attractiveness that only feeds self-interests, but pure ideal beauty, or if that can’t be done then perhaps descent into the overwhelming awe of the sublime will suffice.

At any rate, I’m focusing on reaching beyond my willful self-interests by seeking the purity of the beautiful, visual or aural, perhaps both. I’ll keep the will at arm’s length, at least for a while; I’ll bask in the truth of the Ideal, the beauty within that transcends the physical here and now. It seems to me, as I think about it, that this is what religions should be about.

meditationdevice18

 

The World as Idea

I’ve been thinking, lately, about ideas certain philosophers, back in the day, spent quite a bit of time thinking about, which is, what exactly we can know of the world we inhabit. Generally, there seemed to have been the assumption that there is way more to the universe than we can ever know given our limited sensory capacity and intellect.

The thinking goes that while experiencing the world is one thing (shared by all animal life), perceptive understanding is limited and can only occur through our innate, implanted cognitive facility to organize phenomena in terms of space, time, cause and effect: that to know a thing is to visualize it in three-dimensional space and to understand it as being in the present, having some sort of past and likely future, what cause brought it about and effect it may eventually have.

Which is why, some of the old guys determined the only world I can know is nothing more than an idea, but, underlying my idea of the world lays an unknowable, substantive reality, world-in-itself, existing within the realm of the metaphysical.

But maybe science is making some headway. This whole other unknowable realm underlying our sensory and intellectual capacities seems likely to me to probably have something to do with sub-atomic particle physics, you know, quarks and things so small nobody’s actually seen them, which make up all that the universe is, and the meta- can probably be left off of the metaphysical, at least with regard to the idea of world.

meditationdevice17

There is no Perpetual Motion

I’ve been reading, lately, about the second law of thermodynamics. I guess physicists have figured out that the transfer of energy will invariably result in a net loss (you know, carbon emissions and such); entropy will invariably increase over time until heat distribution reaches equilibrium and the last star blinks out, which will occur, according to sound estimates, sometime in the distant future. That is, the universe will remain functional and in existence for a very, very long time. Physicists are pretty sure about this and who am I to question learned scientific minds.

No matter how dark things may look at present, even if the world we know and love loses its capacity to sustain life (through every fault of our own), there will, I truly believe, be stars somewhere out there supporting planets where life will be sustainable. Stephen Hawking is pretty sure that, to his reckoning, we probably should be looking for such places in the interests of species survival.

I feel optimistic about such thinking: on a planet in a galaxy far away perhaps politics will be less offensive.

biosphere7

Unity of Opposites

It’s come to my attention recently that the 19th century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel offered a theory of historical progression that seems somehow appropriate to our contemporary times. The general rule that history will follow, Hegel thought, is that any thesis will face its contradiction, after which a synthesis of the two will occur.

Now, I’m no scholar mind you, but I can’t help thinking about this in relation to our current political upheaval. For some time now it has seemed to me humankind was making significant humanistic strides toward pluralistic understanding and acceptance. Appreciation for cultural variety, tolerance for the other and compassion toward the less fortunate not to mention a sound scientific understanding of the threats to our natural environment seemed to be reaching consensus levels.

But suddenly the very antithesis of these ideals has reared its ugly head. We have found ourselves face to face with our most base instincts; hatred and fear of the Other, isolationist divisiveness, blatant disregard for unpopular scientific research and an anti-intellectual disinclination toward thoughtful dialogue.

So, Hegel would have us believe this dichotomous situation will work itself out, some sort of middle ground will stabilize things, compromises will be arrived at.  I must admit I’m having a hard time visualizing what that peaceful compromise might look like.

The Good

I’ve been wondering, lately, what it might mean to realize the Good. I’m thinking of a Good separate from self-interest, an over-riding abstract Good that might be found within our everyday worldly experiences. A Good beyond the ugliness that comes to us so regularly, that we are all too often made aware of, that the media is so quick to introduce and dwell on.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking about it, looking around and I think I’m getting glimpses of it (the Good that is). I’m sensing people performing truly altruistic acts, no ulterior motives involved. I’m encountering what seems to me to be truly benevolent unsolicited encounters with total strangers. I see a thriving natural world with healthy eco-systems and vital animal populations. There is definitely good to be found if one looks for it.

A Good such as this, I suspect, must be God.  Or, perhaps I’m being overly optimistic.

meditationdevice16

Easier Answers

According to the 19th century psychologist William James, man creates the world he inhabits. The path one takes, says Mr. James, may focus on ugliness or beauty, a man may choose to concentrate and relate to the Good or the Bad. The idea here is that faith is required: an acknowledgment of that which is beyond the empirical, outside the domain of scientific certitude: the realm of God and immortality.

Which seems to imply the need for perspective: that the natural world isn’t all there is, suggesting those in the ‘natural world only’ camp will have a much harder (impossible?) time maintaining an optimistic view of things, of remaining positive, of retaining and maintaining a high moral outlook.

On a personal level, to my mind, there is no doubt considerable energy is required, as our daily travails weigh upon us, to stay upbeat all of the time; even most of the time. Still, if it’s perspective it takes to stay on one’s preferred path I wonder if the only play is the metaphysical one. Mr. James suggests unless one is oblivious, we’ve already made our choice: skepticism in moral matters is an ally of immorality; who is not for is against, he says.

Answers to the big questions must have appeared much clearer back then.

Evolutionary Ethics and the Contemptible

There’s thinking these days that Biological evolution, natural selection, will result in ever increasingly capable survivors, generation after generation, better suited to exploit and thrive within their changing environment than were their ancestors in theirs. From the perspective of increasing prosperity alone, there appears little need, biologically, to embrace any sort of ethical stance. Cooperation between these increasingly fit beings will likely occur only in so far as personal interest is concerned. So, I’m wondering, is our evolutionary destiny to be increasingly inundated with assholes?

Yet, altruism does exist. Clearly humankind does embrace certain ethical standards. Generosity toward others certainly occurs; empathy is a true emotional response for many. There are those among us who make for a kinder, gentler society where cooperation means lifting everyone to a state of reasonable well-being. I have to wonder, in the next millennium, assuming humankind is still around, where the emphasis will lay; I have a feeling Friedrich Nietzsche would have had thoughts on this.

nietzsche3