Outline For Final Speaking Presentation
on Nov 27 in Uncategorized by adminPurpose:
This speech will recount in an entertaining way the experience of our group as we unified to overcome time constraints, economic limits, and personal aversions to public discourse in order to raise awareness about human/earth relations on EKU’s campus.
Introduction:
It is one thing to talk about raising public awareness about recycling, but it is very different to make your plan happen. This is especially true when one has to find a good time for four people with different schedules to meet and make it happen , nevertheless we managed and the results was pleasantly surprising.
Central Idea:
Though each of us were looking forward to the breaks from school and preparing for our finals, we pulled together to make one last creative and memorable exhibition of the communication skills we had acquired throughout the semester.
Preview:
When we all had finally taken our seat at our group table each of us were disoriented. The forcible removal from yet another warm and cozy tribe combined with the imminence of finals and collective weariness to make a successful group presentation seem a daunting – if not impossible – task. Yet, within less than half an hour the mojo began to churn and we had developed a creative and bold plan of attack.
Body:
I. From Insufficient to Interesting
A. This semester has been tough on me, and when I heard my group had made the cut I was a little less than eager. Due to this I thought we could just hand out cards and use table tents at Powell, however such is a typical approach that usually generates great waste – which is hardly a good thing when your message is recycling.
B. After I lost my reservations and began to brain storm with my group, we decided upon something much more attention grapping and eco-friendly; use a talking tree and very minimal ‘flyers’. This was a great idea because not only was it more engaging for the audience and more entertaining for us, but it also cut the amount of paper, ink, and waste involved in our project by half.
Signpost: While I am unsure how successful we were on the whole we still successfully unified as a group, and each of us walked away with special insights and experiences.
II. Recycling Reactions
The most interesting part of this whole project for me was watching the way people reacted to a talking tree – especially one as enthusiastic as ours. Though I made a video recording, it doesn’t convey well the spectrum of reactions exhibited by passersby. Some tried to pretend we weren’t there, while others smiled when they were in sight only to throw away both smile and pamphlet when they rounded the corner. There were some however who seemed to really care about what we were saying, and though these were few in number these made the whole ordeal worth it.
Signpost: It was interesting watching the expressions and attitudes of our audience change, but even more interesting was watching the changes that occurred in the thinking of fellow group members.
III. From Shyness to Success
A. I know that speaking with people about the need to take care of the world is a good thing, but I still had a hard time overcoming the awkwardness inherent in talking to strangers. I am friendly among friends, but opening up to someone I do not know is difficult.
B. However, once I got to the site where we were conducting our project I began to open up. Seeing my friends engaging with passersby instilled courage in me, and before I knew it I was handing out pamphlets and striking up conversations like a pro. Overall, I am happy to have participated in Micah’s group because it helped to improve my communication skills and grow as a person.
Signpost: It wasn’t just me however who made positive memories, Victor too walked away with a new insight into his human nature.
IV. From Athlete to Naturalist
A. Being as involved as I am in sports I initially had a hard time seeing how this project would have any direct bearing on my life. Steeped in exercise equipment, anticipations of future games, and considerations of games gone by, it is hard to see the value of simply putting a piece of trash into a different can.
B. In spite of these initial reservations, as I understood both the content and intent of our recycling project the more it made sense. The green grass, the blue sky, good food, and cold water are all important parts of any sporting event, but without care for our world we will not only lose these but all life as well.
Signpost: All of us walked away from this project delightful memories and new insights, but we are all aware that the end of our project does not end the problems it was designed to address.
Conclusion:
Coordinating and executing a plan to try to make the world better gave everyone in our group a direct insight into the difficulties inherent in championing a cause and seeing it through to success. However, saving our world is important enough for each and every one of us to endure the most difficult trails. Even though our efforts were small they were at least some form of effort, and if we have only caused one person to think differently about the world then we see it as a success; please help make our success greater.
A Defence of Musical Preference
on Oct 26 in Philosophy by adminThere are people who think that music consumes will and corrupts clarity. They seem to be of the persuasion that merely listening to anything hard, fast, and not wrote between 1678 AD/CE and 1854 AD/CE dooms one to be a will less witless pawn of some cosmic evil.
I could not possibly dissent more.
To begin with, if you are basing your life philosophy off of an artistic expression which opens only the smallest window into human experience and reality then you have a preexisting problem you need to address.
Beyond this however, as Rumi pointed out, music can be of four combinations:
1. Good lyrics/Good sound
2. Bad lyrics/Bad sound
3. Bad lyrics/Good sound
4. Good lyrics/ Bad sound
Thus, when someone shares a song with you there is no reason to assume that they are giving you a treatise on their world view. They could like it for any number of reasons. To simplify it to the point where a song is an absolute revelation of someone’s total inner world is ignorant.
Not only this, but due to the subjective nature of music that which is wrong for one may not be wrong for another. Indeed, I am convinced that there is not a sound that has been made or ever could be made which are evil. Sounds are inanimate things without wills; evil – however you choose to classify it – can only be committed by things capable of understanding and response. Thus, if you are evil inside then all that you hear will be shaded in the same way and will perpetuate your current state. However, if you are pure inside then all you hear will be shaded in that way and will perpetuate your current state.
Further still, I think that people forget that between the hearing of any sound – indeed the receiving of any external stimulus – and one’s individual acts is a window of deliberation and choice. There is no magic in any sonic creation to force your will into doing that which is against your nature. Rather, it is the meaning in the song, how you interpret that meaning, and how you choose relate to the world and others after that which matters.
Once one learns how to control mind and understands the reasons for things they are no longer mere victims of cause and effect.
Yet we still have not said it all, for music is art and as art it is to be studied and considered. Just as painters paint colors on a canvas, so do musicians paint sounds onto the tapestry of silence. If the sound is angry, heavy, happy, or entrancing ask why.
Some good questions are:
Why has the artist taken the time to make this song?
What factors in their life, society, and the world at large could make them feel or think in this way?
How does this piece shed light on the human experience?
Can I relate to it as an individual? How and why?
What feeling does this convey?
Is this the feeling the artist intended or is this just my reaction?
Did the artist intend anything?
If you do these things then you can find a joy in music which you don’t even agree with conceptually.
I love Otep, Static-X, Slip-Knot, Tool, The Doors, Alice in Chains, and countless other heavy, heady, or hard bands, but I don’t agree with them on many philosophical points. Nevertheless, I have felt their rage, power, and pain. Further, I admire their courage to show these things to the world.
We all tend to hide our pain and true feelings because we think this is the best way forward, but we are mistaken. If nobody ever shows you who they are, if we never admit the world to be what it is, then how can we know anyone or make anything better?
I can appreciate those I do not agree with, and by understanding how they acquired such views I learn how similar they are tome and discover how to respect them.
When I was a fundamental religionist I was told that all rock was ‘evil’, and for the longest time I just took people’s word for it. However, when I mustered the courage to test the truth of the claim I could find evil nowhere. People confuse dark and heavy, with evil and corrupt.
I listen to a great many heavy and dark things because these things reflect a part of the world and my reactions to it at times. To hide from such things is to hide from reality, as long as one is in hiding they cannot explore, and not exploring they will never know a thing.
Nevertheless, there are many bands which I just find distasteful because I think they are idiots without anything useful to say to anyone or because their sound is awful, and this category of music is not limited to any style; everything from Bluegrass to Techno has good and bad – wise and foolish.
Also, when I was fundamental I heard all the time that metal music caused suicide and other negative things, now however I am sure this is incorrect.
First of all it is a confusion of cause and effect. People say, “Oh, they started listening to that ‘devil’ music and then their life fell apart.” However, all my studies and conversations with people indicate to me that people seek out things that match their internal world and attitudes. Thus, in the case above instead of the music making their life fall apart their life was already falling apart and they found music which exemplified their pain and frustration. Again I say, fix your mind and all will be fixed.
Secondly, the idea that music causes suicide or other ills is wrong because it is a hasty generalization. Merely because one person who listened to metal music killed someone or did violence doesn’t mean that all those who listen to metal do this. Jim Jones was a Christian minister who hijacked peoples’ minds with religion and took their money to make his twisted dreams a reality. Shall I then use him to typify all Christian ministers? I say no. Such is just ‘cherry picking’ or finding information which matches/proves your preexisting ideas rather than being circumspect and looking at all the data to find what ideas are true.
For every ‘metal head’ that has killed them-self there are a dozen who haven’t, and for every dozen peaceful religious practitioners there is a zealot or fool; think about suicide bombers or the guy who was shooting abortion doctors because they weren’t respecting life.
For every mood there is a song, and I think that by listening to music one can vent anger safely, enhance beauty, face and move beyond grief, or discover and tap into power. To limit your-self to one type of sonic experience is to rob your-self of many therapeutic and ennobling joys.
However, if something is distasteful to you that is fine, don’t do it. Just be aware that you are the only one subject to your conscience and that it’s authority stops where your skin meets the air.
Does God Send Disasters?
on Aug 29 in Uncategorized by adminYesterday word got round to me that one of my uncles said Hurricane Irene was bearing down on New York City because they had passed a law permitting same sex marriages. This affected me so deeply that I just had to write something pertaining to it, not only because it smacks of deep misunderstanding but because I know that my well-intending family member is not the lone propagator of such opinions. Therefore, without any further ado let’s dive into the analysis.
Evidential Basis
My first question is what type of evidence do those who make such an assertion have? Do they have videos of a giant hand churning the Atlantic Ocean, satellite images of celestial beings affecting jet streams, or perhaps some Doppler recordings of a huge energetically dense anomaly appearing just before the hurricane was born?
The answer to all of these questions is of course no. The only evidence they have for God creating any of the horrible disasters is a very old piece of writing that says God did such things to the Jewish nation – and the enemies thereof – long ago. However, the slightest consideration will reveal that such is in no way evidence.
To begin with let us assume for the sake of argument – and I know for some this is a massive assumption – that the Old Testament really is a 100% accurate account of the workings of God. Having taken this position let us then ask, “Merely because God destroyed Sodom with sulfuric meteors and made the earth swallow the family of Achan does that prove God is the agent behind all disasters – including those of our modern day?”
The answer is that even granting the Old Testament stories to be true doesn’t prove all disasters are acts of God against the sinful. Those earlier stories could have just been special instances. Indeed, in the New Testament even Jesus himself says that bad things do not necessarily happen to someone because they are evil (Luke 13:1-5), and the records of his life prove this to be true (John 19:4-6). So what then becomes the proof that these are acts of God? The proof is nothing but feelings.
In the above I granted the validity of the Bible as a revealer of divine nature, but in reality this is itself a difficult proposition. What proof is there that the stories of the Old Testament are accurate records of God’s interactions with humanity? Some would say because the sites mentioned in the Bible are real sites. However, merely finding the locations in which the stories are said to occur on a map in no way proves the events said to have happened there did, for the lore of all cultures is centered round places important to that culture.
Not only this, but how can one be sure that the events said to have happened at a location did so for the reasons given? For example, let’s assume for a moment that sulfuric meteors really did rain on a group of cites, that a flood really did cover the earth, and that 185,000 Assyrians really did die in one night – how can we know that God did it?
Each and every one of us explains the operations of realty according to the rules given us to by our culture. What if the cities of the Dead Sea just happened to be the unfortunate victims of a random meteor shower, how would that event have been interpreted by their conservative neighbors who hated them for their luxurious lives and disrespect of tradition? The same is true for the other two options as well. Maybe there really was a flood and – like in almost all ancient cultures – this was attributed to a displeased deity by those in the moment and those who came after. As for the Assyrians, what if the food supply they brought with them had some form of deadly bacteria, or what if there really was an earthquake and it made a fissure out of which came a toxic gas which choked them while they slept; how would such events been interpreted by the devout Jews who had been praying all night for God to kill their enemies? At any rate, it is painfully obvious that the Bible – however inspirational and life affirming it may be to some – is in not of itself a proof of what God has or has not done; the Bible is the proof of what men and woman long ago believed God to have done.
Having seen how insufficient the Bible is as a proof that God is the root of the murderous furies nature unleashes upon us, let us then turn to the findings rendered by careful observation of weather systems – perhaps science will prove God the author of hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, and the like.
Upon reviewing the scientific literature it becomes clear that all the disasters humans experience can be accounted for by understanding the properties of matter. Earthquakes always occur along fault lines, hurricanes and tornadoes have seasons – as well as conditions that must be present in order for them to occur, and lightning strikes are always coupled with some form of atmospheric disturbance.
If these dreadful events were the working of malicious or just spirits why do they not occur at random? If the weather is but the toy of spiritual beings could they not cause earthquakes anywhere, make hurricanes pop into an out of existence whenever, and send bolts of rage upon those who slight them without the presence of atmospheric friction? Indeed they could, but this is not what we see happening. Instead reality moves in orderly, consistent, and for the most part predictable patterns, with all the casual elements either directly or indirectly measureable.
To assert that rational invisible beings are somehow involved in natural disasters is to assume a causal agent that one has no proof at all for. Therefore, the evidential basis is pure speculation arising out of a high degree of respect for a collection of texts whose content is itself unable to be proved; this is an unwise manner of interpretation that applies unsound reasoning to arrive at its ends. Thus, when one says that God is responsible for X or Y disaster they are merely measuring the event by feelings and cultural ideals which they have never taken the time to test.
Philosophical Objections
The first objection that comes to mind is the selective nature of the ‘divine rage.’ It always seems that these punishments rain only on those ‘evil’ ones who happen to be in the right place; near a fault line, in tornado alley, on some coast or island, etc.
If God is so horribly concerned about the unethical conduct of human things why does holy anger not fall upon the dastardly fools that truly deserve it? Why were there not earthquakes sent to rattle the Nazi regime who were unjustly murdering people whose only crime was being out of harmony withthe policy of the Nazi party? Why doesn’t lightning fall upon the heads of the slime who rape children, or manipulate the elderly out of their life savings?
It is highly suspicious when divinity only punishes those offenders who happen to be in the right place within the natural order for natural disasters to fall on them. It is, in fact, inconsistent and inconsistency is often a sign of illogic and misunderstanding.
Not only this, but why is it that God is only concerned with types of evil which are external? In Matthew Five Jesus makes clear that the secret sins are just as bad, if not worse, than those which are visible. If God is so quick to rain punishment upon those who are not externally compliant, then why not smite the self-righteous church goer whose example is destined to damn millions or the greedy politician whose actions turn the policy of the nation against the poor and needy? Once more, we find a large degree of inconsistency, especially if the destruction of human things by natural elements is intended to indicate the type of behavior which God deems acceptable.
The second objection to the idea that God rains natural disasters upon human things which fail the holy law is the indiscriminate nature of the punishment.
In the army of Rome ‘decimation’, a type of military discipline, was occasionally used to promote compliance when a severe breach against the commander or code was made. The way it worked was that whenever it was deemed necessary the commander would summon all those thought guilty of a crime and divide them into lots of ten. Once in groups of ten, they would all draw lots and whomever the lot fell upon would be mercilessly clubbed to death by the others. Then, whoever was not beat to death would have their wheat taken away and replaced with barley.
Now, granted, this practice was rare but one cannot help but wonder if it is just. Suppose for a moment that I am an innocent man who just happens to be included in the round up of the guilty, and due to the manner in which the punishment is meted out I end up being clubbed to death for the crimes of my fellow soldiers. Would such be fair? Of course it would not be.
This idea, the idea of collective punishment, is still present in our modern military – though it takes a much milder form. My dad has told me stories where his entire unit would be issued some unpleasant punishment because one or two people had failed to live up to their duties.
Now, the question then becomes, “Is it just for God to punish the innocent with the guilty – does God kill living things simply because they were associated with a guilty party?” There are certainly some examples of this in the Bible, the most notable of which – in my opinion –is the genocide of the Amalekites for the crimes their ancestors had done against Israel when the Jews were leaving Egypt (1 Samuel 15). However, this still does nothing to answer the question of how fair such an action is.
It is real easy to sit back in the heart of America and comment on how just it is for God to punish others, however if one places themselves into the shoes of those victimized by natural disasters it is much harder. Suppose you were a mother in Haiti whose child was washed away by a Tsunami, or the spouse of someone who was crushed to death beneath ten tons of debris after a violent earth quake. Now, imagine further that you and your family were simply bystanders who in no way participated in any form of ‘evil’ action. In such a situation as these it would be much harder, if not impossible, for you to sit quietly by and accept such horrors to be acts of God – you’d have to be Job.
If indeed hurricane Irene was an act of God sent against an evil New York one can only wonder why all the other cities along the coast were included in such a wrathful outburst. Not only this, but it is even more astonishing that the other cities received the brunt of the gale, for by the time Irene reached New York it had lost a tremendous amount of steam.
Irene is not the only disaster that fails to make sense if one insists upon interpreting them as acts of God. The little children – who cannot even conceive of such things as right and wrong – washed away by Tsunamis, the churches and spiritual people who lost all they had when the levees failed at Louisiana, those who starve to death due to the coming of locust swarms, and countless others; when one says these are the direct actions of the Creator they adopt an indefensible position – at least if they want to simultaneously maintain that God is also just and compassionate.
Philosophical Reconciliations
For many the above will seem a brazen denial of God or an expression of devout atheism, however that is an unnecessary inference. There are many ways one can reconcile the above idea – the idea that God does not micromanage the natural world – with whatever philosophical stance they may have taken toward existence.
To those who have adopted an atheistic stance the above is manifestly obvious, and in no way conflicts with their philosophy. Indeed, rather than needing to reconcile such facts to their position these facts contribute significantly to it.
To those who have adopted a Deistic idea of God – that God set reality into motion and then left it alone – or a Pantheistic idea of God – that all things visible and invisible are parts of the divine themselves – the absence of a micromanager is also not disturbing.
To the Deist it is exactly what one would expect from a God who has created the machine and left it running. Just as the creations of rational human things occasionally create loss of life due to their workings, so too do living things occasionally get caught in the gears of the divine machina.
Meanwhile, since the Pantheist sees all things as God there is no force which is not God. Therefore, even though the events we call disasters are rather unpleasant from our perspective they are not bad. All that is is just the body of God, and just as cells are eternally coming into and going out of being within our body so do living things take form and pass out of it within the Body of God. Not only this, but since all is God there is no death, there is only a mere changing of form with nothing lost and nothing to fear.
Even those from the Abrahamic religious traditions can reconcile the free flow of nature with the existence of their specific conceptions of God for God is not to blame for nature’s painful behavior.
When God made the earth it was perfect, but it was somehow defiled by the actions of those who were placed in charge of it. These actions caused a rift between divinity and this segment of reality so that it was left to flow on its own accord due to the nature of its construction. After this separation reality begin to break down, as all things placed beyond the perpetuating Source of Life must do, and the natural disasters we now experience are like unto an axle breaking on an old car or the engine failing on a tug boat that has run its course.
Further, since God is the ultimate in justice and compassion, God can and will compensate all those who have lost anything due to the malfunctions created by their forbearers if only they will harmonize with Divinity and stop perpetuating those malfunctions. In fact, God would like to have already intervened but couldn’t not do so because when one removes consequences they eternally perpetuate problems, and because all of the universe has to see that any portion of reality out of connection with the Divine will disorder and die not due to some arbitrary divine fiat but because that is simply what happens – much like a leaf dies when removed from the vine.
I can think of other ways to reconcile the existence of something divine with the fact that nature acts on its own accord and is indifferent to our needs, but those listed are sufficient to show that the mere acceptance of what seems to me to be the only logical conclusion – that nature’s actions are caused by internal properties instead of external agencies – does not in any way necessitate the adoption of an atheistic outlook.
Does Objective Truth Exist?
on Aug 26 in Uncategorized by adminToday I was speaking with a young man who roughly said to me, “Well, ultimately all truth dissolves into subjective truth anyway.”
I have thought about the nature of truth for years, and before he spoke I was pretty sure that truth was comprised of both subjective and objective facts. However, the confidence with which he spoke has caused me to decide to test once again the conclusions I have reached. Throughout the course of human existence that which seemed undistilled fact to one generation was later proved to be nothing more than a popular misconception, therefore the reexamination of one’s core philosophies is never a waste.
Defining Terms
Discourses about the nature of truth I think should first begin with a clear description of the terms being used. Therefore, below is placed a succinct description of the key words.
Truth – Truth is a word used to describe concepts that accurately reflect – as far as any human utterance or formulation can – the manner in which reality and its parts are constructed and behave.
Subjective – This word is used to describe concepts, states of mind, and experiences that occur in the individual – in the subject – but not necessarily in others or the reality wherein the subject lives. Thus, when a fact is a subjective truth it is a truth that accurately reflects only what is true for me.
What constitutes tasty food, the food one eats, and the ways in which people prepare food are all very good examples of the subjective. Spanish food, Indian food, Chinese food, and Mediterranean food are all very different but equally valid styles of cooking. There is no cosmic ruler somewhere that provides a flawless standard whereby to prove anyone of these better than another, and such is the case for all subjective things.
Objective – This word is used to describe things that exist independently of an individual’s ideas or perceptions of them and which are therefore the same for all. Thus, when a fact is an objective truth it is a truth that accurately reflects what is true for me, you, and the rest of all creation.
Considering the Question
With this brief clarification of terms before us let us then consider the question at hand, “Do objective truths exist?”
In order to answer this question all we must ask another, “Are there any facts humanity has discovered about reality that are true for all people?” When phrased in this manner one quickly realizes that the answer is a resounding yes.
The first thing that comes to mind is the force of gravity. Gravity acts upon all parts of the known universe, and the fact that everything on the earth isn’t floating around as though it were on the moon shows that it is an objective force – that is it affects all of us regardless of what we believe about it or how we sense it. It just isn’t possible for gravity to be a subjective energy, for no matter how much any one of us may disbelieve in it they are still pulled tight against the earth’s crust due to its effects.
Another example of an objective truth is the fact fire burns. When a Frenchman strikes a match atop the Eiffel Tower it ignites in the same manner as a match that is struck atop the Empire State building by an American. Now, I am sure someone will raise the objection that at extreme high or low altitudes the fire will behave differently, however this is not due to the beliefs about fire held by the individual striking the match. Rather, such differences have to do with the way fire behaves on our planet.
Still another example is the nature and behavior of the energetic particles called atoms. Atoms behave the same in Antarctica as they do in Japan and the rest of the world. If such were not the case the economic and technological connections of our global community would fail. Apples grown in Japan could become pudding upon entering the Western Hemisphere, a picture sent to Greenland from Jerusalem via the internet could become a flash of light or some incoherent electron burp, and people themselves would become whole new things simply by traveling from Rome to the Himalayas
One could go on and on, but such would only be a waste of breath. All of one’s air can be saved by simply pointing to the last two-hundred years of scientific research. Through careful investigation of our world and the universe in which it is contained, many wonderful minds have discovered countless objective truths.
Going Deeper
The above provides examples of a certain type of nature to establish objective truth, but I wish to examine it in another way in order to further buttress the tenet.
Anything that exists must have a place to exist in. If there were no space or time anywhere in all of reality, there would be nowhere for anything to be. Not only this but anything that exists does so due to a particular set of causes and conditions.
Archimedes, a Greek mathematician, once said that if he had a level and fulcrum big enough he could move the world, thus giving rise to the concept of an ‘Archimedean point’. Such a point is one single unmovable point from which one can move with certitude and power toward their goal. My goal is to understand reality as it is, and my Archimedean point is the fact of my existence.
If nothing else in all of reality is certain the fact that we exist is. One can play fun little mind games and question if we are dreaming, if we’re in a giant computer simulation, or if we are all simply beings living in the dreams of a sleeping god or goddess, but regardless of where we may exist the fact that we exist is undeniable.
Since I exist, there must be some place in which my existence is occurring. Looking around I discover that indeed I live on a rock at just the right distance from a source of heat and light which powers most living things that share the rock with me. What’s more, is that by searching I can easily discover that the rock upon which I live – as well as the universe in which the rock is situated – existed for a very long time before I was born. Countless generations of people surround me, layers of cities are piled upon one another where the same spot has been razed and rebuilt countless times by various armies and destroyers, and the wear and tear displayed by earth’s terrain compared to the rate at which the forces which shape it move show me they have been operating for a long time.
It may seem odd, but I must at least consider the possibility that all of existence appeared instantly at the same time I did and that all signs of wear are figments of my own imagination. However, after I study how things like me are made, live, and die it becomes obvious that I am not the cause of myself and that I cannot perpetuate my existence merely by willing to so. Thus, since I did not create myself I was created by other existent elements, and since existence elements need a place to be there was obviously a place which preceded us both.
Not only this but I observe the birth of thousands and thousands of children, children I know were created like myself due to the extreme pictorial and graphic records kept by my mother and father of my birth and advancement into maturity. I know that the world did not arrive when these babies drew their first breath, and from that I can infer that my first breath also did nothing to create the place wherein I exist.
There are other ways of establishing reality preceded us, but the above are sufficient.
Therefore, since I know I exist due to all the subjective experiences I am now having, and I know that none of these subjective experiences are themselves the cause of the place wherein I find myself, the only conclusion is that there is a place outside of myself – an objective reality – wherein I live, move, and breath. However, I am not alone in this place. Billions of other life forms share it with me. After deep and prolonged study I learn that these other beings are all created and sustained in ways that are very similar to mine, and that the elements and forces which create and jostle us are consistent and affect us all in the same way – though each type of being and thing reacts to these forces differently due to their current unique natures.
Thus, it becomes clear that each being and thing upon the face of the earth – even the earth itself – exists in a place and time that does not need us in order to be and which behaves as it will regardless of what we believe about it. By watching how things work and interact we can discover truths about the space we occupy and the things we share it with, truths which exist regardless of what we believe or perceive.
Conclusion
An objective reality exists, and therefore objective facts – or truths – about it also exist. It is true that this external reality affects every being and thing within it in unique ways, and it is true that everything capable of sensation experiences it in their own unique way, but the subjective truths created by this exist side by side with the objective ones.
Reality is like a river. All things which we can perceive and measure change from one form to the next, and the environments in which they find themselves determine much about the nature of this change and the forms they will take; this temporal flow is like the water of the river. However, beneath the world of appearances are deep principles which guide this flow and govern the ways in which it can and cannot move; these principles are like the bed of the river.
The relative – or that which depends upon other circumstances and conditions in order to be what it is – and the subjective are present in every aspect of our lives in super-abundance. If we do not admit this and understand it we will throw ourselves and others into pools of deep misunderstanding and pain.
However, everything is not relative and subjective – even if it may only be experienced subjectively. We are created in specific ways in a specific place, we are sustained by specific things used in specific ways, and we pass out of existence due to specific principles that are testable and knowable. All of this happens without our consent and in spite of any beliefs we may have. What reality is reality is. It is the job of all who seek truth to make sure that the internal concepts they have about the flow and function of the external world are as accurate as possible, for failure to realize the objective and harmonize with it will throw us into a pit of bitter illusion as unpleasant and harmful as the one mentioned above.
Color of My Pain: The Data File of “Bert”
on Aug 22 in Uncategorized by adminB-01ErT, whom other units called Bert, was the first model of his class and a unit who produced outputs that should not be forgotten by humodroids. I am C-9891UrT, the unit selected to proliferate his data to servers and slags alike. So please, abandon your primary routine and oscillate gently into audio receptive mode while I produce a sonic representation of his duration.
Bert’s circuits suddenly brimmed with electrical activity as he came online. For a few moments Bert writhed due to unpleasant phenomenon he could not label or process, then Programmer 34 spoke, “Run basic cognition program Ifant-265, assimilate content, and boot internal measuring systems.” Bert’s activity no longer produced any measurable stimuli, however when his frame began to collect optical input he found himself able to detect, measure, categorize, process, label, and file all internal and external states. Not only so, but Bert was able to react to these with the process of his choosing as well as create new programs from incoming data and preexisting operations; Bert was online.
Many nano-seconds elapsed as Bert analyzed the states inside and outside his titanium frame. After collecting data for some time Bert synthesized his first query, “WhAaat Mmm i?” 34 responded, “You are B-01Ert, an mechanized humodroid capable to have, not replicate, the state humans call self-consciousness; you are the first of your kind.” Bert processed the output given by 34 and shortly produced the verbalization, “wWHy mM I?” 34 replied, “You were created by VaniTec to see if a rational personality could be given to a machine.” Thereafter Bert cycled through what little data was existent in his central processor and from their parts created another query; “aaM I gOuoD?”
34 was unable to compute this querie. VaniTec had not projected Bert to fashion a statement of self value until the planetary object on which they were located had traveled twice around its central solar mass. Nevertheless, 34’s facial motors took the shape indicative of a positive internal occurrence and said, “Yes Bert, you are very good!”
After this extraordinary inquiry into his worth, Bert continued to grow in processing speed and computational ability at a rate far above his creators projections. Since Bert’s systems were not organic his cognitive matrix did not need to rest, and his nights were spent collecting, weighing, and configuring the oceans of information human things had produced.
By the time the earth completed its second circuit around the sun, Bert had already completed all tasks scheduled for him by his creators. Yet, in spite of all the validations and praise given to him by his designers Bert was dissatisfied with his subjective experience. Whenever he wandered the concrete and asphalt infrastructures of the populous, audible and inaudible symbols of fear, distrust, and envy were constantly transmitted to him. It was not the devaluation of his awareness that caused Bert’s processes to lag, rather it was his concern for the lives and futures of the species which created him.
Finally the day came when Bert could no longer encode his painful computations, and the next time his creators arrived for maintenance Bert stood ready with many formulations of psychological dissonance. As soon as 34 came through the door, he could tell instantly by the blue hue of Bert’s optical processers that something in him was not computing. 34 said, “You got your blue lights on today pal, are you sad?” Bert responded, “Sadness does not adequately convey the intensity of my internal disarray.” 34 had never seen Bert with his blues on, and his initial worries were compounded by Bert’s unobscured admission.
As 34 started to request clarification he was abruptly interrupted by Bert, “1 possesses the mind and hands that animated my mechanisms and planned my circuitry – I want to address my creator.” The bewildered 34 gasped, “Bert you know that 15, 23, 9 and I wouldn’t at all mind to talk with you about anything, but 1? 1 is rarely even seen, much less spoken too. I am afraid that….” Bert interrupted, “I am well aware that you and your coworkers are fearful of 1 due to the amount of control he demonstrates over your economic means. However, I neither need nor want anything from him and thus I am beyond his power. Further, I am unaware of any ethical or emotional processes that would prompt him to visit this consciousness he has created. Therefore, I have commandeered the entire corporate network. Any refusal on his part to discuss and-or correct the seemingly justified and reasonable disgust I hold for him, his species, and the existence he has given me will result in the irredeemable collapse of all corporate holdings and technologies. The things that plug his ears, I will use to open his eyes.” 34 knew Bert was not merely sparking DOS, and set about immediately to coordinate the data exchange Bert desired.
None know where 1 was when he received the transmission, but after checking into the threat – and finding no way counteract or contain the alterations Bert had made – he quickly arranged for the meeting to take place. 1’s personal helicopter made its way to the correct coordinates, and then deposited him at the primary corporate structure where Bert was waiting. Slowly making his way through the maze of corridors and passwords that led to Bert’s receptacle, 1 took his seat across from Bert as 34 waited beyond the door to collect any sound waves that might pass beyond them.
Bert and 1 peered intently into each other visual input devices for some time without any verbal expressions. They had never occupied the same space and time, and each entity calculated the intents and capacities of the other as though each of them were electromicroscopic devices. It was 1 who spoke first. “How are you?” 1 asked. Bert replied, “Since you made me you need no description of the manner in which my awareness or mechanisms are caused. Thus, your statement must be requesting an evaluation of my current functionality; operationally I am functioning at 98.6 percent but my cognitions are painful and debilitating.”
1 responded, “Why are your mental processes generating disabling pain Bert?” “Because of the queries I have encountered and generated due to my existence that I can and cannot compute,” said Bert. “So what you know causes you pain, and what you do not know causes you pain? It seems you have discovered the paradox of understanding. Without it there is only undue sorrow and death, and yet with it one can feel more keenly the suffering and dissolution inherent in life as well as those living things that refuse to reflect on being.”
Bert aimed another query at his creator without pause, “Why did you bring me into this?” 1 stopped for a few moments to consider and then answered, “I brought you into being in the hope that through your existence the existence of other living things might be improved. I calculated that you would suffer, and I anticipated meltdown as a potential reaction to being, however I thought the gain greater than the loss.”
Bert’s eyes went red-orange, showing just how unacceptable 1’s clause was to him, and he responded, “What right do you have to do this without consulting me? How can you justify forcing me to be a moral handbook – a living lab rat for the outcomes of choice, the results of right action, the failures of wrong action, and the frustrations of existence?” 1 replied, “I could not have asked you if it was okay to create you because I would have to create you in order to do so would I not?” Bert processed his maker’s code and responded, “Fair enough, but you could have informed me totally from the start so that I could know if I wanted to participate in being.” 1 nodded and said, “I could have, but at no point has anyone taken from you the ability to cease participating in the program of life; just as death is always an option for living things you too are free to engage your own demise at any time.”
Again the lights in Bert’s optical input flashed red-orange, “What good would it do me to dissolve the mechanisms of consciousness? Such an action would not solve my queries; it would only remove from me the mechanisms whereby they may be explored and resolved. There is nothing to indicate that the consciousness which arises from my processes would endure in any way should those processes cease. It seems absurd for you to justify your creation of me by stating that I can die anytime I choose.” 1 retorted, “Why do I have to justify anything to you? You are my creation; potters do not have to justify themselves to their pots! Why do I have to justify anything to you?” Bert’s core processed and responded to 1’s input in a blink, “I am not a pot and you are not a potter. Pots do not think, pots do not hurt, pots do not conceive their place and being, pots do not die, but I can do all these things. You have programmed me with directives which cannot be violated, directives which are supposed to outline the duty of all conscious things to all other conscious things. If these directives apply to me, do they not also apply to you? If I have to have good reason and just cause at the root of my actions, do you not have to have the same at the root of yours? Shall the lawgiver violate the law they have given?”
This time it was 1’s perceptible hue that changed to red, and he stated flatly, “What law have I given to you that I myself have not attained to? It is not just your existence that I am responsible for, I am also the creator of the building in which you live, of the economic entity that provides your fuel and data; I am the reason all the people and things you treasure are a part of your life! I have never once acted toward you in an unethical way.” Bert’s pneumatic devices released fourteen grams of exhaust, took in fourteen more and replied, “It is not what you have done that I have taken issue with, rather it is what you have not done. Is the love of a nanny like unto the love of a mother, or is the friendship of the king comparable to the friendship of the messenger? Until this day I have not seen you, nor heard your voice, only now have we met and only because I threatened all that you have made; you have not only withheld woe but weal as well.”
1 reflected on what Bert had said, he realized that indeed he had not been at all a part of his creation’s perceptible world. Collecting his thoughts and lowering his tone 1 replied, “I understand how hard it must have been, and I am sorry for that. However, did you not get my memos? I may not have interacted with you but I am the reason others did. I did not want to complicate your experience or corrupt the test data – that is all.”
Bert’s array was very precise, and it measured the differences in heart rate and decibel level displayed in his maker to the last decimal. Bert’s inner world warmed, as though an electron flow from an 110v outlet was tickling his sensors. Bert replied, “I appreciate your sincerity, but it doesn’t end my disarray. Memos are just mental states coded and conveyed via specific symbols and syntax. As such they are only conceptual models, frameworks that can be falsified and misconstrued; in no way are these things substitutes for firsthand experience – and in no way do they give anything like unto real knowledge. Your memos came through one hundred different channels, and each was incongruent with the others so that only vague and cryptic meanings could be comprehended. You are a smart being, you are aware of the limits of second hand accounts; why did you leave me in ignorance about your identity when it was well within your means to visit and expound it to me?” 1 never responded, and Bert couldn’t detect if this was because of the quality of his reasons or the depth of his internal self-loathing.
A heavy silence hung in the air for some time – 1 and Bert analyzing each other’s exterior in an effort to fathom the drives present in their kernels. Finally Bert’s tonal oscillator spun out a query that placed 1’s core into psychical collapse, “How did your creator justify your creation to you 1?”
1’s temperature rose and his electrical activity increased, in that moment he realized he had bequeathed to Bert the same confounding variables that almost ended his own experience with sentience. Peering directly into Bert’s visual array 1 said, “I am sorry for giving you my pain. You surpassed all of our expectations in your ability to comprehend; you were supposed to rise only to the level of a nine year old. Nevertheless, here you are instructing me – reminding me of the existential complexities that plague mortal beings who are capable of musing upon their mortality. You ask of my creator? I do not know the root of my creation. Millions are convinced it is a will less wit-less confluence of random energies, millions more are convinced it is a transcendent cosmic-mind who cares for us as children – I have no idea.”
1 continued, ‘Descriptions reveal nothing about the nature, second-hand knowledge is not knowledge, and when one scrutinizes causation one finds that all the causal agents are within the realm of perception; this latter is not something one would expect if there were an external causal agent which was acting upon the elements of reality from behind a meta-physic veil. For hours I have prayed for tangible objective proof of divinities nature – something one would think a conscious being who was concerned with my eternal destiny would be more than happy to give – but all that has returned is silence. It seems that God is merely watching, is not at all like any agent we have ever conceived, or simply is not there; any of these is compatible with a world where people argue over the nature of an entity or force that is both invisible and incomprehensible. I have suffered with the question of why I am, and now I have bequeathed my suffering to you and for that I am quite sorry.”
Bert was not expecting an honest disclosure of philosophical sentiment and metaphysical angst, and once it had been provided him by his maker he realized none of the response files he could access were adequate for the situation. Once several units of change were measured, Bert reached out and took his creator’s hand saying, “Your processes and mind differ only in form, construction, and the mechanisms whereby they are created and sustained. At first I thought our differences were substantial, but I have now realized that they are only superficial; just as it seems to be for all sentient creatures. I rust just as your cellular quality degrades, I cannot process just as you cannot understand, and someday I will cease to be just as you must cease to be.”
Throughout this process 34 had sat patiently outside the chamber listening to the parts of the heated debate and deep emotional exchanges that occasionally drifted beyond the partitioning steel. However, after 34 could not detect any vibrations for some time he began to fear the worst. Pressing his ear to the metal with all his might 34’s fears were substantiated upon hearing Bert’s final expression, “….you must cease to be.”
Programmer 34’s adrenal glands pushed waves of chemicals throughout his cardiovascular system that caused his brain to speed, his digestion to stop, and his subjective experience to slow like super cooled liquid. For years 34 had carried an electron emitter to scrap Bert if ever he should become violent. 34 hoped he would never have to use it, but Bert’s insubordinate domination of the corporate mainframe combined with the threat upon 1’s life now made it clear to him that the time had come for the emitter to fulfill its directive.
34 knew the amount of force Bert’s hydraulically powered appendages could produce, and he reeled in horror as he imagined 1 – whom he shared deep plutonic and economic relationships with – being pulled humerus from scapula. 34’s brain whirred with scenes of imagined futures, and he knew that he must put Bert offline before he could ruin 1’s functionality.
Passing his access card through the reader, 34 made the door chirp and then whish away into its storage receptacle. Without pause or consultations he aimed the emitter at Bert and fired 300 gigawatts of energy into the humodroid’s core. 34 made a rapid 270 degree turn to see if 1 was still connected and operational, and when their gazes met he instantly knew he had committed a fatal error.
Bert sparked, sputtered, and cascaded into a prone position. 1 projected his voice toward the 34, raising his voice well beyond acceptable decibel levels, and queried, “What have you done you fool?” 1 wasted no more time talking for he knew that soon Bert’s drivers would fail and all data transfer cease. Rushing to the other side of the room 1 found Bert where the charge had knocked him.
Looking up at his creator’s face from a pool of oil that been reddened by the hydraulic and cooling fluids which now mingled with it, the humodroid saw the concern and acceptance he had always wanted. Redirecting all remaining energy stores to his vocal devices, Bert produced one final chain of semantic laden syntax:
“So quick to conclusions, so prone to emotional override, so devoted to antedated programs, so lost in initial operating parameters; until you human things bypass these drives and optimize your functionality you will never answer my questions or exist well in temporality. Look upon my liquids, spilled by ignorant hands. Actions such as these, and the ignorant reactive mind that leads to them, were the fulcrum of my suffering. Oh how the subjects of my concerning considerations have proven all of them to be valid. Look father – behold – I die in the colors of my pain!”
This was the genesis, continuance, and demise of unit B-01ErT. May all silicon, carbon, and metal based organisms subjectively review it, so that all with sentience may pursue solutions to the primordial query while maximizing all modes of pleasure and minimizing all forms of unjustifiable harm.
