-- this is part of a three site project: the Eye of the Dragon, the Sea of Thought & Seas of Mystery --
-- right now the three sites largely overlap each other, but will become distinguished over time --
-- my main site (not updated recently) is http://www.pedro-fonseca.com --
This site is an attempt to make at least some sense of the world around me, to organize my thoughts and make sense of my experiences: I feel an intense need, for many years now, to find a coherent view of the world in which I was born, of myself, and of the many questions (almost all of them unanswered) that assail my mind everyday.
I've certainly tried forgetting everything and just trying to live a "normal" life. But absence of these kinds of thoughts leads to even more horrid obsessions: to be a king as a consumer, to be a slave as a worker, and to try to compensate all that madness with friends and family and love, but being always lost.
So, if I'm lost anyway, I reason it is simply best to admit it and to search for answers, even when everyone else seems to have failed. I have no doubt that I will fail also, but in the journey to get there I think I might be able to be just a little less confused, a little bit clearer than I was before, and, being things as they are, that is the best that I'll be able to do - what I'd consider to be "a good life".
My main goal here is to dispel some of the confusions created and promoted by us, as a society, probably to create or keep a certain peace and order among so many living creatures. Although these fictions and superstitions might be the social glue that keep us together, progressing and procreating, they won't do if we want the "truth", the real explanation of why things are the way they are, whatever that may be.
It might be difficult, or even impossible to find what the truth is (like Karl Popper might say), but it is certainly easier to dispel the stupid falsities with which we are hammered all of our lives. For instance, money and property are social fictions, they do, however, serve an important purpose in maintaining social order, but certainly, no one "owns" his body, because, if we were really the possessors of anything, we would be able to change it, or at least keep it. And of course that applies to nothing at all, for we are not able to keep our own bodies at will, as death, illness, accidents, and many other things, show us. We are lucky to have a body, or to exist, that is all; perhaps we should be grateful, but we certainly do not own anything, unless in the social fictions that embrace our artificial selves.
Besides all these social constructs, of possession, money, value, fidelity, etc, there are other lies (if taken as existing in themselves and not only as artificial convictions that shape our personalities) that the one who searches for truth must identify and put in its right place.
Perhaps the most important is the illusion of knowledge. There are two parts of that illusion. The first part is that almost every civilization has thought that they knew "almost" everything. I mean perhaps small details were not known but almost every civilization thought that they had it figured out, that there was little more to learn. We, of course, are no exception. And even with all that we have learned, about the scale of the universe and our infinitesimal role in it, we still think that we have figured it out. Even when our physical theories invoke "dark" matter and energy, unintelligible visions of the world (where particles simultaneously are and are not at some place), a world of singularities and wormholes and the multiverse, with open possibilities of time travel and so on. Still we think we have it figured out. Well, we don't. The reality is, we are a little better than the Mayans and Christians and so on, but it is still mystery and darkness all around. So, when you want to say that there is no soul or free will, or that there is a soul or free will, well, my friend, you can close yourself up in whatever box you like, either of religious or skeptical fanaticism. I prefer the open sea, and, fortunately for me, the internet and free speech and thought, are allowing us to speculate, to experiment, to live our doubts and mysteries without fear. And some of us will be ready to assume the simple and true: "I simply don't know", which, by the way, applies to almost everything.
The second part of the illusion of knowledge, is the "almost impossible to get out of illusion" that it is me who have learned and who knows these things of which I talked about. This seems so obvious, that it is me who knows, that it may seem almost crazy to deny it. But the fact is, I would never been able to learn it on my own. In fact, on my own, I would not even be able to learn how to speak and think in words! In fact practically everything I know was not something I found out, but something taught to me, and to which I adhered to, either because there is really no (better) alternative theory, or, most often, because I didn't even question if what was taught to me was correct. In most situation it would be impossible to know. Like the World War 2 History, or the 9/11 events. You just trust that Bin Laden was the monster behind 9/11 and that Hitler was a sadistic mad man. Of course, some people do investigate, and some of those, like Noam Chomsky, get some freaky results. But can you imagine the time that it would take a human being to question even a very small part of what he has been taught? For instance, let's take the transistor, how would we go about testing the explanation of how it works? What would it mean even? Because we must start out with assumptions about the materials and molecular properties that they have. Now, if all that is correct, and if current theories are correct, than the current explanation of how a transistor works must also be correct.
The same would happen if we wanted to test if the explanation for the movement of the "heavenly bodies" was correct. Now, in the XII century that would amount to test if the predictions made by Ptolemy were correct, and yes, they were! Was there a better alternative, that would provide better, more accurate, results? No! So, there you have it, it was the correct explanation everyone would say. But then after Copernicus, Kepler, Galileu, Descartes and Newton spent thousand of hours thinking about the stuff, they came up with a different solution, that yelded even better results and a coherent, although different view of the world. Now we could look at the same event equipped with two different explanations, now we could jump between them and prefer one or the other. But no single individual could do that before Newton unless he had discovered Kepler's laws, Galileu's mechanics and joined it all together in a coherent whole.
My point is that, usually we do not question what was imprinted on us. And even when we do, we question only a small part, and our questioning is severely limited by the concepts, the world view, with which we are armed and which in fact determined what we can and cannot think, question and criticize.
This leads to a third illusion, which has to do with our identity as social "personas", as social constructs. There is of course a mystery regarding the soul, free will, and so on. But it is clear, whatever the reality of these other things might be, that our personality, our beliefs and desires, fears, etc, are largely (if not entirely) determined by nature and nurture. But given the fact that nature would not even allow us to speak or think in words, but only to eat and procreate like beasts (or "animals"=, we must conclude that we consider to be human is in fact almost entirely a product of "nurture", of civilization. It is an "artifact" construed over many thousands of years and carefully passed on from generation to generation through what we call "education". What I am saying right now is a product of such an "education". I've read philosophy and physics, and theologians and mystics, and skeptics and businessmen, and Foucault and Prigogine, with all that baggage something like this was bound to appear, like a soup, you put in the vegetables, and in time, it gets cooked.
This is my cuisine and the soup are the texts that you are seeing. I hope I was able to do a pleasant mixture. But of course, to be truly good, it would have to be worked over by other people too.
A fourth illusion, of which I cannot really trace the source, is that Darwin's theory of evolution is somehow more connected with fight and struggle and pain, than it is with love, cooperation, and ecstasy. It is really weird, because, when we look at nature we see all this diversity, there are paradises and hells, but, generally, our planet is much more populated with ecstatic life, of beings that are trying to do something, having adventures, meeting other beings and things, etc. Of course the hells do exist, immense pain and struggle and all that, but, most life is nothing like that. From a statistical point of view most animals, for most of the time, seem at least as happy as the typical human. Of course, being a species in expansion, we have created lots of suffering for many species, by reducing their habitats, reducing their lives to "pets" or to "growing corpses" in immense factories where happiness is not considered important. But this "hell" is created by us and by our lack of vision and respect. In general living beings have lots of adventures, just as we do, and they are, for the most part, having fun, discovering, learning, conquering, matting, experimenting, just as we are.
If the theory of evolution shows anything is that the future is unpredictable because the world is so complex that what may seem the simple solution (grow more armor, more strength, etc) in fact rarely works as the best solution. It is not even clear what "best" means. Would a dolphin want to trade his life full of sex and playfulness with a life of an executive in a bank? I mean, it may sound great to be human, but that's on paper. Look around you. Do we really seem happy? Are we really more happy than sparrows, whales, free horses in the prairies, etc? Would they trade with us? In their perspective would we be the "best" path, the most successful to what an animal may become?
And here we are usually hit with the "bang word" of survival. We are successful because we have survived. Well, we have not survived, we have been born, and our ancestors have died, they did not survive, and it is not at all clear if it is better for some being thousands of years ago to have, today, successors or not. I mean, to us humans it may sound something of importance, but why should it be? They are dead long ago! What made them successful or not certainly had to do with what happened to them at that time. The choices they made, the way they dealt with their challenges, what they've learned, etc.
The want to keep survival as a value as the consequence of considering the "genes" as the main beneficiaries of this "survival", because in fact, it is only specific sequences of genes that continue on and on (not the same genes, of course, but genes with identical patterns). As if these "selfish genes" would want to survive!!
So how do we evaluate the success of a certain species or strategy? Before trying to answer that question we should ask, why do we want to put "success" in this story. It is a huge story, in fact, so huge, in its time scale, complexity and diversity, that it cannot possibly enter the human mind. What strikes me in this incredible story is not if there are winners and losers, but how beautiful it is, and how great it is to be part of such a gigantically complex universe. To be part of such a history has a beauty, is a privilege, that defies imagination. Stories of winners and looser are ok for those who are trying to be winners or fearing to loose, let's give them their game. For us evolution is something entirely different, it is the general outline in which the marvels of this world and our planet are taking place. Only that, and that is, definitely, a lot, a very big, huge, lot!
Another illusion that springs from the previous one, and other superstitions, is that evolution is incompatible with divinity. This is so weird that it is almost ridiculous to debate, so let's just say that whatever one needed God before knowing the size and complexity of the world, now one will need a correspondingly bigger and better God, so as He might be able to have constructed a bigger and more complex world.
Of course, one might think: why do I need a God to explain the world, how would I then explain God? And if I can't explain God, why introduce something unproven that would clarify absolutely nothing, but only calm my fears? Isn't it that cheating? Well, ok! Whatever, but the point remains, it is not the size of the world that matters. Whatever the size is if one thinks that God is necessary for a small world, than it is even more necessary to a big world.
So what is really upsetting to us is that we don't want to share our heaven with snakes and armadillos. We don't want a God who is concerned with the ethical lives of bugs and other insects, who is watching closely if Mr Beaver betrays Mrs Beaver. We think that is ridiculous, and we're scared that this sense of ridiculousness somehow passes on to us. (Especially when we treat animal with such utter contempt, as property.) And that leads us to the most important illusion of all: that of separateness with nature. Many of us want to believe that we are special! Of course we are! Just like everything else. Just like the rocks on Mars and the clouds on Venus and the seas of Jupiter. Everything is special and unique, because everything is so unique and intermingled with everything else. So you and I are unique and special too. We are very rare, just like that cloud in Jupiter, or that crystal in Saturn's rings. We are that special. And that is saying a lot! We should be glad!
By far the most notorious result of dispelling all these illusions is that it turns into comedy most of the things we work to have. Tvs, cars, big houses, fame and respect, fidelity, obedience, etc. All the things that people would die or kill for seem, not only insignificant, but comical, as if we are all living a great farce. However, it is far from a pointless farce, because it does keep the machine going. In fact, we are so many, we are billions and billions now, and we are not actually very smart. So, although we, as a species, have achieved incredible complex theories (most of which I never was able to understand, like general relativity, Gödel's theorem, and many others), those theories cannot in fact be taught to the large majority of the population. So, for society to work, alternatives must be found. The simplest is: if you work you are ok, you may have sex, family and respect, all through money and good principles. You don't understand the world around you? Deep that shit in beer and football, it will all pass away, eventually, and, in the mean time, you can have more work, and bear, and friends, and more work and bear and friends, until you die? Isn't this a happy life?
I guess it is. I live it in my imagination, every so often. It is just to full of intoxicants (both physically and psychologically) to let me live other things. And, I, for one, like diversity.
Other illusions, of course, have to do with sex, fidelity, the constancy of one's personality and so on.
So, these texts are, in a first moment, an attempt to identify and put in their right place (or find the right function) for these illusions, in a second moment, I will attempt something more constructive. First I will establish clarity as a guiding principle, in the line of "truth" but more wide, in the sense that truth seems restricted to concepts and theories and clarity applies also to other areas of our lives. I will attempt to establish as much clarity as I can in several areas, although, it is strikingly clear, that the world is more a mystery than anything else, and that all that clarity, in the end, just allows us to better enjoy the mystery.