Still Not Smelling What Frank Tipler is Cooking

I was impressed by the depth and conviction of James Redford’s comment on my Tipler essay. Again as my reply to his comment approached the 500 word mark, I decided to make it a follow-up to what I said earlier:

Hello Mr. Redford,

Thank you for your detailed comment on my previous essay on Dr. Tipler's Omega Point Theory. While you have provided me with a great deal to contemplate, I figured that the simplest way to absorb your argument and craft an appropriate response would be to focus on the popular exposition that Dr. Tipler provided in the Wired article referenced from the Theophysics site "From 2100 to the End of Time".

According to this article, Tipler himself says that the Omega Point is “infinitely improbable” in the absence of universal colonization. But once we enter the realm of speculation on the feasibility of universal colonization, even if I were to concede that physics and cosmology say it is possible (which they do not if the rate of universal expansion does not decrease) we have left the domain of fundamental science and entered that of futurism.

Once the argument veers in this direction Tipler’s impressive resume becomes merely a well-decorated piece of paper in light of all of the non-scientific issues that would have a significant bearing on a possible Earth-originated universal colonization effort (Finance, Economics, Politics, Law, Diplomacy, etc.).

The fact that the Omega Point Theory is so critically dependent upon so many non-scientific factors means that it is not a theory of fundamental science. That is unless Tipler believes that what he characterizes as the law of the indestructibility of quantum information directly influences human decision-making as he evidently believes it will somehow slow the rate of expansion of the universe.

While its non-fundamental nature does not in itself invalidate the theory, it does undermine Tipler’s credentials for being taken completely seriously where his speculations are dependent upon events beyond his area of expertise (teleology is a philosophical outlook, not a scientific one). This is analogous to a quantum mechanic who does not fully grasp the underlying mathematics.

In addition, for all of Tipler’s impressive hand-waving, to date cosmologists have not arrived at a consensus on the nature of the phenomenon responsible for the observed increase in the rate of universal expansion (be it dark energy, quintessence or fairy dust). For all he knows this phenomenon could be based on a more fundamental law of nature than the law of the indestructibility of quantum information, which Tipler insists is why the universe must stop expanding and ultimately collapse towards a singularity in a finite amount of time. Or for that matter if singularities manifest on (or below) the Planck scale the law of the indestructibility of quantum information may not apply to them since no other fundamental laws are applicable there (this is after all the sub-quantum level).

In this context my reasonable doubts persist. As a result, I feel comfortable going with the latest cosmological observations and Tipler’s own words, which indicate that there will most likely not be a material Omega Point at the end of our universe. Mind you, the framework I have developed is based on a metaphysical Omega Point (and an indistinguishable Alpha Point) and so I do embrace the idea conceptually, just not necessarily on a material level.

Not Smelling What Frank Tipler is Cooking – Part I

As indicated by the preceding three essays, I have certain issues with Ken Wilber, not so much with his the core of his (primarily Dharmic) theory of Reality as with how he chooses to frame it. In the light of my ardent support for scientific rationalism one might reasonably assume that I would be more in tune with the materialist theory of Reality put forth by Frank J. Tipler, professor of Physics and Mathematics and author of several books, most notably, ‘The Physics of Immortality’. But, in the words of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, I cannot smell what Frank Tipler is cooking.

If you wanted to describe the science-based theory of Reality that is furthest from my views, you would be hard-pressed to do better than Tipler’s ‘The Physics of Immortality’. According to Tipler, numerous key elements of spiritual (primarily Christian) eschatology including the Resurrection of the Dead, Judgment Day, Heaven and Hell are supported by contemporary physics. This thesis alone led to his book becoming a major bestseller. Though he is a credentialed scientist with an impressive resume, Tipler’s theory simply does not hold up very well from either a scientific or philosophical point of view.

To save time let me first focus on the one thing Tipler posits that I agree with in a general sense. Tipler theorizes the existence of the Omega Point, a material singularity at the end of time that represents the ultimate destiny of all beings. In my framework the ultimate destiny of every distinguishable entity is Unity in what is essentially a metaphysical singularity. But even in this area of relative agreement Tipler and I do not see eye to eye.

For one thing as a hardcore causal materialist, Tipler characterizes the Omega Point as a God-like being (though he claimed to be an atheist at the time he wrote ‘The Physics of Immortality’) that represents the purely material end-product of the entire causal dynamic. As described by Tipler the essence of the end of this process is that the universe will continue to expand to a certain point at which gravity will overcome the expansion caused by the Big Bang and initiate a period of contraction that will end in what cosmologists refer to as the Big Crunch.

According to Tipler certain rather extraordinary events must transpire in the period leading up to the Big Crunch to lead to the formation of the Omega Point that is consistent with Christian eschatology. The most incredible of these events is that somehow intelligent life on Earth (Tipler argues against there being intelligent life anywhere else in the universe) is supposed to colonize the entire universe between now and the Big Crunch. Here Tipler steps way out of his element but proceeds to describe this dynamic as though his specialties included the Philosophy of the Mind, Information Theory, Aerospace Engineering, Cybernetics and a host of others. Tipler’s tendency to imply that his doctorate in physics and ability to cite largely obscure authoritative sources makes him an expert on pretty much everything reminded me of our friend Ken Wilber.

Tipler insists that in order for the (super) aware Omega Point to form (as opposed to simply a mindless, lifeless singularity), intelligence, in the form of sentient machines, must take over the entire universe such that life is actually able to significantly change the gross structure of the universe in a way that distorts its inevitable gravitation collapse. This alteration allows for the manifestation of a truly universal intelligence that brings about many of the predictions of the Christian Bible in the final microseconds before the Big Crunch. In addition, because of the nature of this universal intelligence and the manner in which it reshapes time itself, these last few material microseconds will last for an informational eternity.

Tipler’s claim that this fantastic hypothesis is not inconsistent with cosmological theory did not make it much easier for me to believe than the Book of Revelations. The primary reason for this is the fact that the years since the initial publishing of ‘The Physics of Immortality’ have not been kind to the a key prediction underlying Tipler’s theory. In the interim cosmologists have determined that his fundamental premise that the universe will collapse into a singularity is highly improbable. Current cosmological observations indicate that our universe’s rate of expansion is increasing, arguably thanks to the phenomenon known as dark energy. This increasing rate of expansion indicates that the universe is not likely to collapse into the singularity, an event that is a necessary condition of the formation of Tipler’s Omega Point.

Tipler has since come up with some re-interpretive hand-waving in an effort to re-validate his theory but it is difficult to take him seriously when he himself put forth in ‘The Physics of Immortality’ that it is the falsifiability of his theory that makes it a scientific rather than philosophical or spiritual speculation. One of the critical falsifiable aspects of his theory is the fact that he unequivocally predicts that the universe will collapse into a singularity.

I picked up‘The Physics of Immortality’ well after cosmologists had largely disproved one of Tipler's key predictions. As a result, reading it felt analogous to encountering a seemingly rational exposition on life after the Second Coming that is predicated on the belief that it occurred during the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

More Wilbermania

Stoner is giving me a great opportunity to expand on my thoughts in this area and I thank him it. This is my response to his latest response:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem essentially says is that for a sufficiently complex system there will be postulates that cannot be proved in the context of that system. He put the stake in the heart of the early 20^th century program to develop as quantitative system based on a static handful of axioms that could be used to explain “everything”.

In light of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem I maintain that consistent, but unprovable postulates should be accepted as premises of the system until either more general postulates encompass them (the separate postulates that all humans are warm-blooded and all birds are warm-blooded are encompassed by the single postulate that warm-blooded animals include all birds and mammals) or contradictory evidence is found (I cannot prove that all swans are white but I can accept it as a premise until I see a non-white one). Godel implies that the rate of postulate consolidation will always lag that of new postulate discovery. This means that the set of premises in such a system is always growing. But I regard this process as asymptotically approaching the objective of complete understanding.

I prefer to consider things in the context of Georg Cantor who established to my satisfaction that it is possible to develop rational postulates about the nature of infinity without having to count to infinity. This “theory precedes experiment" approach (philosophically, this corresponds to rationalism before empiricism) is also how much of physics works these days.

Today leading theoreticians develop models of complex physical systems by integrating and extending more mature theories in a manner that remains consistent with the essence of how things are observed to work. Wilber seems to believe that physics is still operating within the Francis Bacon paradigm. But physics has matured to the point where experiments are done to confirm theories, more often than theories are created to explain experiments. The resultant theoretical models form the basis of a framework that explains (or can be extended to explain) novel phenomena. I ultimately used this approach to develop my framework.

How do I know scientific, materialistic rationalism is the one path of truth? I hope I’ve been clear that I accept that there are multiple paths to the truth, including the spiritual epistemologies. I would ask why Wilber insists that scientific, materialistic rationalism is not a path to the truth? Just to be clear, I do not regard myself as a scientific, materialist but I let their methods inform my approach.

How do I prove my framework according to scientific materialistic rationalist criteria? Rationalism isn’t about proving things, it is about explaining things without requiring untenable leaps of faith. The key to meeting this requirement is the axioms of the framework. If a rational observer perceives these axioms to be irrational, she is free to reject the system upon which they are based. This is where subjectivity threatens to derail rationalism. But this subjectivity is ultimately overcome by consensus building over time. Yes, in the short run this manifests as the academic ‘Good Ole Boy’ network from which Wilber is largely being excluded. But over the long haul, the pull of truth inclines things towards a more impartial outcome.

The academic acceptance problem of spiritual epistemologies in general is based on the fact that they admit to their irrationality up front (be they pre-rational or trans-rational). This is where I find Wilber’s attempts at rationality to be inauthentic. He seems to appreciate that he risks consignment to the personal enlightenment ghetto if he leads with his irrationality and so he puts up a rational smoke screen of citations and jargoning in an effort to get rationalists to take him seriously.

But Wilber cannot hide the irrational core of his system: the ineffable Spirit. This ineffability ultimately leads to the Principle of Explosion, which essentially states that anything is possible once you accept a contradiction. Spirit is the ultimate contradiction. The Principle of Explosion and the Law of Non-contradiction (i.e., a postulate cannot be both true and false at the same time) are lines that few rationalists are willing to cross. I chose to plow right through them and came back with something that is both completely rational and largely consistent with the core principles of spirituality.

There is a petulance to Wilber’s rejection of quantitative rationalism that seems a bit childish to me (there is no denying that ‘flatlander’ is generally used as a pejorative). Did Lisa Randall turn him down for a date or Gregory Chaitin kick sand in his face or what? He is lumping all quantitative rationalists into a derogatory category and yet he insists that people acknowledge the difference between contemporary pre-rational (“New Age”) and trans-rational (“Integral”) non-rationalists. Sure there are know-it-all quantitative thinkers who believe everything can be explained by numbers. But the vanguard of quantitative thought (and rational thought in general) is comprised of many individuals who simply regard the boundary of what we can know as flexible.

Physics has been leaking out of Wilber’s UR quadrant (whose core of atoms and presumably sub-atomic particles, it pretty much owns) into the core of his LR through its increasing integration with cosmology (which owns this quadrant’s core of galaxies, stars and planets). This indicates why the work of physicists and mathematicians should not be discounted in the search for the ultimate truth. Who knows, they may actually find the universe in a grain of sand :-).

More on What is Ken Wilber Selling

A friend whose opinion I respect posted a reply to my first Ken Wilber essay. As my reply to his reply approached the 500 word mark, I decided to make it a follow-up to what I said earlier:

John,

Thanks for your insightful commentary. I have no problem with anything you said. My issue with Ken Wilber is that he won’t just stay in the mystical domain you describe. Instead he keeps trying to surround the essence of what you’ve stated with the trappings of rationalism while claiming to be trans-rational.

Wilber has a tendency to cite a numerous scientific and philosophical rationalists and use a lot of their jargon in making his case. I interpret this to be a cosmetic attempt to inject some rational rigor to his essentially mystical message. I imagine that if he only cited ancient and modern Dharmic, Daoic and Abrahamic spiritualists he would most likely be (even more) marginalized to the personal enlightenment ghetto. Wilber obviously wants to be taken seriously in academic circles beyond that ghetto and so he cites sources from more upscale scholastic neighborhoods. He justifies this by claiming that he is simply trying to integrate Eastern and Western thought on this subject.

I don’t buy that claim because I do not accept Wilber’s basic premise that the fundamental nature of reality is trans-rational. The fact that neither Wilber nor any of his mystical sources know of a rational perspective that explains the fundamental nature of reality does not mean that such a perspective does not exist. Wilber doesn’t seem to realize that saying you cannot find the words to explain something does not necessarily mean that there are no such words.

Unlikely as it sounds, I actually have found a rational insight into the fundamental nature of reality. I was reading Wilber’s book (ironically, you initially brought him to my attention way back when) in a continuing effort to vet my framework. Not only does it agree with a significant portion of what Wilber says, I can go him one better by rationally explaining why things are the way he characterizes them to be (rationality is a requirement that the Lila explanation simply does not meet).

In reading Wilber through the lens of my framework it is obvious to me that there is minimal rational cohesion to what he is putting forth, despite all of his pseudo-rational jargoning. He provides an interpretation of what is out there (his AQAL structure) but no system of basic premises and subsequent arguments that explain why (Rationalism 101). If he could either drop the rational pretense or add some truly rigorous rationality to his framework he would seem more authentic to me.

This is not to say that I don’t buy his trans-rational approach; I merely insist that it does not represent the only path to understanding. It is unfortunate that he generally dismisses physicists, mathematicians and other quantitative rationalists as irrelevant, materialist flatlanders (BTW, would you explain to me why the low end of the Upper Right quadrant of AQAL ends at atoms? Decades ago the Standard Model jury came back with guilty verdicts on the existence of more fundamental electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc.). These disciplines have come a long way since his spiritual sources originally concluded that rational answers are impossible. It was by extrapolating from these fields of study that I found my rational answers. If Wilber is truly being “integral” he should look more deeply into these quantitative fields. What he learns might surprise him.

What is Ken Wilber Selling?

I just finished reading ‘The Simple Feeling of Being’, a 2004 compilation of Ken Wilber's works assembled by a group of his disciples. As a not especially spiritual person, I was surprised at how much he said that I could agree with once I translated certain key terms from his terminology to mine. There is nonetheless a huge gulf separating our points of view. The basis of this chasm is that Wilber is a mystic while I am a rationalist.

In my world view a mystic is someone whose metaphysical belief structure is based on an ineffable absolute whose impenetrable nature undermines our capacity to rationally understand reality. By contrast, I regard a rationalist as someone who believes it is possible to answer the primal metaphysical questions regarding our origin, purpose and ultimate destiny, by extrapolating information from the world around us.

My real problem with Ken Wilber is that he is a mystic in rationalist’s clothing. Wilber claims that his beliefs are supported by empirical evidence gleaned from the world around us, thus implying that the former can somehow be derived from the latter. But it is obvious to me that he actually starts out with pre-existing mystic beliefs and simply cherry picks the rational positions that support it.

In reading through Wilber’s works, it becomes evident that he does not actually explain the system he is describing. From his expositions it is obvious that all roads lead to the ineffable entity that he refers to as Spirit, Kosmos, One Taste and other mystical appellations. To rationally apprehend Wilber’s system you must understand this absolute entity. But every time Wilber traverses an expository sequence (filled with incessant jargoning and non-stop scholastic and spiritual name-dropping), he always comes back to Spirit. At this point he invariably ceases any effort at explaining and starts describing things in poetically paradoxical terms.

The poetic paradox ploy is a common dodge used by mystics to convince audiences that the ultimate answers they seek are incredibly beautiful (hence the poetry) but rationally impenetrable (thus the paradox). This maneuver represents a classic bait-and-switch scheme. After leading the reader to the precipice with “rational” insights, when it is time for the payoff, we are told that we have to abandon rationality to go beyond this point. As an individual who has found my own rational answers to the ultimate questions, I find this gambit to be somewhat disingenuous.

There are only two possible explanations for why Wilber would do such a thing. One is that he does not know the rational answers underlying the world around us and the other is that he does. I would prefer to believe that he is simply ignorant. Since he consistently insists that there are no rational answers to the ultimate questions, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he believes he is selling used cars as new (age old answers dressed up in contemporary terminology) and not snake oil (discredited superstitions) to cancer patients (angst-ridden truth seekers).

Bear in mind that while I have obvious problems with Wilber’s approach, on an essential level I agree with a good deal of what he as to say in the realm of metaphysics. The fact that his mystic interpretation of reality has much in common with my rational one indicates to me that underlying all of his grandiose claims, there is valid knowledge in his source frameworks. I point beyond him to his sources because there is nothing at the core of his system that a Hindu guru or Buddhist lama from millennia ago would have trouble understanding. Wilber seems to be simply going through the various sciences and philosophies of the mind and “integrating” positions that are consistent with ancient Dharmic, Daoic and Abrahamic beliefs. The convergence I see between Wilber’s interpretations of these beliefs and my rational framework reinforces for me that there is indeed something fundamentally valid in these venerable frameworks.

The Second Lowest Position on the Totem Pole

I have often heard people who have never lived in crime-infested, dilapidated housing question why anyone in their right minds would stay in such places. I find this ironic since many of the people who feel this way are suffering from the same malady that is keeping many of these residents in their sub-optimal circumstances. I refer to this condition as the Second Lowest Position on the Totem Pole Syndrome (SLOPOTOPOS, pronounced SLŌ-PŌ-TŌ-PŌS).

SLOPOTOPOS sufferers are aware that there is a great deal of room for improvement in their current situations. But they are kept from acting on this awareness by their perception that things could easily get worse. These individuals feel there is no guarantee that any change they initiate would improve their condition and there is a realistic possibility that it will make matters worse. For people living in sub-standard housing SLOPOTOPOS is a significant factor in keeping many of them there (though obviously not all of them). It is also a major reason why many of those questioning the judgment or sanity of these residents do not quit their soul-sucking jobs.

It doesn’t matter how horrific their circumstances are, as long as people can imagine them easily becoming much worse, they can convince themselves that their current condition is not bad enough to necessitate action on their parts. People in demeaning jobs can take solace in the fact that at least they don’t live in “bad neighborhoods”. People living in such neighborhoods can at least say they have a home. Homeless people can say they at least have food to eat and so on. In each case the individuals appreciate that their situations are not good but remain in them for fear of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. They see the spectrum of increasingly less fortunate conditions below them as the single state that represents the actual bottom of the totem pole.

SLOPOTOPOS has probably been with us in one form or another since the dawn of human societies. But it became a more problematic condition as societies became less rigidly structured. This social evolution led to increasing numbers of people realizing their actions could significantly influence the course of their lives. People began to see that it was both permissible and possible to rise above the circumstances into which they were born. But for many this perception was tempered by the empirical belief that things could also get worse.

The decreasing viscosity of the social order led to an increase in the possibility of upward mobility. But fear that this situation also increased the possibility of downward movement led to SLOPOTOPOS, which inhibits exploitation of this new upward mobility. Victims of this condition allow their fear of failure to keep them down in certain circumstances where their less unjust (though hardly “just”) society no longer does.

Ultimately, the current strain of SLOPOTOPOS is the result of the perception that while there is a path to success it is not a ladder but a greased pole. Sure it’s possible to climb to the top but as soon as they loosen their grip to go up, they fear they are more likely to slide to the bottom.

The Impact of Answers

What would it be like to know the answers to the fundamental questions of our origin, purpose and destiny? I don’t mean just best guesses but the actual Answers, the ones that theologians, philosophers and scientists insist we can never rationally know. I’m talking about answers that completely resonate within you on the most fundamental level. As such I mean truly knowing the answers, not simply believing what someone else told you. What kind of difference would such knowledge make in your life?

To get a handle on your answer, first imagine knowing exactly how the universe came to be, with such certainty that the answer seems almost trivial. When you truly think about it, for the majority of us, the most important thing that knowledge of our origin would impart to us is insight into the nature of our creator, be it Brahma, Gitche Manitou, YHWH, Yuanshi Tianzun, Unkulunkulu, Abba (God, the Father), Allah, Damballa, Bondye, the ultimate monad, a limitless quantum field or the multiverse. Minimally, universal acceptance of this insight would provide those who already suspected as much with an “I told you so” moment. While this knowledge might affect how some of us conduct our lives, without insight into why we are here, knowing our origin would merely be an interesting piece of trivia for most of us.

Now imagine knowing exactly what your purpose is. Truly knowing why you are here has greater potential to impact how you live your life. Whether or not this potential would actually be realized would primarily depend on how you felt about your purpose once you knew it. Your perception of the worth of your purpose reflects your feelings about the difference you would make by fulfilling it. Since we tend to believe that great things are only asked of great people, if you weren’t impressed by your purpose, you might be inclined to reject it as an invalid reflection of your worth. Even if you did accept a purpose of dubious worth, your pursuit of it would most likely be halfhearted at best. But, suppose you had unequivocal knowledge of why you are here, and that this purpose was grand enough for you to completely embrace it? What if all it took to fulfill your phenomenal purpose was for you to maximize your selflessness and thus minimize your selfishness? Completely internalizing this knowledge would probably significantly alter the focus of your life in the direction of achieving this purpose.

But some of us might fear that we are not up to the task of fulfilling such a heroic purpose. In order to keep from losing heart these individuals would require the additional knowledge that they are destined to eventually achieve their laudable purpose. Consider what it would be like to know beyond all doubt that it is your destiny to ultimately achieve the greatest of purposes and that the only uncertainty will be in how you go about it. Imagine that you knew for a fact that your choices only affect the amount of pain and suffering that will have to occur before you fulfill a purpose is so incredible that it would completely justify whatever had to happen along the way.

How would you feel about your life in the face of such knowledge of your origin, purpose and destiny? Would that make it all worthwhile? Would you live your life differently? If so, what are you waiting for?

Gender Domains

In my comment on a post by Major Generalist, I referred to ranges of certain human dispositions that span a common origin. In that context I posited that for each of these dispositions one side of the origin could be labeled female and the other male. This post is a list of the dispositions that I have been able to come up with so far.

I made a conscious effort to go deeper than the stereotypical, often anti-female, gender labels. My goal was to make both the male and female dispositions I’ve listed represent a valid way of being in the world.

I am the primary template for my male domain. These male dispositions are how I recall being for most of my life (though interestingly less so since I became a father, but that’s a story for another posting). The women who shaped my worldview are the basis of my interpretation of the female domain. The female dispositions listed here are generally the complements of the male ones, vetted through my perception of the women I’ve known. This reflects my personal belief that we are not opposite sexes but complementary genders.

The Female Domain

• Pursuing Perfection (“I want the best”)
• Process-oriented (“Its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game”)
• Efficient (“Waste Not Want Not”)
• Strategic (“The future is what we make it”)
• Nurture (“Greatness is made, not born”)
• The Threat of Change (“Most change is for the worse”)
• Inhibitive (“What happens is what I do not prevent”)
• The Power of Desire (“Show me that you want it”)
• Safety First (“If I am not Safe, I am not truly Free”)
• Communal (“From each according to her abilities to each according to her needs”)
• Distributive (“Water Divided is Water Multiplied”)

The Male Domain

• Pursuing Novelty (“I want what I don’t have”)
• Results-oriented (“Just win, baby!”)
• Effective (“Make It Work”)
• Tactical (“Take care of the present and the future will take care of itself”)
• Nature (“The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”)
• The Opportunity of Change (“You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs”)
• Exhibitive (“I did it my way”)
• The Power of Fear (“Winning through intimidation”)
• Freedom First (“If I am not Free, I am not truly Safe”)
• Competitive (“Survival of the fittest”)
• Acquisitive (“He who dies with the most toys wins”)

Neither genitalia nor sexual orientation is the sole determinant of which of these domains a person occupies. Beyond the expected distributions there are gay men and straight women in the male domain, lesbian women and straight men in the female domain and bisexual and transgendered individuals all over the place.

In this division of dispositions, being in a given domain does not invalidate you as a person. Though each domain can be subjected to negative characterizations, they can also just as easily be positively characterized. Which you choose to do is most likely based on your personal prejudices.

I am sure there are more such dispositions but these are the ones that meant the most to me. Note that during the short time I have worked on these lists, several of these dispositions have flipped sides. While I obviously do not think I am completely wrong here, I readily acknowledge that this is a work in progress and so I am open to constructive suggestions.

The Death of Santa Claus

My 12 year old daughter just confided in me that it is becoming increasingly difficult for her to continue to believe in Santa Claus. That she sees the existence of Santa Claus as still worth considering is a testament to the sophistication of her perception of his (its) nature. I explained to her at a relatively early age that Santa Claus is the name that many European-influenced cultures give to a seasonal spirit of selfless giving.

My idea of spirit is a bit more precise than the prehistoric concept of independent, non-material, sentient manifestations that are capable of influencing the world around us. I regard spirit as the connection among a collection of minds that inclines them to act in unison. Spirits do not exist without component minds any more than minds exist without component neurons. Sports fanaticism, market forces, patriotism, racism and religious zeal are examples of spiritual manifestations.

In this context I explained to my daughter that Santa Claus is simply a spirit that inclines people to be more loving, kind and giving between Thanksgiving and New Years. Santa Claus is an intentional spirit, specifically created by people to bring out the best in them at this time of year. Every mind that contributes to and thus acts out of this spirit is an avatar of Santa Claus. The fat, bearded guy in the red suit is merely how people who cannot imagine such manifestations without bodies choose to picture that spirit.

Over the last few years my daughter has noticed a strong sense of obligation underlying many people’s efforts to give at this time of year. But isn’t Santa about giving freely out of love for others? There must be a different spirit underlying such compulsory giving. The fact that selfless giving is never coerced means that this other spirit must be in competition with Santa Claus. Since these days most people seem to be doing forced giving during the holiday season, Santa must be losing. I guess I should explain to her that, “Yes Akilah, there is a Santa Claus, but he is being killed and eaten by the Spirit of Commerce”.

The Evolution of Wisdom

In the beginning there was Wisdom.
This primitive Wisdom came in two forms, Temporal and Spiritual.
Our Temporal Wisdom told us how to survive.
Our Spiritual Wisdom told us how to grow.

As we contemplated and meditated upon our Spiritual Wisdom it deepened beyond the intuitive grasp of most of us.
As a result, our Spiritual Wisdom came to be seen as Revelatory Knowledge.
When it was written down this Revelatory Knowledge lost much of its depth and complexity as it came to be the scriptural basis of Religion.

As we generalized and extended our Temporal Wisdom in the context of the world around us, we began to accumulate Empirical Knowledge.
This rationally generated, Empirical Knowledge of the world is the essence of Philosophy.
A falsifiable portion of Philosophy subsequently emerged as what we call Science.

The incredible success of Science in explaining our world led to our nearly universal infatuation with rationality.
But rationality has been largely divorced from Spirituality in the context presented by both Science and Religion.
As such, in the domain defined by Science and Religion no rational growth path is evident since in this perspective rationality constrains our capacity to grow spiritually.
However, in the context of our Revelatory and Empirical Knowledge there is no inherent contradiction between rationality and spiritual growth.