COSMIC IMAGES
by F Richard Singer III edition date 11/07/07
website: www.conceptualstudy.org email: richardsinger3@sbcglobal.net
Cosmic Versions By a cosmic version I mean a unified way of looking
at the nature and origin of the universe and the way that persons fit into the
general scheme of things. I am puzzled by the fact that the people I know and
the authors I have read seem to have so little trouble in finding a plausible
cosmic version that they do not consider vague. Does everyone but me have an
implicit substantive preeminent cosmic version? Substantive means having a
commitment to what there really is, as contrasted to a functional perspective
on concepts used to think about the way things seem to work. Preeminent means
that while other versions might be intellectually acknowledged, no other
version is a live option. One reason that I have no cosmic version is that I
find all such versions vague. Even more important, the evidence for and against
all the versions I even vaguely understand seems overwhelming.
For many years, I have had no cosmic version.
All I have are some functional cosmic attitudes, which I call cosmic images in
order to stress the fact that they are vague, and that any attempt on my part
to bring them into a sharper focus runs into the limitations of my ability to
obtain a satisfactory intuitive grasp of anything of cosmic scope. While their
vagueness makes knowledge relevant to their plausibility difficult to obtain,
in principle this should not prevent me from obtaining some such knowledge. The
major barrier is that my cosmic images are remote from most of my ordinary experience,
with almost no direct feedback that enables me to test them. Moreover
the vast amount of indirect evidence I encounter seems to point strongly in
incompatible directions. I have such a limited understanding of what I am, so
how can I have a cosmic version? Without a cosmic version, I need a conceptual
philosophy, one that allows me to think about cosmic images but does not
presume any as fundamental.
The Problem Because I do not know whether I might be able to
survive my biological death, I tend to slip into a grim attitude toward my life, to regard it as a struggle in which I am extremely
competent, but in which I take no joy or satisfaction from anything I do. This
is not literally true, but it states the essence of my attitude. More
accurately, when I find satisfaction, it is accompanied by a feeling of
emptiness or pain. My strategy for living in this grim fashion has been to
accept it as inevitable, and then to develop the strength to endure and create.
I told my persona that I must live this way because of my decision to
experiment with radical originship, and because I do not know how to escape
this quest. I told him that this quest is more important than being secure or
happy, and that this quest makes this grim attitude necessary. I know this is
not so. I know that I should be able to cultivate a balanced and reasonable
attitude, to expect a balance between satisfaction and disappointment, between
pain and joy. My origin quest should not have an unbalanced attitude toward
living. This attitude is rooted in a multitude of experiences thru which I have
learned to live as if some worst case scenario was
almost inevitable. This is an inappropriate attitude, sapping my will to exist
and contrary to my ideal of effective living.
I often feel that it is my lack of a comic
version that tends to give this grim attitude towards my own existence, but
perhaps it is because my life has been influenced too strongly by cosmic images which make various nightmare views of the universe
feel too plausible. I have examined my attitudes towards these and several more
positive cosmic images. I try to give them plausibility rankings from a
detached point of view. The nightmare views do not do as well in this ranking. Thus my attitude is totally at odds with this detached
ranking.
While my grim attitude toward life and my
cosmic nightmares grew together and reinforced each other, my basic experience
is with ordinary living, so this is the main source of these linked attitudes. My
cosmic nightmares are remote from most of my experience, with no direct feedback which enables me to test them. This
make them resistant to change. However they
were learned, largely thru early cultural conditioning, and my emotional
attitudes towards them were learned in conjunction with ordinary experiences.
My workfile Auto-Bio examines their roots and traces
the development of these grim attitudes. Here I merely sketch some of my cosmic
images and my attitudes towards them. It is because each such image seem somewhat plausible that I need a philosophy that make
no cosmic commitments.
Type of Cosmic Images My cosmic images come under two main headings, namely
theistic and atheistic. Both headings contains images
that vary from extremely negative to very positive. I discuss those that have
had a significant emotional impact on my life, in particular various
monotheistic and natural evolutionary images. While there are other theistic
and other atheistic images, as well as some which fall
under neither of these headings, I do not feel that these others have had much
of an impact on me. For example, I do not consider any pantheistic images.
Monotheistic Images The dominant factor for this universe is a personal god, that is a god who engages in deliberate action. Under
this heading comes both my worst nightmare and my most
hopeful one. I refer to the images below as calvinism, deism, personal theism.
God is calvinistic,
and has predestined most persons to eternal damnation. I am predestined to
damnation, not because I deserve this, but because I cannot like a god who
would allow anyone to be eternally damned.
God created the particular universe in which
we live. God is good and loving, but God plays no continuing role in human
affairs. He merely created the universe in such a way that persons would evolve
and have the potential to shape and create their own destiny in this universe. However life in this universe can be a process in which a
person may be able to shape a will capable of surviving beyond this universe.
God is still creating the universe in which
we live, but with other persons as junior partners in this task. God is good
and loving. God plays a continuing role in human affairs, but does so primarily
by acting as a source of spiritual power for persons. Ultimately, all persons
who so choose will spend eternity with God, and for those who find the thought
of eternity too dreadful, God will be merciful.
Calvinism has plagued me since I was about 15
year old. I recall reading
During most of 1989 I tried, without success
to replace my calvinistic fears with a positive
monotheistic image, much like the one used by most Quakers. I have a partial,
but highly positive subcept of a personal God. I want
the emotional barriers to a hope for such a God to fade, and I want small
positive experiences that might make the reality of such a God seem plausible
to me.
My main problem with any positive theistic
image is the problem of Evil. This is less of a problem with the deistic image
than with the personal theistic one. The main reason I could not hold onto
deism is because its only support was rational. There is no strong cultural
tradition supporting deism, and by its very nature there cannot be much
personal experience supporting it. On the other hand personal theism has a long
traditional support in our culture and has a potential to be supported by
personal experience. However the few things in my personal experience that make
this alternative plausible are more than countered by my emotional reaction to
the problem of evil, especially natural evil. I cannot feel that any account of
evil as resulting mostly from deliberate human action is plausible. I
especially find a calvinistic account of evil as the
result of rebellion against God highly implausible. My concept of rebellion
involves deliberate action against an acknowledged authority. My own personal
experience of human evil is that it results more from the lack of will than the
exercise of will. Also humans spend so much of their life in a state of
vulnerability, so even when evil results from deliberate action, this seems to
be rooted in fears which humans do not have much ability to control.
Natural Evolutionary Images Before any human like species evolved the physical
universe was totally impersonal, but the emergence of humans introduced a
personal element. A self-conscience forward looking intelligence emerged as a
major survival trait in human evolution. With this there occurs an unbounded
capacity for imagination. This opened the possibility of hopes and fears of
vast scope. It also made persons extremely interdependent and vulnerable. I
refer the images below as physicalism, grim paranaturalism, hopeful
paranaturalism.
To exist is to have a natural physical basis.
Humans are purely natural, a product of evolutionary natural selection, and
each person’s existence terminates with physical death.
Humans are paranatural persons resulting as
an accidental product of evolutionary natural selection. We vary in terms of
our ability to take a highly developed future orientation and in the extent to
which this affects our daily existence. Many who have such an orientation are
doomed to a grim existence, because capacity for fear ultimately outstrips
capacity for courage. By accident I am one of those. Being paranatural, I may
even survive physical death, and live on via reincarnation or in some other
realm, without help from some higher spiritual power and without the courage to
effectively confront these fears.
Humans are paranatural persons resulting as a
product of evolutionary natural selection, and this emergence is not merely
accidental. Instead persons are the cutting edge of reality within this
universe. We are the source of transcendent action, and with love and courage
and wisdom persons have an unlimited potential. Being paranatural, some of us
may survive our physical death, bringing with us the useful person
characteristics attained in this world.
The Impact of These Images From 1965 until to 1989 natural evolutionary images
had a tendency to dominate my attitudes and images, although I never adopted
any such image as a cosmic version, and although I was also still pulled toward
theistic images.
From 1965 to 1974 physicalism pulled me
towards indifference, while calvinism pulled me
towards despair. During this time the emotional power of my deistic image
slowly disintegrated. The power of deism came primarily from outside of me,
from my exposure to the intellectual traditions beginning in the 18th century
primarily as a reaction against harsh forms of monotheism. However my reaction against
harsh forms of monotheism was a type of physicalism which looked on any form of
theism or paranaturalism as pure superstition.
In 1975 I decided I was paranatural, and that
this knowledge was too directly a part of my experience to deny, especially on
the basis of a lot of abstract theorizing rooted in a need for some kind of
deterministic certainty and conceptual closure. I decided that both physicalism
and calvinism were too contrary to my personal
experience to be plausible. In particular I decided that calvinism
had plausibility primarily because I felt vulnerable and I had been raised in a
tradition that felt an underlying need to placate a higher power. I also felt
that there was no form of physicalism that I could even partially understand,
since the versions I was expected to accept seemed dogmatic and vague and
pretentious. Furthermore none of the other substantive cosmic versions I had
studied seemed plausible. I decided to trust my own competence, so I formulated
paranaturalism as another evolutionary images. From 1975 to 1989 it was hopeful
paranaturalism that had a tendency to dominate my attitudes, although I
remained somewhat open to both deism and personal theism.
Since grim paranaturalism was a live option
both intellectually and emotionally, and because of my phobias towards
hospitals, its plausibility had a tendency to grow. March 10 1989 I crushed a
vertebrae in my back. My initial reaction to the catscan in the hospital
totally undermined my cutting-edge attitude, and the grim paranaturalism became
emotionally preeminent. The third day in the hospital I experienced an intense
sense of peace and joy. Suddenly I became emotionally open to the personal
theism again. During all of 1989 I remained emotionally open to this image at
least some of the time each day. However, this begin to fade. By July I had
again become susceptible to calvinism and grim
paranaturalism. Which of these was preeminent depended on the level of despair
I was feeling, or perhaps it determined this level.
My Personal Paradox: I have a positive self image and am respected and
admired by others. I am exceptionally competent at many things. I have a
marriage filled with deep love, trust, respect. I have a warm supportive loving
relationship with my family and with many friends. I am an outstanding parent
and grandparent. I have cultivated my cognitive powers so I can deal
effectively with both abstract concepts and ordinary situations, and some very
bright people think I am highly creative. I have the strength of Achilles, but
I also have his heel. I have had a positive impact on others, and I
accomplished purposes that are beyond the resources of most people, but I took
no real satisfaction from their love or what I achieved. Nor could I find much
satisfaction in the minor day to day things that sustain other people.
Sometimes this seems like a paradox, but often I feel that I know what is
missing, namely a deep spiritual connection to other persons or to God, and
without this I suspect I will always feel incomplete.
The Image: My picture is not the universe that LaGrange pictures
in his celestial clockwork. It is not what William James called a iron block
universe, a universe in which no novelties can emerge. Instead, I think of the universe
as a huge bright finite cell immersed in an infinite dark wilderness. The cell
has a complex internal structure. The cell evolves, but more like a society
than an organism. The core of the cell is stable and tightly structured almost
solid and unchanging. The outer regions of this cell is Humanity. This region
seems to be in constant turmoil. It feels threatened by the wilderness, by
itself, even by the core. It does not know where or whether it is really
belongs. Even in this border region there is stability for there are calm
careful elements. They repair the damage and clear the paths that reach into
the cell’s core. They examine the material that flows in from the wilderness,
sometimes rejecting, sometimes making room. Sometimes they even tame parts of
the wilderness, expanding the cell. however the cell remains finite, the
wilderness remain infinite.
The extreme outer boundary of the cell is
will. There is creative chaos in this region. The boundary is fuzzy, not
clearly defined. I also see individual spots of will that seem be out in the
wilderness, outside of the cell. This may be an illusion. Perhaps the small
tendrils connecting them to the cell mean that even they are part of the cell.
Some of these spots are bright, others are almost dark. Some of these light
spots of individual will almost touch. Some are almost completely isolated.
Most appear to grow and fade.
When I sense the fading of such a spot I feel
sadness, relief, determination. At this stage in the development of the
universe I feel it must be a terrible thing feel the pull to become an
individual will, for I do not think many individuals obtain the power to become
viable radical origins. It appears to me that most belong to an intermediate
stage in the potential evolution of creative power. I often wonder if this is a
dead end process. How can an individual will ever become really viable? How can
it, having so recently emerged from a state of helplessness, reach for
unlimited understanding and courage and strength? How can it go from a state in
which all its purposes were given into a state in which it creates purpose? How
can it go from a state of blind secure childish belonging to a state of
originship, and then to a state where the whole cell is an extension of itself.
What is a personal will? I imagine it as a
pawn in a game where the cell is blindly reaching for purpose and creative
power. However these are strange pawns for some of them sense that perhaps
there is no master mover and by default they tend to become the movers of the
game. These pawns are also origins.
If the cell only had awareness it might look
upon individuality and feel a smug sense of satisfaction. What ideal pawns they
make for the game of create and at the same time play it safe. They may destroy
themselves individually, but then as individuals they are expendable, for they
reproduce rapidly enough. Even if they destroy themselves they cannot affect
the totality of the cell. They are partially programmed yet somewhat flexible.
They are programmed with strong individual desires, but have little power as
individuals to obtain these desires. These desires, while individual, are
similar to the desires of others. This provides incentive for both cooperation
and competition. In serving their own purposes they must serve broader ones.
Because they are strongly programmed to preserve their individual existence
they are both conservative and creative. Even the most conservative must react
to the creative efforts of those who live in the wilderness. Those far out in
the wilderness are also ideal pawns. They act as pawns even as they aspire to
be masters of the game.
Where I Am: I in many ways I live within a very good spot within
the cell, for I am loved, respected admired, etc. However it is only my persona
that lives so much within. As a will I am split, being partially directed
within and partially directed without. Part of my will is in a spot at the end
of a long tendril that reaches far out into the wilderness. I cannot tell if
this spot is bright or dim. In some directions there are a few nearby spots,
but in most directions I see nothing but wilderness. I am out here by choice so
fundamental that it cannot be explained. I can feel very cold and empty. It
looks warmer and more comfortable inside. Inside there is structure and
purpose, rules and principles. These reach out to my spot, but I do not feel
bound by them. Yet they affect me. The wilderness nearby affects me more. I
have chosen to explore the wilderness and I create something which is neither
wilderness nor part of the cell, but which might influence the cell’s future.
This may produce evil and I may be cut off. I feel that I am expendable.
Regardless of what I, do the cell can probably disregard my creative efforts. I
endorse this inertial capacity of the cell, although I often feel frustrated by
it.
I am judged by those within, mostly in ways
they find positive. Being well loved, I also tend to judge my purposes and
actions by their principles. Their principles of judgment are objective for
they are rooted in the current nature of what is good. Yet I will not be bound
by such judgment. Being admired tends to draw me into a world that is to
conservative for my tastes. I search for ways to minimize its impact. To live
where I live is to grope beyond good and evil. To act I must balance the
judgment of good and evil against other factors. There are no fixed criteria to
which I can appeal. I can appeal only to my created ideals which are grounded
ultimately in me. My acts of will, while perhaps having little impact, are as
objective as the principles of the universe.
Currently I have one basic ideal, my origin
ideal. My basic purpose is to enhance and expand the power of persons as
origins. This involves a personal struggle for freedom. It involves going beyond
this whenever I encounter anyone else who I sense wants to act as an origin.
This ideal functions almost as an absolute, for I am committed to it though it
leads me into chaos and agony. Yet it is not absolute, for I may be crushed by
the chaos and agony of an impossible struggle and renounce my quest.
I experience a vast emptiness when I ask the
questions about what directions and for what purposes shall I expand my power
of will. I have no answer to these questions.
When I reflect on what I have just written I
am disturbed. I have tried to focus on the fact that I am outside the cell
without judging myself as special, either in the sense of being inferior or
superior. Conceptually, I cannot even make sense of such judgments. The fact
that I am sensitive about this indicates that such judgments are still
emotionally relevant. I has been said that my struggle to be an origin is wrong
in some absolute sense, either being sick or sinful. It may be, but even so I
wish I could merely acknowledge this, and then pursue it anyway. The fact that
I cannot indicates the strength of my previous conditioning. I still desire a
criteria beyond myself. I still tend to feel that to ground behavior ultimately
in me is somehow insane. But when I examine other conceptual nets all I find is
a kind of conceptual chaos which seems to be grounded in a cluster of
subceptual certainties.
I live with an awareness that I have rejected
this type of certainty, that I have actually, not just intellectually, chosen
to live on the edge of chaos, using a radical net for my most fundamental subcepts, and that all too often I will journey into chaos.
Why?
Why
not?