Explaining The Void

Another day has passed and here I am having worked through another musical project. It has often occurred to me in previous times that my music is philosophical in its basis but these days I actually think it is philosophical commentary and expression regarding the subjects that I am thinking about. A case in point is my newly completed projected which, to myself at least, is known as The Emptiness Suite. This comprises my latest four albums, Absence of Presence, Engineers of A Meaningless Universe, Anthropocentric and We Are The Void. Of course, to make music as philosophy is not a straightforward business. When one philosophizes with words one utilizes language which, it might be argued, is much more precise in delineating terms and communicating ideas. But is it? I have read much philosophy written in books that was dense, stodgy and often incomprehensible so it is not as if, in using words, clarity is assured. 

But when philosophizing with music one faces a different task. A primary factor here is that the experience of listening to the music should engender feelings and ideas to do with the subject matter. This is the case here with The Emptiness Suite in that listeners should experience the ideas the sounds are about. One should experience or imagine an absence of presence when listening to Absence of Presence and feel themselves actually in a meaningless universe when listening to Engineers of A Meaningless Universe. When listening to We Are The Void I want you to feel in The Void. I have tried, by the use and manipulation of sounds, to make this a possibility but, of course, I cannot guarantee it anymore than someone who writes philosophy in books can guarantee that you get the point. Crucially though, it is relevant to note here that the music I have made in this suite (and more generally) is not an object, some piece of music that you subjectively appreciate as an entity. My music is an interactive and interdependent experience. How you feel in listening to it, what it makes you think and feel, is exactly the point of it. My ideal listener cannot distinguish between themselves and what they are hearing because it is all taken up in one holistic activity.

All that said, what is The Emptiness Suite about? I think that its a voyage of discovery, a voyage into emptiness, a voyage away from familiarity, a voyage away from much of the thinking that we in The West are immersed in, dominated, as it is, by all kinds of deceptive dualisms. The suite tells a kind of loose story. In Absence of Presence a malady is diagnosed. This malady is that the substance and presence we want to give to things is lacking. It is noticed that things never stand by or for themselves. They always need rhetorical backup. Things are always challengeable or even ignorable and this is worrying. We seem to want something beyond what we have got, something more firm and unarguable. But it is not to be found. This is experienced deep within us as a lack.

The focus then shifts from an implicit view from within a thinking subject to a macro view of the mass of humanity. The second album sets out to view us human beings as the engineers of a meaningless universe. This album is a comment on our activity, meaning and worth on planet Earth. As I see it, we go about building and doing and working, always only having enough to go on and do the same again tomorrow (if we are lucky) but we never build or work on anything that means something by and for itself. In the end it seems as if we are just doing all these things to fight off the nagging fear that if we didn't do something the horror of everything's meaninglessness would sink in. Everything passes away and all that's left is the fact we did a few things. We seek to increase our knowledge and our understanding of the universe through science but what meaning do these things give us? They seem unable to provide any because what does knowledge of particles mean to any of us? Its useless knowledge. We seem impotent to provide the meaning we need and so we build meaningless empires of knowledge instead to give ourselves a purpose that we cannot find in nature. The lack is there again.

And so, in album three, we become anthropocentric. In the famous statement that summarizes the Enlightenment, Man is the measure. When Man is the measure rationality is praised. This album focuses on human beings as they have become today, beings who see themselves as in some sense special or different in the universe. They regard themselves as tasked with a purpose and regard their knowledge and science as ways to objectively improve the situation of both themselves and other things with which they have to do. This is built on the belief that humans beings can have real knowledge of things and objectively understand the universe in which they are set. Thus, human ways of thinking and acting are accorded the status necessary to believe that such goals are possible. It is believed that the universe has a fixed, objective reality and that, as perspicuous beings, we have the possibility to learn what this is. Having this knowledge will, we think, make us the masters of it. I see all this as a kind of God complex within human beings who always either want divinity for themselves or to be put in touch with something more permanent or eternal than they are. It is, for me, another expression of the lack expressed in parts one and two. Human beings are never happy to settle for being just more meaningless matter in an uncaring universe. They always want to build up their part. 

My conclusion is reached in album four, We Are The Void. This is a musical expression of the idea from my last blog "Eureka!" but reinforced by some recent reading of Buddhist texts, notably the so-called "Heart Sutra". Talk of Buddhism may scare some of my readers and I admit that I myself hesitate to read the texts I have done because I am, these days, very wary regarding religious or spiritual doctrines and dogmas. I am looking for neither thing but am open to philosophical insights. And the problem with a lot of religions is that they find themselves unable to resist the urge to make doctrines and dogmas out of things. Surely thousands of years of human history has taught us, however, that ways of understanding change and that if you want to make yourself look a fool write up some document and then say that it is forever eternally true. You will look as silly as those Americans who blather on about the right to bear arms because some guys 200+ years ago wrote the 2nd Amendment. The past cannot bind the future. The future must take care of itself.

So I read The Heart Sutra not as any doctrine or dogma and not to be told "the world is really like this" (which would be a massive mistake, not least in the context of what it says) but in order to stimulate my own thinking about my own place in the world and how I see this vale of tears we call life. Much that I found there is readily compatible with the sorts of pragmatist and existentialist philosophical things I have talked about in numerous blogs. The key idea is that of Śūnyatā (emptiness). This emptiness is not one of nothingness. Rather it is the idea that nothing is one thing. It is a way of expressing the idea that everything is, in fact, a flux of interdependent becoming. (Nietzsche said much the same thing.) This is said because it is recognized that nothing is able to bring itself into being. There is always some other cause outside of itself. Everything is always related to other things and, in this sense, a subject/object duality seems beside the point. (Hence why my ideal listener can't distinguish themselves from the music: its all one holistic event.) I see this idea as readily compatible with something such as Richard Rorty's idea that all meaning and understanding is a matter of panrelationalism, the relating of all things to other things in order to make sense of them. In turn, this is a holistic vision. Everything is one. This insight is for Buddhists a way to enlightenment. It also works well with the existentialist mantra "existence precedes essence". The flux of your experience is paramount, not some magical essence that is supposedly the real you.

I think, in the terms of a centuries old Buddhism, this is a similar thought to my own about we humans being The Void that we diagnose in our life and experience. The lack we feel is at times unavoidable even though we can try to work and build and ignore the voice always waiting to be heard in our heads, the voice that tells us something is missing. It is my idea that we being the very creatures we are creates the void, the lack, that we experience. It is part of the human condition. This Buddhist idea of emptiness, of the radical interdependent flux of being, of all things, ("things" becomes a problematic designation because the Buddhist idea wants to experience a holistic flux and not see an atomistic set of objects) augments this by providing a philosophical background in which my idea can find a home. In this flux we, in our form of being, partake of it. It is, if you will, and without wanting to sound too much like a Swami or a huckster, a way of experiencing reality as a unity without objects and feeling at one with everything else. We are supposed to feel The Void. Experiencing this lack is the good faith of recognizing that there are no gods or eternal divinities for us to get in touch with (whilst simultaneously experiencing the existential rift over which we must leap if we will live). There is just the forever relatability of all things. 

I cannot but admit that this has a therapeutic effect for me. But if you find that out of bounds ask yourself why anyone at all ever asks themselves what their place in the universe is. This is a basic human question and I can't believe that anybody, whatever their answer, does it for any other reason than to provide themselves with some kind of stability, peace or comfort. So if you find it illegitimate of me here - back atcha! The important thing, I feel, is that it is done as honestly as you can. There is no cheating the person you see in the mirror.

So my story is one of people who experience lack, who can never find the permanence and stability they seek. There is always an existential lack, a not quite full enough, not quite stable enough. We try to build empires but they are built on the equivalent of sand. Each gets washed away and superceded. This, I am saying, is because we are the void. We can never fill it because our make up includes this emptiness. It is basic to us and our form of being. This, in turn, is an expression of our link to all other things in a great emptiness, the emptiness that is all things, all things that are interdependently related, forever linked in a flux of becoming.

So that was the text explaining my latest project but, ideally, it should be experienced musically. Maybe it will make more (or less) or different sense when done that way. It is basic to my understanding of life that things which are experienced are those which are, at heart, understood. Book learning, facts, knowledge, only takes you so far. The lesson of emptiness is that all is a matter of relationships and it is only by being in relationship with people and things that we can truly have any understanding of them.

You can hear The Emptiness Suite of albums at my Bandcamp which is at elektronischeexistenz.bandcamp.com

Eureka!

The human mind is an enigma. You can think about an issue for years, decades, and make little progress forward. But then, one day, seemingly for no reason, something clicks. At that point the mental thorn in your side, the niggle that wouldn't go away, the itch you couldn't scratch, becomes resolved. 

Such, for me, has been the issue of the apparent meaninglessness and purposelessness of the universe. Throughout the course of my life I've tried out various solutions to this question but none satisfied. There was still, appropriately enough, a hole at the center of my thinking about this. This hole is a meaningful symbol for what, more generally, might be described as The Void. The Void is where our existence is located and where we have our being. Its best expression is space itself, vast and inscrutable, a vast nothingness which reduces everything within it to just some more inconsequential detritus. It is impossible to place yourself in the context of the mass of space and imagine you are anything important or necessary at all. You just are. Remember that next time you imagine your views matter so much or that things around you must take notice of you. You are literally nothing special.

People, for as long as they could think, have wanted to ascribe some meaning to this vastness. Often they have wanted to ascribe some overarching purpose to it or give some reasoning which explains why everything is and how its all of a piece, a oneness, and to give it some reasonable basis for being. But people have always failed in this and this is why other thinkers have explored its emptiness and what that means for us as thinking people. But this is a clue to where we should be looking for answers. The Void is often conceived as everything out there and, in a spatial sense, it is. But this void of meaning, this void of understanding, is not out there. This particular void is inside each one of us. My "Eureka!" moment is realizing that, actually, we are the void. We have an absence of presence, a presence and substance we try to give things with our descriptive schemes in our role as engineers of a meaningless universe.

For what is it that creates this void of meaning and sets up the questions to which we can find no satisfying long-term answers? What is it that means that all we can ever do is relate things one to another, both giving them context and allowing them to fit into a map of our understandings and beliefs? It is us, us as the universe has given us life. This form of life of ours which must make meaning, must understand, must hold beliefs, it is this which creates the void that we cannot fill. It condemns us to relate things one to another in some great mental act of dexterity so that we can even survive. We must believe things. We must hold what we regard as understandings. Things must mean. Without these operations we would die. They animate us and give us purpose. And so its not some void out there that needs to speak to us and explain itself (and that's good because it never will). The void is in us. The Void is us. We are the ones who create the problem we then cannot solve. Just by being the beings we are. With this form of life we condemn ourselves to explanations but never to an explanation much less the explanation.

And so I ask myself "What is our form of Being?" and I reply "Chaos giving expression to itself." And then I ask "What is my existence?" and the reply comes back "A partaking in my form of Being." All our questions find an answer not out there, not from some God figure, whether personal or metaphorical, but in us, in our form of life, who we are. This form of life offers us up meanings but never the meaning. It gives us beliefs but never the truth. It proffers knowledge but never that thing beyond knowledge in which all talking and thinking would cease because, finally, we have found something that could speak for itself. If there was something (and it would be divine in the truest sense) that could speak for itself then we would have found what human beings have always searched for: something beyond their creative self-understandings with which they could get in touch and about which there would finally be no words, the thing that was not just another thing to relate to something else. But we don't have that. We never will. There are no divinities and, much as we would like it, no God substitutes either. All we have is a void we cannot fill but must, nevertheless, keep trying to.

Given this background, my mind wanders. I think about the Transhumanist agenda I've been interacting with for a year now. Transhumanists want to "improve" the human form of life and they think of this primarily in physicalist terms. So this means they want to stop bad physical outcomes like disease and illness and, eventually, even death itself. Obviously, overcoming death, that decay until life becomes impossible for an organism, is no small task. After all, the laws of the physical universe seem to be that all things decay and die on a long enough timeline. So Transhumanists are happy to go with extending life significantly as a starting point. But I have a huge problem with this and its there in a play by a French existentialist called Jean-Paul Sartre. The play is called No Exit. In this play there are but three characters and they have died. They are in a room and they, so the play seems to suggest, must spend their eternity together. The play focuses on their relationships (which in life were complicated) in this scenario and ends with the comment "Hell is other people".

This comment needs unpacking. Sartre is not saying there, at the climax of his play examining the idea that you would be in the public gaze for all eternity, that everyone else is a shit. That may or may not be the case from your point of view. Sartre's point is more that a life in the gaze of others that does not end is not a life in which people can be themselves. Its like this: imagine you yourself in your public life. You are constantly aware of other people in these types of situations and your behavior is molded to this scenario. You wouldn't do some things in public that you would do when you are home alone in your own place and you imagine no one is watching you. The point there is that the gaze of others changes your behavior and your consciousness of yourself. You often hear a related complaint made about social media where some people act like asses and are then told that they wouldn't act like that if we knew who they were. Exactly! The gaze of other people affects your behavior. Public CCTV cameras (of which the UK has amongst the most in the world) work on the same basis. You are being watched and its affects you. And so you become a socialized version of you and not the you you are by yourself. So why is Hell "other people"? Because it would be to act out that socialized, bad faith version of yourself that is a performance for public consumption forever.

And so how does this relate to Transhumanist dreams of radically extending life and to my "Eureka!" moment? I think its because the Transhumanist understanding of the human being, by which I mean the human form of being, is not adequate to the task. Primarily thinking of us as biological organisms in need of a pep up is not, I think, good enough. Its like thinking of us as a car and saying that if we had a more powerful engine we'd be a better car. Well, we might be. Or you might just ruin the car you had in the first place. Crucially, to my mind, such understandings do not take into account who we are and how we live in terms of our life and existence. And it needs to. Instead, it focuses quite narrowly on the perceived downsides of being physical, that we can be hurt, that we die, and says that if we could solve these things then, somehow (and this point is largely assumed and not explained) things would be better. One thousand years of you is better than eighty years of you, right? Really? Is that what being you is about? Are you just meat that needs to avoid hurt? I think that Transhumanists, either wittingly or unwittingly (and some seem more tuned into this consequence of their thinking than others, to be fair) want to actually supercede a human form of being for a post-human form of being. They want, I think, to head off into the "we are become gods" direction. They want the end of human being.

And this is the problem when, as I see it, we are The Void. Wanting to live forever and cure all diseases is just another way of trying to escape what fate has given us. (And being fated beings is yet another aspect of our being.) This is not to say that we shouldn't try to escape. Its not to say that we shouldn't do any of the things that Futurists or Transhumanists want to do. Its merely to contextualize it. It is, as Richard Rorty said, just one more way to try and escape "time and chance". Its another effort in the on-going plan to escape being human with all its flaws and failures, its pains and struggles. It doesn't, I think, understand or even examine what human being and human existence is at all. I don't think it is to glory in the physical flaws like some masochist to say this. But I see this as the real essence of humanity (in a descriptive and not an actual sense). The human being is the suffering animal, the animal that is aware but never sure of what it is aware. It is the animal that always lacks something. And knows it. It is the finite animal who can see death from almost the beginning of its days. It is the animal that wants and needs and desires. And knows it. Behold, it is become The Void.

I don't think that we will ever become gods. Far too much in this chaotic universe is out of our control. It seems that Dr Stephen Hawking is convinced we will kill ourselves and that some man-made disaster is inevitable at some point. There are many foreseeable future scenarios for this but its just as likely that an unseeable one gets us too. We don't have eyes in the back of our heads. But even if this didn't happen there is too much going on out there for us to control it all. Even the most arrogant of people wouldn't think we could account for everything (another human failing, incidentally). So I do not think that a divine life will ever be something we can approach. Indeed, I think that the urge for divinity is internally generated and part of this form of life that we have now. It is a way to fill The Void with meaning, as we must, as we are impelled by our existence as an expression of our form of being. We are more than biological organisms. Even if you do not think we are in any sense "consciousness" you can at least admit that we have a consciousness. This, too, is part of our being, part of who we are. And its who we are that concerns me when I read philosophers telling me that to become who you are is to find the most meaning that we can in life. 

But when you look into the mirror what do you see? 

Death of A Genius

I woke up this morning to the same news as many will: 

David Bowie died peacefully today surrounded by his family after a courageous 18 month battle with cancer. While many of you will share in this loss, we ask that you respect the family’s privacy during their time of grief.

Instinctively, I knew that this would affect me deeply even though I would not really call myself a David Bowie fan. I'm too old and too long in the tooth to call myself a fan of musicians anymore anyway. When I was younger, during my teens in the 1980s, I wasn't a Bowie fan either. But as I grew up and matured into a man, and particularly as middle age grasped ahold of me, I grew to have a deep appreciation for Bowie's music and, more, Bowie the artist. For an artist is exactly what David Bowie was. I'm listening to "Life on Mars" as I write this and if ever there was a song which encapsulated a world and emotion within a few brief minutes then that is it. 

I think what it was was that I needed to get some kind of handle on what David Bowie was about. His career was idiosyncratic and almost certainly deliberately so. My first memory of anything by him was seeing the video for "Ashes to Ashes" on Top of the Pops, the weekly chart show that used to air in the UK. Thereafter followed the album "Let's Dance" which turned him into the stadium rock star he apparently did not want to be and grew to hate. But before that there was the whole of his music from the 1970s which, for me at least, is what I enjoy the most. As someone who makes music himself, I appreciate this great body of work for its genius, its invention, its craft, its musicianship and its ability to reinvent itself. Listen to the work of Bowie in its vast range and marvel at how all this can come from the same man. 

When, recently, his new album "Blackstar" had been announced I had, like millions of others, gone to You Tube to take a listen to the video. I was, frankly, very impressed by the track and the effort that seemed to have been put into both the music and the video. Bowie, at 68 and with cancer, was still at the top of his creative game, still envisioning worlds and bringing them to life in his art. Bowie was a pop star, yes, but to me he will always be an artist, one who created and crafted, one who struggled to bring dreams to life. Not all of them worked. But, to me at least, that's the point. Bowie never followed trends. He never tried to appeal to the masses. He never wanted to be, in that terrible term, "mainstream". Bowie was a man of vision. He wanted to share some of his with us.

And of his abundance we have all received. 

                                                           RIP David Bowie. You made your mark.

Rationality Doesn't Exist

Reason versus Passion: its a conflict as old as when the question first occurred to someone "What is a good life?" The Greeks discussed it. The religious have discussed it. We discuss it today. Its linked into a lot of other discussions too about the nature of the world and existence itself. And people take sides. Our society, as many others have done, values rationality. Some within it will believe in a capitalized form of it: Rationality. This will probably go along with their belief in capitalized forms of other things like Morality or Goodness or Truth. For these people, to be rational is the highest good. It is a goal and an end. They will judge people on what they consider to be a rationality scale. The more rational you are, the better a person you are. The flipside of this is the less rational you are, the more emotional you are - for to be emotional is thought by these people to be the opposite of being rational - then the worse of a person you are. 

Let's offer the case in defense of rationality. Rationality is that ability to think logically and to be able to offer reasons for things. These reasons should be based in what can be regarded as reality. To be rational is to be reasonable but also to be speaking truthfully about the world. Scientists think of themselves as rational and that model is a good example of what rationality can do. Rationality has a very high yield where measuring and judging things is concerned which is a lot of what scientists do. Rationality does not involve itself in flights of fancy or speculation. Rationality is about lucid detachment and not letting personal involvements get in the way. Some would offer rationality as the way we humans gain real knowledge of things and set truths about the world in order. It is a true and good thing to have which gives humanity the progress it desires.

But let's compare this view of reality, and its bias in favour of the rational over the emotional, with the world as it occurs to us to be. Survey the world you actually live in with this view. Does it seem to you that the world as a whole is rational? Does it seem to you that the people who inhabit it are rational? I put it to you that it doesn't, certainly not simply so. You might consider that this is because rationality is available but people, for some reason, choose not to use it. Their rationality seems to have been hijacked by that bad alter ego, emotion. People become passionate, willful, controlled by their own interests and agendas, and any rationality that might be available to them gets lost. And where does the capitalized form, Rationality, stand in all this. If there is a deified form of Reason how can it be that so many people can so easily turn their back on it and ignore it, becoming self-interested agenda pushers in thrall to their emotions?

Once upon a time there was a mustachioed philosopher and his name was Friedrich. He proclaimed in one of his books "GOD IS DEAD AND WE HAVE KILLED HIM". He meant to refer directly to the Christian god but his proclamation had much more thorough-going consequences than that. For those who believe in this God, something that is harder to do these days than when Friedrich made his pronouncement, God is the underwriter of all the capitalized things like Rationality and Morality and Truth. But if God is dead then Rationality is dead. Truth is dead. Goodness is dead. These things cannot stand if the guarantor of them all is dead. They must pass away. Friedrich thought this was true, even if you aren't a believer in this God, because he thought that, socio-culturallly, we all live in societies in which this Christian-Platonic view of the world is accepted anyway. So even if we tried to cut God adrift and carry on with divinised concepts like Rationality or Truth it is just a bad faith form of Christianity in disguise. Rationality or Truth become substitute gods and, as Friedrich has already said, God is dead.

To my mind, the interesting part of what Friedrich Nietzsche said is not that God is dead. That, to me at least, seems self-evident. My observations of life lead me to this conclusion. "We have killed him" is the interesting part. Nietzsche seems to be saying that our human ways have laid waste to a deity, to all deities, to all things that we might want to hoist over and above us. The gods crumble before the follies of human beings. He was not alone in that thought. Many other philosophers after him, some referred to as existentialists and some referred to as pragmatists, have made similar points. These types of people would tend to come down more on the side of a human being not conceived as something made for the purposes of being merely rational. These types of people would want to balance rationality and emotion out in the human being. But this subtly changes the picture we then form of the human being. For me, the human beings we all are are not rationality machines networked into a divine arbiter of The Rational. We are complex and holistically configured emotion-rationality organisms. You can't chop the emotion out of a human being anymore than you can stop them making up reasons for things, the activity of the rational.

You are reading this blog on the Internet. The Internet in many minds has gained a certain reputation for outrage. It is a very immediate form of media and people these days complain if anything takes more than a couple of seconds to happen anyway. We are the now generation. This is no less so of human judgments. We are, after all, beings in an environment and this engenders a two-way process of influence. We can influence our environment but our environment also influences back. So we tend to get things served up to us in very superficial and bitesize form. It strikes me as amusing that these days if any debate goes on for more than 10 minutes it is regarded as some kind of long form exposition of a subject. "I haven't got time for this" isn't the least common expression in human language. We want fast facts and fast answers. So we have no end of media outlets dishing up these compact facts and dealing with whole issues in the matter of a couple of minutes by reading a top ten list. Its my suggestion that none of this encourages real thinking, the kind that takes time and involves, get this, more than one side of the story. Indeed, you can go to a lot of places today, maybe even most, and you will get served up to you a partisan description of a problem written from one point of view.

A comment came into my Twitter timeline about a day ago. It was complaining about the overuse of the word "outrage" as a cover all description of any questioning of someone's position on something. I took the point. It is true, I agree, that not all points to the contrary of yours, not all criticism or comment, is about "outrage". But the commenter went further and suggested that saying such people were outraged was some kind of attempt to paint them as "irrational" and the clear inference was that being irrational was a bad thing to be. The commenter clearly valued rationality and wanted to be seen as such, even if also wanting to criticize other people's points of view. The sense was that you can disagree with someone about something but still be seen as rational. I agree with this. You can. But you can't do it if you think there is a thing called Rationality. Because that kind of rational only admits of one thought process, the one that is right and over above everything in an arbitrating way, the one that brooks no challenge or divergence from it. Lucky for us that Friedrich has reminded us: God is dead. 

But what follows from this? Well, it follows that if you criticize a point of view and someone accuses you of "outrage" (which may or may not be true and could be argued without resolution forever) and you take this to mean they are accusing you of being "irrational" then, from their perspective, you might very well be. Since there is now no Rationality there is only partial, situated, local rationality, the rationality some particular person or group is possessed by. And from that point of view your criticism might be irrational. They do not need your agreement to make this claim. They do not need to appeal to some higher court of Reason (which, as we now know, doesn't exist). They just need to use their own personalized form of rationality, do the math, and come up with the answer. That answer can easily be "Your criticism of me is irrational. It is vocalized outrage". Whether you agree or not is, as it would be if things were reversed, irrelevant to that. We all know quite commonsensically that people have their own point of view on things. But when it comes to rationality we get a bit fuzzy about it. We don't like the idea that people might have their own personalized form of what is rational and what is not. But they do.

And, the truth is, its not even really all that difficult to see this and acknowledge it. Every one takes sides in this world. Everyone finds themselves situated inside points of view, attitudes towards things and beliefs about the way the world is. What needs to be seen is that these same things are generative of our rationality. It is these things that will inform us what we regard as rational, when someone is displaying outrage and what counts as these things. There is no outside way or overarching way to triangulate these things. We are already fully equipped as sentient human beings to make these calculations. The problem is that this often results in lots of incommensurability. My rationality may not work always in accordance with yours or your neighbor's, your friend's or your partner's. The traditional way out of this is conversational. We talk and come to some agreement or point about which we can all feel our dignity respected. Rationality is educable, after all. But in the instant world of the Internet that is not going to happen very often. Our feelings (emotion!) get hurt very easily and its often easier for us (in lots of ways too complicated to get into now) to just regard the other person as irrational or outraged as we see it. We have our notions vindicated and the other guy is a loser who thinks differently.

I would hope that none of this comes across as very revolutionary. It seems to me to be common sense. But then that is a function of my own rationality. Within that rationality people are partial and sectarian. They take sides. They are well able to make their own judgments and provide their own reasons for things they say, do and think. They do this without any recourse to a divinised form of the rational because such a thing doesn't exist. They are partiality machines. It is because this is how I see things that I find agreement to be a wonderful thing. Such a view of the human being could go the other way and become a solipsistic world of incommensurable views. Sometimes when you look at the Internet it can seem like things are going down this dark path. But the light is still available to us as long as we can talk to one another, try to understand things as people with their own human dignity express them, and explore each other's views on what being human is all about. That, in fact, is our only hope. Human life, in other words, is all about talking to the irrational and the outraged. 

Smooth Radio?

Smooth Radio is the name of one of the few radio stations available in my local area. The UK has never had a lot of radio stations. The airwaves have really always been tightly controlled and the authorities have always been scared of sanctioning the broadcasting ambitions of the people at large. Britain likes control. Radio is a quite conservative area of UK media on the whole where "the same old thing" is likely to be broadcast no matter what station you turn to. You have your oldies stations which are stuck in the 60s-80s, more modern stations which have a "better music mix" (a slogan, not a fact) which are the same as the oldies stations but with more recent chart music, classical stations (very few) and then talk radio which is very staid and middle of the road in the main. There is no UK version of Howard Stern because in the UK you are polite and well behaved and you stick to the mainstream script. The UK has no constitution proclaiming freedom of speech.

Smooth Radio falls into the category "oldies station". I mention this because today I had need to cook myself some dinner and so I decided, quite out of character, to put the radio on whilst I made my shepherd's pie. I couldn't listen to the station it was tuned into because this was the local BBC station which is a constant mix of talk radio for the conservative over 50s. I am neither conservative nor over 50. I have no interest in flower shows, jumble sales or the traffic jam on the A612. So I needed to find a station playing music. I couldn't listen to the local modern station because it would play modern chart music. I don't even know what modern chart music sounds like but I know that I don't like it. The national stations were out because so much BBC. This left Smooth Radio. Little did I know what I was getting into.

In the course of my browsing Twitter recently a few tweets had gone through jokingly referring to the fact that this is, apparently, a time of year when people cast off their old, unused or no longer interesting partners and go looking for new ones. As I listened to the songs that Smooth Radio was playing one after another (which they kept telling me was part of the chilled, relaxed Monday afternoon music mix) I began to wonder whether I was being embroiled in some sort of deliberately planned conspiracy. Every song was about lost love, or missing someone or about how the singer needed someone else or that they should please not go, etc, etc. ABBA's SOS played - "the love you gave me, nothing less can save me". Elkie Brooks played - "Fool if you think its over". The Real Thing's "You to me are Everything" played. On it went. Carly Simon with "Comin' Around Again" - "I know nothin' stays the same but if you're willing to play the game we'll be comin' around again". The Walker Brothers played with "The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore".... WHEN YOU'RE WITHOUT LOVE!!!

It was by the 6th or 7th song that I realized they must be doing this on purpose. After all, who plays maudlin love song after maudlin love song by accident? Bob Marley played... "I don't want to wait in vain for your love"!! The thought occurred to me that the programmers at this station must be playing on the fact that couples split up and people go looking for others at this time. They were hooking into this social phenomenon, I surmised, and milking it for all it was worth in terms of listeners. After all, those bathroom tiles that got advertised every 15 minutes weren't going to buy themselves. I decided that it must only be a matter of time before Harry Nilsson told me that he couldn't live if living was without me and KC and his Sunshine Band told me to please not go.

I had been aware when switching to this station that they had a playlist. It has killed radio as a creative force in the UK that nearly all stations pick the same 50 songs and then play them ad infinitum for a whole week. And then they pick another 50. But I didn't expect to be co-opted into the romantic traumas of a nation. And then I started to think how this one radio station, which surely doesn't exist in isolation, fits into the society it is a part of. This station was basically broadcasting the idea that being in a couple is the aim of adult life all afternoon. Life, for the programmers at this station, is about finding a partner, going to work, paying your taxes... and buying bathroom tiles at your local Wickes (a UK home improvement store). I considered for a moment how this might strike someone who was single by choice. It would seem at odds with their view of the world. I considered how someone unhappily single might feel (they would be reaching for the bread knife and making sure it was sharp). 

Smooth Radio is unthinkingly and uncritically middle of the road in every sense you can think of. It is Radio Inoffensive, Radio Bland. You may consider that your local oldies radio station does not have the job of critiquing society or providing biting social analysis in its choice of music. And you'd have a point. But that doesn't thereby mean that its broadcasts are inert or neutral or unpersuasive. Smooth Radio acts as a relatively unseen broadcaster of propaganda for the status quo. Listen to it for even an hour to find out what is considered, in that horrible term, "normal". And then ask yourself if you fit within it. I don't. Smooth Radio is the marker of what is inoffensively OK (saying that without someone to love there is something wrong with you) and, consequently, what is odd and strange (that you feel fine and aren't missing anyone at all). That's why making my shepherd's pie today was quite a disturbing experience. I learned just how far from what is considered normal I have drifted in my single, non-conformist ways. In this world of social media and connected devices these days you can choose what comes into your life by tailoring the feed of everything you are connected to to your own taste. But when you put on the regular old radio station you still get what someone else thinks is "normal". You get the big wooden spoon of socio-politcal normality rammed down your throat. Does it taste nice?

And so today I had a dose of how media shapes society, how it broadcasts not just dodgy love songs from the 1970s but the values implicit and explicit within them. When knitted together, one after another, this becomes a pervasive narrative of normality, a boundary delineating who is normal on the inside (those who share our views) and those who are abnormal on the outside (those who think something else). Media is a way of inscribing values, of saying what is expected and what is frowned upon. Media is not outside the fray of everyday life, it is part of the fabric of it, unseen, unsuspected. The dangerous thing is that you don't have to watch Fox News to see this happening, although it may seem more obvious to you if you do (unless you are one of their target audience already in which case try National Public Radio). Every media is like this. Every media is broadcasting values in everything it does. They are writing the script of what is expected of someone in society. They are doing this most especially when they imagine that's the last thing they are doing which I would guess is the position Smooth Radio would take. (The ones doing it on purpose are very easy to spot but only serve as cover for the ones you'd never think were doing it.) 

At the end of the day, I'm glad I cooked my dinner and could turn the radio off. I can go back to being fed the values that I'm happy with in my tailored feeds. The scary thing is, what am I being fed that I might agree with but that, exactly because of that, I don't see? We need to develop a critical self-consciousness and stay aware. There are no neutral media or broadcasters who do not have a view of the world. There aren't any people who have no values. What are the values the broadcasters you watch, listen to and read are pushing? Do you even know?

The Farce Awakens

So far, I have seen The Force Awakens twice but by the time you read this it may already be three times. This blog is going to be about this film so if you don't want to stumble across plot points its probably best for you to stop reading now. For those who stay, may the farce be with you.

My thesis in this blog is very simple: The Force Awakens is a terrible, ridiculously badly written film that, as a story, is just pure farce. Secondly, it is also tremendous fun and I can see why people like it. But what about that rubbish storyline?!!

After all these years we finally get back to where we were (those of us old enough, at any rate) at the end of Return of the Jedi (that's the one with the teddy bears). Its now thirty years later and JJ Abrams has been tasked with making episode four all over again to make lots of money from people who just want the same thing rehashed bringing a new episode to the screen. But what's this I see before me? We have a funny, bleepy droid who is carrying vital information, a bad guy in black robes with a red lightsabre who wears a mask, a crazy pilot guy, a callow youth on a backwater planet who goes about her business but seems called to higher things. And what's this? There are a lot of bad guys in big star destroyers who also control a large planetoid that's capable of blowing up whole planets? Don't tell me, they have to penetrate its shields and blow it up at the climax of the film, right? What? They do? I've seen this film before in 1977. It was called Star Wars.

But its not enough that Abrams' "thinly disguised remake of Episode 4" (to quote Irvine Welsh) basically steals at will from the three Star Wars films people actually like (there are some echoes of The Empire Strikes Back too in the forest scenes between Rey and Kylo Ren). No, Abrams thinks he is up to the job of adding something new. That new is called Finn. And I truly feel so sorry for John Boyega who plays this character. Finn is the worst stormtrooper in the world. We see him in the opening scene as a division of stormtroopers lands on a planet to capture some information on the missing Luke Skywalker. Finn doesn't do much and despite being a stormtrooper barely seems able to fire his blaster. His buddy dies and then he decides he doesn't want to be a stormtrooper anymore. His boss notices he isn't as on it as the rest of his stormtrooper buddies and so asks him to report for assessment. 

At this point the worst stormtrooper in the world decides to run away and he kidnaps an important prisoner (the aforementioned crazy pilot guy) and they make a highly implausible escape from a star destroyer. (No force field at the exit? Even the star destroyers of 1977 had that!) Thereafter the worst stormtrooper in the world, who just wants to run away from the First Order, manages to spend the rest of the film being rubbish at everything... including running away. I genuinely do not know why this character is in the film or what it is those who wrote him into it thinks he adds. I think they just wanted to add a new guy and this was the best they could do. Unless there is to be some huge revelation in following episodes (which would be increasingly implausible the more pointless Finn gets) it seems to me that the character is just a joke, a bad joke without depth or purpose. He is Jar Jar Binks. Who cares if Finn lives or dies? He's just a bad stormtrooper who ran away.

This brings us to Rey, our callow youth of choice with a higher purpose in this installment. There is not much character development here. We are told that not Luke was left on the planet of Jakku (but not who with or how she is even still alive at this point) and she keeps mentioning how she has to wait there for someone to come back but, nevertheless, she decides to embark on a reckless adventure across the galaxy with the worst stormtrooper in the world and not R2D2 (actually called BB8) in a handily parked Millennium Falcon which, although it seems to have been left standing for years, here works perfectly. It seems pretty clear that in one of the next episodes Rey will be revealed to be a Jedi. Indeed, so desperate to tell us this is this film that it has Rey breaking out of jail on a star destroyer by telling the guard to let her go free. Abrams does not seem able to wait for the money shot here as George Lucas did all those years ago. Rey is a Jedi so let's not monkey about pretending we don't know, right? Never mind that she goes from somebody waiting for something whilst collecting scrap to someone using Jedi mind tricks in very short order and without ANY training. Even Luke had to do all that running and balancing stuff.

Oh, did I mention that Han Solo and Chewbacca are in the film? Han tries to play it like the old days but he's over 70 and broke his leg in filming so he doesn't so much run anymore as shuffle. Chewie looks about 30 years younger. Someone must have given his shagpile a good wash and brush up. He looks like a new Wookiee. (What Leia looks like we cannot say because people are being nasty to Carrie Fisher about it on the Internet. All I'll say is the filmmakers clearly didn't want her in the film much so she gets a few meaningless scenes where she looks suitably sombre.) Han seems to be in this film for three reasons: so old fans can cheer at his ridiculously stage managed entry into the film, so he can confirm to our new characters that, yep, all that Jedi shit is really real and so that he can die. The last one, so some say, was at the insistence of Harrison Ford himself. Even so, the way that Han Solo dies is very un-Han Solo. This is the guy who shot Greedo and lived the life of a smuggler and yet he confronts his killer (and son) who has use of The Force on a high platform with no weapons drawn? Has Han gone senile? Ok, Han has to die but this was basically a suicide.

And what of this son, Kylo Ren? We are told that he went berserker on Luke Skywalker and all his other trainees during Jedi training and we see some of this berserker in a couple of scenes of the film when things don't go according to plan. Kylo Ren is a very strange character. At the beginning of the film he can stop blaster shots in mid flight. We also see him manipulate matter and minds. And yet when ikkle Rey comes along she can block his mind control and beat him in a lightsabre battle. Kylo Ren has had some Jedi training with Luke Skywalker and some training (although not completed training) with the mysterious Snoke (who is the Emperor character of this film). And he gets beaten so easily by the girl from the scrapyard? We are meant to swallow the idea that Kylo Ren is haunted by the lightside so that he cannot go completely dark and this all seems set up for the character to go full Darth Vader at some point, return to the light, and all is well. Time will tell on that. As far as this film is concerned though Kylo Ren is a completely unconvincing character that must bend and twist to the whims of an incoherent plot.

What more is there to say? As I already intimated, the film is, despite all this, really good fun. This is despite the fact that Luke Skywalker's lightsabre is fortuitously found in a trunk beneath a bar very like the one in Mos Eisley. Good job they found it or Kylo Ren would have killed both Finn and Rey at the end. The bar owner, who seems to know everything, apparently due to the fact she is a bar owner because no other reason is given, says that the lightsabre is calling out to Rey. Well, of course it is. The threadbare plot demands it is so. Rey is given a vision of both the past and the future. She seems not to remember this when the future part, a lightsabre fight with Kylo Ren, occurs. Some say that Rey is going to turn out to be daughter of Skywalker. Isn't that just very unimaginative? These are but small points as is the fact that when our heroes have escaped and the not Death Star has been destroyed (very very easily) much as the Death Star was before it our droid heroes BB8 and R2D2 come together to show us the map to Luke which is what this flimsy film was supposed to be all about. Yeah, I forgot too but don't worry, the script didn't care much either. The film ends with Luke Skywalker on a diet turning to camera as Rey, the girl formerly known as the person who needed to be waiting on Jakku, hands him his lightsabre which she found on a planet she might never have gone to.

What a load of absurd nonsense with little genuine sense of peril or dread. In this case, though, incoherent absurdity is not at odds with enjoyable fun. Lucky for Disney. The farce seems to be with them.

Science, Consciousness, Argument and Materialism

Are you conscious? Do you have a consciousness? You instinctively want to answer "Yes" and maybe you think its rather dumb of me to even ask the question, so common-sensical does the answer "Yes" seem to you. But a number of scientists and philosophers, extremely materialist ones, would say that you aren't. And neither are they. They think your sense of consciousness is a very powerful illusion and that it is a function of your brain to generate this illusion. Of course, they think this partly, maybe even mostly, because they have a dogmatic view of reality as a whole. They think that everything is explainable in physical terms, in terms of physics and chemistry. So you can't really have a consciousness because that does not admit of a physical explanation. Therefore, they say, your sense of consciousness must be something the brain is doing. These people do not so much explain consciousness as explain it away.

It was with some enthusiasm that in a post-Christmas lull of activity I dived into texts and online video about varying views on human consciousness. Forty eight hours later that enthusiasm had been severely tempered if not completely extinguished. I had been following my thoughts where they led me, from this text to that, from one video to similar suggested ones. New thoughts and thinkers came up on my radar. I learnt that consciousness is very much a shibboleth for many, a stumbling block. Very soon I was into debates and forums and that is when things started to get too much. My head started to bulge and ache. Too much information, too much arguing, too much partisanship. I reflected on this. Why is so much modern debate cheap, adversarial and sarcastic with an undertone of nastiness on the side? Why are people so self-invested in their intellectual choices? Why is every thought laid down as a personal Waterloo?  

I'm mixing my discussions here in this blog. On the one hand, I'm wanting to research and discuss varying human views on consciousness but, on the other, I find myself discouraged by how my own species, human beings, seem to behave and go about that. In any debate these days, most carried out in the febrile melting pot / echo chamber / outrage arena that is the Internet, it will take very few steps indeed to go from discussing a subject to insulting the person raising the subject of the discussion to insulting many of the other participants in it as well. The next stage is getting your army of followers to descend from Valhalla and unleash hell on those holding views you cannot believe yourself. Battle lines are quickly drawn and thereafter all anyone does is defend the position they are entrenched in. More heat than light results and anyone who was there to try and learn from others and their points of view is quickly and thoroughly made cynical. Debate today, I conclude, is often conducted in the gutter and the aim of it is to score points, get hits on your opponent and employ as much ridicule as possible. Its UFC over points of view and beliefs. Am I naive for wanting to share and learn and thinking this might even be possible? Am I naive to want merely a lucid detachment, a humble enquiry?

I came across the work of a scientist called Rupert Sheldrake. He started out very mainstream and was educated in orthodoxy at the heart of all things thought right and good about science. As a biologist, he got a PhD from Cambridge, UK, had fellowships at the Royal Society and at Harvard and even made discoveries which were lauded in all the right journals, including Nature. But then he published a book in which he discussed "morphic fields" and spoke about "resonance" and "formative causation". As far as I can tell, Sheldrake was started down this path by asking himself why plants take the form they have. We might think this is to do with genes and DNA (in other words, a materialist answer) but this turns out not to be the case and this information supplies only a fraction of what is needed. (Sheldrake describes the Human Genome Project as a bit of a failure because the secrets people hoped to unlock by it have not come to pass.) We don't know how plants know to grow and look a certain way or why they look the same as the others like them. 

Sheldrake proposed what I understand as some kind of memory field. Basically, plants know how to grow because they know how other plants like them grew in the past. This holds true for animals too. For example, teach an animal to do something somewhere in the world and then other animals like it will learn the same thing much faster next time because they now somehow have the knowledge the other animal like them gained. The blurb for Sheldrake's book says

"the past forms and behaviors of organisms..... influence organisms in the present through direct connections across time and space".

Yes, I know it sounds a bit incredible but then if I'd told you the Earth went around the sun at some point in time you would have thought that silly too. (Also please note I'm not saying that this theory convinces me. To be honest, I haven't read the literature on it thoroughly enough to come to any conclusion at this point. I can say I have described it with far too little explanation here and maybe not too well so go read Sheldrake's books for a fuller and more adequate description of it. His experimental results that I read about, however, did make me think and sit up and take some notice.)

The book Sheldrake published, A New Science of Life, was denounced as heresy (yes, literally) against a materialist view of the world, the standard scientific view of the world that is put forward today and, thereafter, Sheldrake was viewed by the defenders of the mainstream and of this view of the world with a snigger and a sneer. The editor of Nature asked in an open review of the book if it should not, in fact, be burned. This is unfortunate because Sheldrake appears himself to be quite a reserved, quietly spoken and profoundly scientific man. Its important to note here that this is the case whether you happen to think there is something in his scientific hypotheses or not. To my mind Sheldrake is merely a very curious and scientific man who happens to want to investigate things other people don't. This is something to be praised, is it not? If you follow where evidence leads you should not stop if you start saying things that might threaten your career, your standing or your status within a professional field. Evidence leads where it must. But for many it doesn't. Some things are ruled kooky, off limits and things you don't talk about in polite society by those more concerned with careers than ideas.

Sheldrake thereafter started to follow his nose regarding his ideas and developed theories about consciousness (which is why he comes into my blog today) and things such as telepathy, things which a materialist would look upon as magic and impossible. He devised and carried out a number of methodologically scientific trials to test for things such as telepathy. For example, he ran trials in dogs to see if they knew when people might be coming home and on the sense people have of being stared at. He also ran trials to do with people thinking of someone who then, seemingly by coincidence, phones them. He was involved with trials on rats, teaching them tricks and then observing if other rats elsewhere could learn the same tricks faster as a result. In all these areas Sheldrake was trying to establish, on the basis of the scientific method, if there was more to things like this than blind luck or random chance. He determined that there was and laid out his results in the standard scientific fashion. He debated the results with skeptics (even challenging them to replicate his experiments) who seemed to disagree more with his conclusions and his implicit criticisms of their materialist boundaries than his methods and even though they themselves had no possible other solution to the issues he was raising and the results he presented. There was no substantial refutation of his experiments, their methodology or results. More so there was simply a refusal to accept or discuss them as there is to this day.

Today Sheldrake has moved on to a meta-discussion about science itself, a thing he sees as being held in the grip of a destructive materialism. The issue is that for those of a materialist persuasion non-materialist answers to questions are declared impossible from the off. Sheldrake finds this self-defeating and not very scientific in itself. His latest book, known as Science Set Free in the USA and as The Science Delusion in the UK, is an attempt to name 10 current "dogmas" of the scientific worldview (which Sheldrake would say has largely coalesced with the materialist position)  which are holding it back. He diagnoses that science itself has largely become a creed to be defended rather than that spirit of disinterested curiosity that maybe it should be. There are many prominent defenders of this scientific faith who are, moreover, extremely militant atheists (people like Richard Dawkins, P Z Myers and Daniel Dennett, to name but three) who actively look to police science and the public debate about it to the detriment, so Sheldrake would submit, of scientific endeavour as a whole. For sake of completeness I'll list Sheldrake's 10 "dogmas" of materialistic science below which he describes as "the 10 core beliefs that most scientists take for granted." (I have put some text in bold to highlight the main points.)

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots,” in Richard Dawkins' vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory. 

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

We can see here that Sheldrake's concern is to emphasize how much the materialistic creed is one which rules out certain areas of study or explanation as a matter of dogmatic concern. He himself wishes to refute them all. So materialism is essentially a faith that dare not speak its name. As I have said on my blog before, those like Richard Dawkins who hold this view are not the opposite of a religious believer: they are a religious believer and their religion is materialism. For example, to take the final of Sheldrake's points, materialists, so Sheldrake submits, would rule out any kind of healing or medicine that was not on the basis of the body being thought of mechanistically. So drugs are fine (since they treat the body as a big chemistry set that needs all the chemicals in balance) but holistic, alternative or other therapies are regarded as New Age and hokey folk magic. 

Sheldrake would also argue that the so-called "placebo effect" (where someone gets an inert pill thinking its actual medicine but gets better anyway) or the power of prayer or simply willing yourself to get better are also problematic for those of a mechanistic, materialist persuasion because such a point of view rules such things off limits as possibilities and, by definition, can have no explanation for them. If people could think themselves or be thought better that would present an insurmountable challenge to the materialist worldview which demands physical causes for physical things. Sheldrake is saying "Why not investigate this?" whilst others laugh and snigger at the very idea. Which seems more scientific to you?

So what to think of all this? Immediately one must admit that to accept Sheldrake's criticism of a science held in the grip of materialist dogma is not to accept his own positive contributions or theories regarding alternatives or additions to it. These are separate things and one is not committed to both by accepting one. Interestingly, in many of the forums and blogs I read about Sheldrake's criticisms of science the most common refutation was that "real scientists don't really think the way Sheldrake says they do". Sheldrake was accused of building a handy straw man it was easy to hack down. But I'm not so sure this is true. I see plenty of evidence at hand that science and scientific worldviews are held in the grip of a mechanistic materialism, one falling apart in the modern physical world of processes, energy and waves. I also take Sheldrake's point that all too many prominent scientists today are virulent atheists against anything that could be regarded as spiritual, mysterious or unexplainable from within a mechanistic materialist paradigm. Sheldrake correctly asserts that this position is held as a dogma. How else to explain those like Richard Dawkins who speaks of "wonder" on the one hand but "blind watchmakers" on the other? The watch image gives Dawkins away: the universe is like clockwork. Sheldrake is correct: there are those out to expunge beliefs in immaterial things or explanations and to make them, in a way quite Orwellian, unthinkable thoughts.

I am against this not because I believe in ghosts and ghouls, in gods and monsters, but because it is to artificially close off areas of enquiry for no other reason than that you personally don't believe in them. This seems a very dumb and thoroughly unscientific thing to do for me. You may regard Sheldrake's own theories as foolish and that is OK. It would be scientific to demonstrate that though if science is your game. The trouble is the most regular response to Sheldrake's own experiments is to ignore them. Some skeptics, he reports, have replicated his experiments and largely replicated his results too. But they are shy of doing this. In one debate Sheldrake reports that Richard Dawkins, another biologist, flat refused to debate his evidence preferring to criticize Sheldrake's refusal to take up the materialist position instead. Often this is done from a supposed position of power as the utility of science is lauded and, indeed, this cannot be denied. But it is surely relevant that those who endlessly chirp on and on about their passion for truth (as Dawkins does ad infinitum) should be criticized for their dogmatic assertion that truth will only be found in one place and not in others. Sheldrake is right to say that enquiry should go where it leads in a spirit of disinterested curiosity. Dawkins and his like are notable only for their remarkable lack of such curiosity where some things are concerned. This is a dogma, a boundary of faith.

And this is the point where the partisanship of modern day debate kicks in. By now you've made your choice and chosen a side I wouldn't be surprised to find out. But is it really about taking sides? My blog here is presented as the rambling thoughts of a man going through life just trying to understand the things that go on around him and sometimes impinge upon his own life and existence. That is what it is. I hope to do this in a spirit of somewhat lucid detachment. I don't need to defend my thoughts or my position because they are mine. I'm not saying everyone or even anyone else has to believe them. Its simply about me having a very naive honesty as much as I can. I'm well aware that my experience is narrow and that I know very, very little about anything. That is why the fact that you can read and communicate with others is a very good thing because you can take what they share and add it to your own data for analysis. But that doesn't happen as much as it should because confessional boundaries come into play and defensive walls get built by those more interested in defending what they think they've got than exploring together in a spirit of mutual curiosity. This is a source of great frustration. We live in a very public world where it is easy to belittle others and many can't resist the temptation for an easy "win" as they see it, often based merely on a numbers game.

Often in my thinking I find something interesting to read and, underneath, there is now the seemingly mandatory "comments" section. Often this is just hell. People of dubious qualifications (although this doesn't matter and is really an ad hominem approach) launch straight into personal attacks on those who think one thing or another. It doesn't really matter what they believe. What's important is that someone else doesn't believe it and that makes those who do stupid beyond belief. I find the whole exercise stupid beyond belief and I wish there were more places where debate could be to the point and not to the person (which is by far the biggest problem in any kind of discussion, that the subject switches from what is believed to who it is that believes it). Many times in comments sections about Sheldrake's books or work there are just insults tossed casually Sheldrake's way because he is that crazy guy who thinks dogs know telepathically when their masters are coming home. In a world of public forums you get a reputation and that reputation usurps the place that should have been reserved for consideration of the arguments. People get lazy and where formerly they needed to think now they just take "the word on the street" under advisement. There is a nihilistic schadenfreude at play that loves to tear down rather than build up.

There seems, not for the first time in one of my blogs, a lack of humility in many, if not most, people who debate these things. Sheldrake diagnoses this problem too when he says the problem is that some people these days think that science has resolved all the issues and now all we need to do is fill out the details. He gives examples from the ends of both the 19th and 20th centuries of people who have written that science will from now on discover less and less because we have already found out about most things. Its a matter of time not possibility. If we go on long enough we will answer all our questions and understand everything there is to understand. This belief strikes me as both arrogant and egotistical (as well as philosophically naive that there would be one answer to any question in the first place). Why, as Thomas Nagel writes in another recent book criticizing the materialist dogma, Mind and Cosmos, should any of the questions about the universe be within our power to answer? Doesn't that seem just a little bit egotistical to you, that human beings automatically must have the ability to understand? Why would all the answers of the universe be, as it were, human-shaped in their resolution, much less human-shaped and materialist? Is this a post-experimental conclusion or a pre-reflective condition? For the materialistic dogmatists this can only be because they have willed it so, forming a clockwork universe that can be measured and reproduced. But what happens when, finally, they are forced to accept that the clockwork was merely their illusion, a function of their indefatigable will to believe, another phase in human history?

It was the American philosopher and psychologist William James who said "We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will" (italics mine). He said this in the context of explaining why he thought people had a right, if not a duty, to hold religious beliefs which they found themselves genuinely unable to escape the force of. He did it by expounding a general theory of human belief across the board and did not make any special exceptions for religious beliefs, something some would want to do today in these more polemical times. Of course, believing something does not make it a scientific belief nor one that attains the recommendation of that credit but this is another matter involving the tenets of scientific peer review and debate. Beliefs are things which, for most people most of the time, function as true, even where they are contradictory from one person to the next. It is, when you think about it, common-sensically true that this is the case and the world keeps on turning nevertheless. Indeed, our world of sense and sensibility is the one which allows this state of affairs. For some this will be irrationalism but is it really? I sense I may need further blogs on this and I hope to provide them but, for now, it is enough for me to say that one person's shibboleth is another's possibility. Where our world allows us to hold such a belief others should not be so dogmatic as to dismiss another's opportunity to explore it or so authoritarian as to disallow it. This is not to take sides in the debate or nail one's colors to the mast. There is a time and place for that. It is to say that for all genuine people holding their beliefs is not a choice but a necessity.

All this puts me in mind of something Nietzsche pointed to when he said that "Truth" was but the history of Man's "irrefutable errors". This thought puts in question if we ever really know anything in an absolute sense, the sense that a "law" of the universe would rightly have. I would argue that Nietzsche's insight tends to suggest that we may not. But the good news is that we may not need to in any case. We have happily got by on our habits of belief and our practical observations of the universe until now and there is no suggestion from anywhere that we will ever need anything else to do so. We don't need to make of the universe a mechanism nor say that everything that is must, as a dogma, be physical. Indeed, the vast majority of our species has got on with life just fine without ever concerning themselves with such specialized technicalities. We can be be sure that even the world's most dogmatic scientist would have to agree that we do not know everything, nor even how much there is to know and how much we know of it. But it doesn't matter. We get on fine anyway. I would humbly suggest that the best way forward is to let people explore where their beliefs take them in a spirit of disinterested curiosity and let us see where that takes us.