Implicit Religion and the Sense of Meaning
by
Kevin
Sharpe
The
Graduate College, Union Institute & University, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, UK
kevin.sharpe@tui.edu
www.ksharpe.com
Introduction: to talk about the nature of meaning especially with respect to implicit religion.
This presentation is preliminary in the sense that it is under development.
I start the discussion at the bottom with what
constitutes our world. Gazing first at the fundamental laws of physics and
chemistry, we can raise our eyes to how things behave from the smallest up the
ladder, from non-life to life. At the higher levels, rather than laws of nature
we find that things behave according to certain consistencies, evolution
through natural selection and chaos theory being two of them. The fundamental
laws, the initial conditions of the universe (entailing the values for certain
fundamental constants like the speed of light), plus the actual existence of
things as opposed to their mere possibility, births a process that is the
universe and everything in it evolving and developing through time. Process is
basic. Because of it, through emergence at the various levels of reality, come
different families of things and consistencies in behaviors. Evolution has
taken the raw matter of the universe through the elementary forms of life to
plants, to insects, and to the various kinds of animals including us humans. We
have unique attributes that distinguish us from the rest of the known products
of nature, but they’re not without their precursors in the others; even plants
appear to have rudimentary feelings and thoughts. With animals and the chemical
messengers such as hormones, and a centralized nervous system in the brain with
its neurotransmitter messengers, come significant feelings that direct
behavior, including the correlates of happiness and unhappiness. Social
behavior, though it appears further down the ladder than in the mammals,
appears at this stage to wrestle with the desires of the individual and the
sense of self-directedness. Values appear, at least in the primates.
Our chief distinguishing attribute seems to be the large size of our brains. Its many foldings produce a being whose primary characteristic is to seek meaning, to assemble what is known into a web of ideas, experiences, memories, fables, and feelings with mutual logical connections between them. This capacity imposes onto the basic animal facilities of valuing, social, and hormonally-neurochemically driven beings (toward happiness and away from unhappiness, for instance) to create differences in the way we can behave in comparison with other animals. We can think about what might make us happy, for instance, and set about doing things we believe will bring about that feeling and remove unhappiness. We can also think about doing what we think and feel is right, and set about behaving in those ways. Overall, we can think about what we find meaningful and set about living that way.
We label this coherent holding together,
‘meaning.’ This isn’t so much the meaning of a word, though it reflects more
the meaning of a collection of words such as a sentence. It is the meaning of
life as we experience it, including the overall meaning of everything that
happens to us, all interactions with other people, and the meaning of what we
experience of ourselves.
A key subjective experiential side of the
larger well-folded human brain is meaning. Our brains can access a colossal
amount of
The ??? dictionary lists the various
meanings of ‘meaning’ as:
intellego -legere -lexi -lectum [to discern , perceive; to
understand, grasp; to understand character, judge, appreciate; to understand a
term, take as its meaning]. Hence partic. intellegens -entis, [intelligent,
understanding; having good sense or taste]. Adv. intellegenter.
interpretatio -onis f. [explanation , interpretation,
translation]. Transf., [meaning, signification].
sensus -us m. [sense , sensation; feeling, attitude;
judgment, perception, understanding; sense, meaning of words, etc.; a
sentence].
sententia -ae f. [a way of thinking , opinion, thought,
meaning, purpose; a decision, vote; meaning, sense of words, etc.; a sentence,
period]; esp., [a maxim, aphorism].
significatio -onis f. [indication , sign, token; sign of
assent, approbation; emphasis; meaning, signification].
???Show
how the various aspects of the dictionary definition relate to the above
biological function.???
Many different things impinge on us and we try
to make sense or meaning of them. Some of those things come from the outside as
sense impressions (the patterns light forms on the objects around me; the sound
the objects around me make), some comes from memories, some comes from
feelings, and some come from the voice(s) inside us. We interpret and thus
understand these inputs (that light pattern is a tree and the light comes from
the sun; that sound is the refrigerator’s compressor; that feeling is thirst)
and create a whole that is our current experience. Many of the things that
impinge on your mind are yourself; you try to make sense of and understand who
you are. We create a system of meaning that handles just about all the data
that arrives in our minds (I know enough about trees, the sun, refrigerators,
my thirst to understand the particular inputs I now experience). The system
changes through time, so I acknowledge feelings of serenity with this fall
light on the needles of that white pine, and I know that this feeling of thirst
is best assuage with a cup of tea and I had better go put the kettle on now
before I become cranky. My system is challenged at times by some of the inputs
– that strange sound…where is it coming from?...what is it?...is it a danger or
can I ignore it? – and by understanding those inputs, which means coherently
working them into my current system of meaning, my world of meaning grows. Now
to that tea. Which reminds me of the story my wife Leslie tells of when I was
in the ICU mostly unconscious but coming out of anesthetic and the tea trolley
came rattling down the ward and I perked right up and ordered two cups….
For a person to lead a meaningful life, they
must coherently hold together everything that impinges on them. This perhaps
offers the core act of their self-consciousness.
One of the keys to this definition is the word ‘coherence.’ Meaning involves the coherent holding together of what impinges on us. Whatever the schema we use to place the impinging things in relation to other impinging things, it ought to integrate them logically, consistently, and systematically. It will mean the absence of internal contradictions. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘coherence’ as, ‘the quality or state of cohering: as (a) systematic or logical connection or consistency, (b) integration of diverse elements, relationships, or values.’
The sort of meaning we’re talking about is naturally and to an extent biologically created (not just biologically mandated). The philosophical exercise called logic arrived well after our natural need and proclivity to make meaning, and perhaps abstracts from it. We aren’t born with categories of logic at the tip of our conscious minds ready to start exercising our self-consciousness. Culture influences our meaning making process, just as it influences everything else we do, but it doesn’t fully dictate it. It helps us decide, for instance, whether something is more important than something else and therefore that we select that and discard the other if they contradict. ??? Give an example. ??? The rudiments of our meaning making appear to arrive with our biology and our cultural context then plays a major role in bringing those potentials into practice and fleshing them out as fully functional.
The science of logic is an attempt to put the
way we naturally reason, the way we naturally form meaning, into a conscious,
systematic, and cut-and-dried form. Words (and their definitions) like
‘meaning’ and ‘coherence’ are our linguistic approximations (and, to some
extent, models) for certain physical realities. Like just about everything we
try to encapsulate in this way, the reality exceeds our modeling (ref my work
on this). We haven’t as yet (and possibly never will) re-create our natural
process of reasoning in this way.
Framing meaning isn’t only a mental affair that
floats around only in the head, however. For one thing, meaning only occurs
when we draw (sub)conclusions along the way. To relate things so as to draw
meaning from their relationship is to draw a conclusion, even if a provisional
conclusion, about it. No conclusion, no meaning. A process of thinking about
meaning while not concluding anything that may advance a meaning, may be a
meaningful activity. Thinking about meaning may generate meaningfulness
feelings while not generating actual meanings. I am, for instance, trying to
work out this point as I type it. I feel a type of conclusion I want to reach,
though I am open to modifying it as a result of my ruminations and I’m not sure
I’m going to reach it (especially if I continue to be waylaid with concocting
these examples). I don’t know for sure the conclusions I will reach; therefore,
I’m not sure if I will generate meaning. However, I find the process of writing
this free thinking down meaningful; it gives me a sense of meaning for this
period of time (
Another matter about meaning and its exceeding
floatation in the head concerns action. (Here’s a matter that I don’t know what
I’ll conclude.) Can meaning exist if it requires decision or action and the
decision or action isn’t attempted? Suppose I now have those particular
feelings in my mouth and throat and stomach that I normally conclude (I create
meaning around) means that I’m dying for a cup of tea. Suppose that I am aware
of this meaning, but make no decision on the basis of it, don’t get up to make
a cuppa, or even plan to make one at some point in the near future, such as
when my
Time is up…now to boil the kettle. Thinking
that floats around in the head need not generate meaning (as opposed to feeling
meaningful); that requires the drawing of conclusions. Those conclusions,
however, need not lead to action.
???
The NF learning style in which meaning is made ???
We tend to think of meaning making and the
piecing together of
Story telling is a common way to transmit
meaning.
Stories are the medium through which we often
create and transmit meaning. A group of people, including societies and
cultures, frequently upholds a collection of stories as especially significant,
even indisputably truthful, and these stories we call myths. Even more formally
stated and organized, they become beliefs and beliefs become organized into
belief systems.
Some medical myths have been passed on through
so many generations that quashing them can seem next to impossible.
One such myth, that lung cancer tumors spread
when exposed to air, remains popular and could stop some Americans from
agreeing to potentially lifesaving surgery….
‘A lot of people actually believe cancer spreads
by contact with air,’ Dr. [Mitchell L.] Margolis [director of the pulmonary
clinic at the Philadelphia Veterans affairs Medical Center] said, ‘and some
will reject surgery they really need.’….
Herman Casey,
‘I always heard it growing up, that once you
have the operation, the air hits it and it spreads,’ Mr. Casey, a patient of
Dr. Margolis, said. [O'Connor,
??? Surface meaning versus deep meaning =
beliefs. See Rodney Needham’s book on beliefs.
???
bring in my previous work on this. Make sure I cover:
o
Webs of
beliefs.
o
Underdetermined
by data.
o
Meaning-making
aspects.
o
Power of
them over us, e.g., suicide bombers.
o
Conversion.
o
[Part of
this book could be a little study on conversion, e.g., to a dualistic theism,
and how that works as a bio-psycho-social phenomoneon, such that it’s a radical
leap.]
o
Work in
Gargas etc. as an example; different ways of approaching the lines, plus that
central chamber in Gargas.
o
Empirical
nature of a web. ???
·
I need to
discuss how I see the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity:
o
Two
aspects of the same reality.
o
Why does
there exist two? A product of our brains.
o
Both true
and real.
o
Subjectivity
involves objectivity, and vice versa; can’t separate them.
o
Irreducible
to the other.
What happens if one belief or statement of
meaning conflicts with another one? What happens if I believe I am right and
you believe you are right and we can’t both be? The question of truth is a huge
and politically very important one, yet one I can only skim in this venue.
Each of us makes meaning and some of those
meanings seep down in our conscious and subconscious minds to become absolutes,
corner stones that nothing ought to budge. Challenges to them can bring about
deep and violent reactions, suicide bombers merely offering one type of
illustration.
So how might we resolve this? Ideally, each of
us ought to hold our minds open – even our deepest and most cherished beliefs –
to new learning. We ought to offer our ways of understanding to the world we
continue to experience and to the people we continue to encounter, offering
ourselves to them to interact with them and to learn from them. This, however,
is wishful thinking when we consider most of us. Only a small proportion of
people will do this with their everyday sense of meaning, let alone their
professional or national senses. Most of us don’t want to rock the boat or
even, I am sorry to say, know how to change what they think. Most of us have
set our minds in concrete. To avoid conflict, we try to minimize the
confrontations.
Theoretically, though, truth is always
something to be aimed for… ??? take from Sc/Myth and Sleuthing
books ???
We live in relationship with reality and can’t
be otherwise. Truth is about this relationship and is something to be lived in
and toward.
Coherent meaning for all life (ideally) and experience.
Definitions. Within this context of meaning making.
______________________________________________________
The function of theology (God talk) is to provide a theoretical system of meaning and purpose (related to the life-involving nature of religion) that humans feel is real.
The Need (don’t put answers in here)
This chapter relates to two things: the need (which really relates to the current introduction) and the parameters for the theological reconstruction (which also relates to what’s in the introduction). Maybe therefore reorganize these two chapters, perhaps make the meaning chapter as the first one, stating the challenge.
Chapter
Happiness is an inherited
goal with roots in our genetic being. It evolved into us and this process left
each of us with our own inbuilt predisposition to happiness.
(from
MT
the problem of unique behavior that Niels raises (I'll need some nifty way to present this question, e.g., someone asking the question¾which I think I saw somewhere a critique, perhaps of sb).
Evolution of Purpose
Chuck suggests PET, etc. on shaman (Lewis-Williams) to show a natural basis for religion.
¾how about experiments on Eccles' "purpose" stuff to see if natural basis there too.
¾something on projections.
No date
Nicholas Humphrey
Gives an evolutionary account of the reason why we consciously explain things as we do.
No date
Gould
Lots of nonadaptive features in the brain (called spandrals), some of which become v.i.p.
No Date
· ask Stephen Modell for help in references, e.g. our purpose.
· Notes on all the negative properties (violence, illness, etc.) ascribable to genes.
No date
Genetics/theology paper
What data could disconfirm my hypothesis?
No date
Gazaniger
Argues for the existence of an interpretation "chip" in the left hemisphere - this sounds like giver of meaning (purpose).
· Now know the sorts of categories that are natural to us and which may be natural for other species (Frans de Waal) and for other things.
·
We want
the state of happiness and don't want the state of unhappiness. This is
instinctive and automatic. These wants produce a drive toward increasing our
happiness.
·
What is
the relationship between happiness and unhappiness? Is it justifiable to say
they are at root two different things? What is the biochemistry of unhappiness?
·
What is
the biochemistry or mechanism by which one can feel happiness and unhappiness at
the same time, or be high one minute and low the next?
·
Our animal
nature may be more than I describe in this chapter. This is limited to research
and reflection on happiness, unhappiness, purpose, love, ....
·
Frans de
Waal's recent stuff on the primate sense of fairness.
·
The following is in both Chapters
Quantum mechanics and relativity
The particle zoo: see the ScAm article
Chemistry
Consistencies vs. laws
Chaos theory
Cosmology
Rudiments of biology
Evolution: plants and animals
Feelings, thoughts, hormones, neurotransmitters
Correlates to happiness, unhappiness, meaning
Social behavior
Values
For example (Milius
For the first time, researchers
say, they have shown that a species other than Homo sapiens has a sense of
fairness.
Female brown
capuchin monkeys tend to turn uncooperative, and sometimes even throw things,
if they see a neighbor receiving a lovely grape in exchange for the same token
that gets them only a cucumber…The clearest protests come from monkeys that see
a neighbor getting that grape for free….
Such treatment
would outrage a person, too, [researcher Sarah Brosnan of Yerkes National
Primate Research Center in Atlanta] contends. The experiment ‘implies that the
human sense of fairness is evolved,’ rather than solely learned, she says….
[Economist Ernst
Fehr of the University of Zurich] agrees that the study ‘shows that inequity
aversion must have very deep evolutionary roots.’ This aversion underlies human
cooperation…, he adds.
Social vs. individual
* Look at Arthur’s writing about levels
* Go to ScAm online (through my membership #)
and seek overviews of each of these areas.
The study of
animals has given me the explanation to most of the questions that I have had of
life. It has brought me some peace, but knowing the reasons, understanding the
causes, and intellectualizing life has not brought me happiness.
Richard Van Gelder, mammologist,
Today when on my walk I saw more than the usual number
of high school and junior high boys waiting for the school bus. Some drove past
at great speeds too. The boys (this doesn’t apply to girls; why?) wore T shirts
(it was chilly,
·
Purpose
Schloss - get his comments on my idea on purpose paper
Wilson and Ruse: on purpose as a fiction.
·
= good
=purpose
=meaning of life?
These relationships need clarifying
But suppose end motivation = meanings and purposes, then what does this
reasearch say about them? Are genetics
evolutionary in origin. (
This research is in its infancy.
Pursue the literature further
Doesn't say that the category of goals is adaptive in origin, but what they
are.
· What makes us human: language, self-consciousness,
technology, memory, awareness of time, etc. Can dogs read peoples' minds
(Sheldrake)? We read into many situations what we know as humans, but most is
anthropomorphism. Why?
· What is our mind and consciousness versus our brains and
nervous systems; Gardner's intelligences.
·
Love
o
Definition and its
importance down through the ages and in various culturs and mythologies. Importance
in religious traditions.
o
Its biological,
genetic, neurochemical basis. Evolutionary psychology.
o
Its spiritual basis in
my understanding of spiritual. To love spiritually.
o
How to achieve this --
social psychology research. The balance between inclinations.
o
The vision of a world
of love -- perhaps a story.
o
MT
·
Develop the theory
further (from the Natural Morality book for stuff on love and on values)
by developing the ideas on the place of values and how one gets the basis for
judging between inclinations.
·
JT: The Humble Approach, p.
·
JT's
letter
·
AU:Ezzell
·
Encyclopedia
Britannica
It is
produced by the hypothalamus and stored and secreted by the posterior pituitary
gland. It was first synthesized by Vincent du Vigneaud in
Vasopressin
also evolved from vasotocin. It plays a key role in maintaining a constant
volume of water in the body and also in maintaining within narrow limits the
concentration of dissolved substance in those body fluids located outside body
cells.
·
AU:John
R. Mabee. using caution when trying to extrapolate data derived from animal or
limited human studies. Although it is appealing to ascribe to oxytocin a role
such as the one suggested, it is difficult to objectively prove an association.
Furthermore, there is an abundance of variables to account for when trying to
study such an association, as well as standardizing a definition as to what is
meant by love!
·
Hrdy,
Sarah Blaffer; Carter, C. Sue. Hormonal cocktails for two
Natural
History
DT:
December
PG:
AN:Oxytocin
(from the Greek for "swift birth"), is perhaps the quintessential
mammal hormone. Released into the brain, it promotes calming and positive
social behaviors, such as pair bonding.
The idea
that physiological changes might prepare an expectant mother for her new role
to a now classical experiment. In
The most
complete picture at present of the behavioral effects of oxytocin comes from
the studies of domestic sheep by Barry Keverne, Keith Kendrick, and their
colleagues at the University of Cambridge. As a lamb moves down its mother's
birth canal, it stimulates nerves that trigger the release of oxytocin into her
nervous system. Only if oxytocin is present at birth or injected so that it
reaches the brain at the same time the mother ewe meets her newborn, will she
bond with her offspring. If something blocks the release of oxytocin, she
rejects her lamb. High levels of oxytocin also occur in mother's milk, raising
the possibility that this hormone plays a role in making the mother-infant
attachment mutual.
Oxytocin
and other hormones do not act in a deterministic fashion, despite their importance
in determining how responsive a mother will be. They both affect and are
affected by a mother's behavior and her experience. Exposure to pups, for
instance, can lead to reorganization of neural pathways in a mother rat's
brain, making her respond faster to pups in the future, even with lower hormone
levels. [And some recent studies suggest that the hormones of breast feeding
may benefit a mother's mental health and increase her ability to deal with
stress. ]
When first
presented with pups, a virgin female laboratory rat generally ignores them, or
frightened of them, or eat them. She can be conditioned to tolerate them only
after introductions to pups many times over several days. She may then even
care for them: licking them, crouching protectively over them, and retrieving
them when they stray from her side. In contrast, a pregnant rat responds
within minutes to pups, even prior to delivery of her own.
Males of
many species of mammals, as well as virgin females who adopt infants, can be
primed to exhibit parental behaviors. Prairie vole males, for instance,
typically respond to a newborn pup by retrieving it and huddling over it. Geert
De Vries, of the University of Massachusetts, found that the hormone
vasopressin, which is associated with aggressive, territorial behavior in other
contexts, facilitates such nurturing.
ME:s
·
Bohm: love from God.
Be aware of the feminist arguments, esp. not being an absolute
mechanism.
Article lead: C. S. Lewis fell in love with .... She ...and he.... [Look
in his biography of that time -- written before
·
Sir John: 'Oxytocin seems to be the only mechanism in the enormous field
of love. Implying that oxytocin is the source of love might be like saying the
father of your son is not you but testosterone.' (Letter to me,
·
To Sir John: On oxytocin. This is the first scientiic work on how love
becomes incarnated. Love as God's 'Love' in transcened form. Tells us about how
God operates.
·
Oxytocin. I should mention Getz and his affiliation.
·
Oxytocin. To expand the Xn Century article -- go into GSI to get more refs.
Also a good magazine source, and RI One.
·
C. S. Lewis, 'The Four Loaves.' CPL
·
The following is in both Chapters
·
In the May
Morality: virtue (altruism etc.) through evolutionary psychology.
(Leslie) Can be unhappy yet have meaning. Study on zoo animals and their depression.
· Physical to moral evolution: social psychology, natural morality.
· What is our natural moral nature? See the boxed list below.
· Meaning ability has also to do with free will. The ability consciously to choose at least some of our behaviors.
· The relationship between emotions and rational thought. I can’t assume that one overrides or is distinct from the other, but that they’re inseparable. It seems as is some thinkers want to separate them and exult rational thought as superior and to be aimed for.
Evolutionary Psychology (from working on F
What are the possible types of explanation (natural versus
supernatural, and non automatic) for people's behavior: social and
psychological. This is if the behavior isn't entirely arbitrary, determined by
each person's will. Then each of the two are explicable by evolution
(sociobiology for social, EP for psychological). So this involves understanding
the connections between social and psychological behaviors too. I'm not sure
there are any other ways of explaining human behavior.
SB
·
Do EP on each law
after writing the LoL piece on it.
·
What's the best place
for resources on what's been done in EP so I can search for stuff relevant to
it on each law?
o
Try looking at the
various sites I've got bookmarked for ideas (are there more such sites in www
box and folder?).
o
Use NLightN.
o
What journals are
there in EP, and where are they indexed?
o
Look at Wright's,
Dennett's, McCrone's sources.
o
Look at Ruse's journal
and others.
·
Myers' Social
Psychology might be a good place to start for looking at what psychology
can now explain. What's missing from this is the next step.
·
I said in Sc/M that
science is weak on the life directing side. It isn't. All the (pop) psych is
scientific and moral life directing.
·
Look at the last
chapter of Richardson's book on EP and morality.
·
The system of morality
I'm proposing is a collection of sayings. But this is hardly a system. Yet
neither was Jesus'. His were stories, and some of the intent of them was
amplified in the epistles. Did Jesus' stories cover the gamut of human
experience? Sayings are a better way of communicating than a system of codes.
·
EP = God. Explanation
for laws working.
·
Some of the EP for the
various chapters has been left in the chapter files and will need filling out.
It should have been marked.
·
Implications of
animals having morality for my saying it isn't of God because otherwise we'd
see it everywhere; i.e., universality of morality.
·
If the laws work by
natural means, yet say they are spiritual, what does this mean about spiritual?
Cf. the afterword in MT
·
Can all these laws
proven laws be put together as a system of ethics? A morality?
·
If these laws are
laws, when is the best time and method to teach them? People don't just pick
them up. One good thing about church is a life-long institution. Childhood may
be too young, but may be a building block.
·
There appears to be an
innate ability to feel compassion -- like a baby crying with another crying
baby -- and this would be EP. But the rest of empathy may be more a socially
based phenomenon, or would be from other EP means. (
·
Can I separate the
biological (EP or hormonal) elements of certain behaviors and the 'meaning'
added component? (
·
SB
·
Language,
self-consciousness, etc. -- depend on the social aspects of mind development.
·
Doing EP in each LoL
chapter: this is another way of proving the law scientifically.
·
(Intro) How much does
our neuropsychology become interpersonal?
·
EP, F
·
EP: see pp
·
Could do papers of the
laws psychology stuff along with EP explanations (and biochemicals too). Maybe?
·
Do a paper for each
chapter with its EP roots (could try New Scientist again). (
·
I ahould make the
is/ought thing quite clear in EP.
·
I want to do EP of
LoL. But where do I want to take it? Why do I do it? What is my point? A
NATURAL MORALITY. It helps build toward my vision of a global morality.
·
There might be, in
addition to EP ideals to put in here (EP
·
Dennett's response in
(or wo?) Gould.
·
Could write each of
the 'laws' out as a story (like a Gospel) -- then what is the KoG? What is the
equivalent? Doing God's will rewards us? (
·
Each of the laws needs
to be culturally universal. (
·
Unlike most religion,
could say these laws are open to revision. (
SB
Write this so it is a type of self-help book:
· What you can do scientifically to live better, happier.
· Some things that will work for you.
· Use the sayings-story formats to get these points across.
· Tie each of them to EP.
· What areas of life still need covering (talk to Dave Myer
about this).
Look at those laws not of the
I have said that we are primarily happiness seekers. I have
wondered about the role of Jesus et al. in this, given the relativity of
normative claims. Maybe I can say this: within a world oriented toward
happiness maximizing and unhappiness minimizing, the ways of Jesus are the best
ways to live to achieve this. This is a testable statement.
Flow (
·
Does this work with
everyone? ie., anyone caught beeper wise in a flow situation feels more
meaning? Probably.
·
Anyone in a potential
situation of flow is in flow? Probably not.
·
So why are some in it
and some are not?
·
Is it that everyone in
his/her most appropriate talent wise situation will feel flow?
·
How do you know 'most
appropriate talent wise'? Does everyone have such a thing?
·
If so, does this bring
it back to evolutionary psychology?
·
Human ability to feel
flow is innate.
·
If in a situation
appropriate for innate abilities can feel flow, but can everyone get into such
a situation? Depends on culture. Cf. meneal jobs -- how unsatisfying it is --
now try working in teams. Since probably this leads to flow and a sense of
happiness.
·
Flow examples from
'primitive' cultures have people working in groups.
·
Evolutionary
psychology leads to innate abilities leads to different flow abilities leads to
meaning and purpose.
Sociobiology of Flow
Tedious tasks as hunter/gatherers leads to have meaning,
give pleasure = flow.
Csizk
Why evolution produced in us the mechanisms for flow and
happiness.
Evolutionary Psychology
·
Could flow be a form
of evolutionary produced feedback. It encourages the continuation of an
activity -- is a form(?) of pleasure.
·
Could cultural
evolution result in diversity of goals, attractions, hierarchy? When we set a
goal, it is part of the culture -- to lose weight -- but it is also part of our
diverse natures -- I could paint differently than you compose. My idea is that
we all can set goals but that they are differen goals.
·
Friends are part of a
biological need for support -- stronger source of power than money.
·
Also could do on the
biochemical basis of many relationships (e.g., love).
·
Stephen Jay Gould's
criticism of EP's explanations: look at and answer it (see his new book and his
Discover magazine article) (see the neuroscience man who spoke at Dartmouth).
Do mine stand up?
·
Wright, 'The Moral
Animal.' Any support for EP and meaning and purpose being VIP for life?
·
To look at the EP
explanations for each of the
·
Need to face the
challenge of Gould.
·
Scientific research
that helps us to decide between competing inclinations. Science
·
Expand on the value
side of the decision making process plus the sense of balance between the
inclinations. What is the basis for doing this? See the Natural Morality
book -- go into more detail about each of these inclinations and the scientific
research on them.
·
How am I going to
become happier and in a more spiritual way? What's my deepest spiritual message
I want to get out? E.g., wo my God
notion: this is all well and good theoretically, but how does it affect
my life and how would I therefore like it to affect the lives of others?
·
How can I make my
stuff make a difference in my life? I am my guinea pig. Marketable?
·
E.g., happiness <--
flow --> what gives flow to me and therefore I need to do. I.e., explore
flow for me and pass it on to others. By definition it's getting happier that's
spiritual (also ethical).
o
What are the
components of flow?
o
How can I maximize
flow for me?
o
What other aspects of my
life are important (categories by way of Covey's)?
o
How can I maximize
these?
·
Ask similar questions
re. ethics.
·
What makes my life
difficult now and how can I overcome or better cope with these challenges?
·
Employing scientific
results to make my life happier and more moral.
·
The Covey stuff--these
are the areas of (my) life each of which I need to focus on to "fix
up" to help make me happier.
·
This may make for a
different set of priorities for my life and work.
****
This is the core chapter of the book.
Brain size
·
Whatever the reason for nature selecting it
and/or the mutations for it occuring.
Self-consciousness.
·
Leads to a greater degree of self-consciousness
(which is memory plus consciousness) – John McCrone.
·
Is there other research on this besides the popularized
theory by McCrone?
Meaning
·
An act, perhaps the core act of
self-consciousness is the coherent holding together of everything that impinges
on an individual. To do this is full meaningfulness.
·
Definition of meaning from a dictionary and how
the various aspects of it relate to the above biological function.
·
Logic (Platonically real and objectively
existant?) is the biological means by which our
meaning capacity holds all the bits together. (See the Fisher number
etc. whereby logic reduces to
·
Note that words (and their definitions) like
meaning and happiness are our linguistic approximations (critical realism)
(and, to some extent, models for) certain physical realities. (Therefore, the
arguments by Thomists and others over the definition of happiness are purile
unlesss they are trying to describe rather than define the state of happiness
that we feel, i.e., subjective well being.
·
It includes knowing yourself; this is one
aspect of what impinges on your mind.
·
Framing meaning must involve (why?) drawing
conclusions and acting on them.
·
Is there research on meaning seen through this
biological functioning?
·
To be a human is to make meaning.
·
Meaning is usually created and transmitted
through storying.
·
What are the prehuman correlates to meaning
making and to the expression of meaning? Of course they will be less developed
than ours.
Meaning plus ani
·
The meaning facility imposes on and becomes
intricately connected with our animal nature as described in Chapter Two. What
does this produce?
·
Does the meaning faculty in part emerge because
of these relevant aspects of our animal nature? Think about each of them and
how they might; offer hypotheses.
·
Is there scientific and experimental work on
this?
Meaning plus happiness drive
·
What eventuates when the innate drives toward
increasing happiness and decreasing unhappiness both service and are serviced
by the meaning faculty?
·
Meaning used to increase happiness:
meaningfulness increases happiness.
·
I do more detail on this in the next chapter.
·
Happiness is more basic. Meaning creating is a
fundamental human drive and happiness increasing is a fundamental animal drive.
·
Why does increasing meaning increase happiness?
Do fewer contradictions mean less unhappiness?
·
The social psychology of happiness show that
they do interact.
·
Meaningful living is happy living provided the
meaningfulness doesn’t require behaviors and thoughts that in themselves negate
happiness (such as by pricking conscience).
·
Purposefulness is a way to create
meaningfulness (more details in the next chapter).
·
Is there scientific and experimental work on
this?
Comparisons with other theories
·
The book Quest.
·
Various systems of psychology over the role of
meaning making.
****
Human beings are
animals with big brains. This sentence may seem passe and of course it needs
qualification. Their big brainedness, however, leads to particular behaviors by
humans and, when added to several of the animal properties I wrote about in the
previous chapter, to behaviors of even more far ranging consequences. Our drive
to increase our happiness enslaves our big brains to its own ends.
This brings us to the
core of the book: meaning and its function in us.
How it increased through folding to become the
size it is.???
A simple approach to
the question, Why did the hominid brain increase to the size and shape it is in
humans?’ won’t easily and suredly lead to a helpful answer. Given the
evolutionary approach I adopt in this book, those who want to find out why
answer will probably look to evolution for an answer. Theorists provide plenty
of answers. Elaborate and reference ???. Tool making and opposable thumb.
Communicating with each other through speaking. Survival in the climatic
changes. Whatever the reason for nature selecting it and/or the mutations for
it occuring.
The why the increase
in brain size occurred isn’t important for the case I present. Whatever the
reasons for it, it happened. The consequences of its happening are what is
important. Stephen Jay Gould’s image of
the spandrals in Medieval cathedrals???
Once evolution produced the big brain in all its enfoldings of the cerebral
cortex ???, it brought a new animal with new possibilities that the
world with its laws and consistencies right
word??? could explore. Arthur’s image of nature playing with the
possibilities like playing music???
·
See The Birth of the Mind, by Gary Marcus
(Basic Books, 2004).
Psychologist John
McCrone thinks that check and add to details
and reference??? thinks that the
increase in brain size mainly increases our memory. We can remember a lot more
than our hominid predecessors. Consciousness had already emerged before our
species and, when added to our increased memory, the two produced
self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is being aware of ourselves elaborate???. It came about, McCrone thinks, because, with
our increased memory, we could become conscious of ourselves in the past and
not just the in the immediate present. We became an object of our own thinking. Is there other research on this besides the
popularized theory by McCrone?
Just as the brain is
the neuronal and synaptic linking together of innumerable elements of memory,
and other internal and external (sensory) inputs, so self-consciousness seeks
to assemble the elements of consciousness. An act, perhaps the core act of
self-consciousness is the coherent holding together of everything that impinges
on an individual. To hold all elements of the mind together in one coherent
schema is full meaningfulness.
???What about elements of the unconscious
mind???
·
Purpose: part of the self-consciousness a la John McCrone.
·
Meaning and purpose:
§
see Wright
§
look in MT
§
could do research on it via the web and thereby start my
research stuff off
·
Stuff on genes and meaning implies restrictions - tie into
neurobiological activity that produces happiness. Need to look at this research
to see how it relates to happiness.
·
Evolution
of Purpose. Look at the possibility how from Eccles' article, that there may be
experiments one can do (PET scans, etc.) that may help this
experimentally. Might help explain the
origin function of religion.
Logic
(Greek logos, “word,” “speech,” “reason”), science dealing with the principles
of valid reasoning and argument. The study of logic is the effort to determine
the conditions under which one is justified in passing from given statements,
called premises, to a conclusion that is claimed to follow from them. Logical
validity is a relationship between the premises and the conclusion such that if
the premises are true then the conclusion is true.
The validity of an argument should be distinguished from the truth of the conclusion. If one or more of the premises is false, the conclusion of a valid argument may be false. For example, “All mammals are four-footed animals; all people are mammals; therefore, all people are four-footed animals” is a valid argument with a false conclusion. On the other hand, an invalid argument may by chance have a true conclusion. “Some animals are two-footed; all people are animals; therefore, all people are two-footed” happens to have a true conclusion, but the argument is not valid. Logical validity depends on the form of the argument, not on its content. If the argument were valid, some other term could be substituted for all occurrences of any one of those used and validity would not be affected. By substituting “four-footed” for “two-footed,” it can be seen that the premises could both be true and the conclusion false. Thus the argument is invalid, even though it has a true conclusion.
What is now known as classical or traditional logic was first formulated by Aristotle, who developed rules for correct syllogistic reasoning. A syllogism is an argument made up of statements in one of four forms: “All A’s are B’s” (universal affirmative), “No A’s are B’s” (universal negative), “Some A’s are B’s” (particular affirmative), or “Some A’s are not B’s” (particular negative). The letters stand for common nouns, such as “dog,””four-footed animal,””living thing,” which are called the terms of the syllogism. A well-formed syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion, each premise having one term in common with the conclusion and one in common with the other premise. In classical logic, rules are formulated by which all well-formed syllogisms are identified as valid or invalid forms of argument.
In the middle of the
Both classical logic and modern
logic are systems of deductive logic. In a sense, the premises of a valid argument
contain the conclusion, and the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth
of the premises with certainty. Efforts have also been made to develop systems
of inductive logic, such that the premises are evidence for the conclusion, but
the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the evidence only with a
certain probability. The most notable contribution to inductive logic is that
of the British philosopher John Stuart Mill, who in his System of Logic (
Both classical and modern logic in their
usual forms assume that any well-formed sentence is either true or false. In
recent years efforts have been made to develop systems of so-called many-valued
logic, such that an assertion may have some value other than true or false. In
some this is merely a third neutral value; in others it is a probability value
expressed as a fraction ranging between
??? See the Fisher number etc. whereby logic reduces to
??? Research on meaning seen through this biological
functioning, e.g., Ramachandran on the part of the brain that creates stories
to make meaning. Or Humphries on the same. (From Leslie.) Pre-non-human correlates to these meaning
making centers and their ways to express meaning (de Waal).
??? Get from Leslie her stuff on
story telling and summarize it.
??? Myths (not as erroneous) as
examples of story telling but stories with a social acceptance, not just an
individual’s.
??? Scientific theories (ref my
book) are a form of story telling.
We usually create and
transmit meaning through storying.
Meaning comes from our
having a large brain with a large memory, which leads to self-consciousness and
therefore trying to fit everything together. Seeking meaning is therefore biological
in base. Our biology influences very many of our other behaviors as well – if
not all of them – and the current (though in its infancy) study of this lays
the foundation for further understanding how our search for meaning interacts
with other of our animal motivations and natures such as the drive to search
for happiness.
For example:
People who smoke,
take drugs or drink heavily could have their genes to blame for their unhealthy
lifestyles, researchers at Oxford have found. Their work provides the strongest
evidence yet that specific genes can influence behavior.
Scientists at the
Cancer Research UK General Practice Research Group found that certain
differences in genetic makeup may be related to an individual’s attitude to
health or their susceptibility to addiction. Over
Their research
focused on key genes that control chemical signaling in the brain. The
researchers found that one particular genetic variant – a version of the human
serotonin transporter gene (
They also found a weaker link
between a variant in a second gene – [responsible for] the dopamine D
·
We have a
number of fundamental drives including meaning and happiness. They are
interrelated and help feed each other. We can’t really isolate them or make one
paramount over the others.
·
‘The human
soul in nature.’ Our intimate mental/spiritual connection with nature.
Meaning creating is a
fundamental human drive and happiness increasing is a fundamental animal drive.
Happiness is more basic in the scale from animal to human, not that we can
easily differentiate between them in humans because they become so interwoven
and interdependent. The meaning facility imposes on and becomes intricately
connected with our animal nature as described in Chapter Two. What does this
produce? How do our biological animal drives interact with our distinctive
human capacities?
We might also ask
whether the meaning faculty in part emerge because of these relevant aspects of
our animal nature. ??? Is there scientific and experimental work on this? ??? This brings us back to why
humans evolved from, say, australopithecines or earlier, and the debates
centering on climate change versus the use of the opposable thumb, and so on.
We still await the jury’s decision on this question. In the meantime, we know
that we did evolve and that meaning-making is one of the behavioral traits that
distinguish us as a species.
???
Recall some of the discussion on happiness vis-à-vis animals. Then add stuff
from other works on human happiness and what it is.???
We ought to ask how
our innate drives toward increasing happiness and decreasing unhappiness work
with our capacity and need to create meaning. Does meaning making service or
hinder or have little to do with happiness?
I would suggest that
it could do all of these. In that confusing arrays of sensory input or memory
recall can cause unease, making them into a meaningful whole can decrease
unhappiness. Fewer contradictions mean less unhappiness. A meaningful life can
be a more satisfying life and thus happier than one that lacks meaning. This
isn’t only in theory; social psychological studies show this correlation as
well ??? examples ???
I can imagine that meaningful living is happy living provided the
meaningfulness doesn’t require behaviors and thoughts that in themselves negate
happiness (such as by pricking conscience).
Of course, a lot of
our meaning creation probably has little to do with our happiness or
unhappiness. We just make sense of things automatically without the process
doing anything to our happiness or unhappiness meters. However, if a big point
of our lives is to be happy or happier, of course we will provide it with such
a purpose, and purpose can provide meaning. Just having a purpose, whatever it
may be, can provide meaning. Purposefulness creates meaningfulness. ???
have I talked about purpose before and how it gives meaning? This may be the
subject in the next chapter. Is there scientific and experimental work on this?
???
. Further, we could, conceivably, call upon our meaning making capacity to help
us plan for increasing happiness and decreasing unhappiness. Meaning making can
become a tool in our drive toward becoming happier.
· I need to argue against dualism. Matteo (2004) in URAM offers a good example to argue against.
Quest: The essence of
humanity, by Charles Pasternak, Wiley. Reviewed by Brian Fagan
THERE are no specifically ‘human’ genes, biochemist Charles Pasternak argues in this fluent, fast-moving essay on the nature of humanity. Rather, he looks for the essence of humanity in a process that he sees as integral to all forms of life – searching, or the Quest of his title.
Even plants have quests – for the sunlight that fuels their growth. Humans, of course, have enhanced searching ability, resulting from an upright gait, manual dexterity, speech and larger brain size. Pasternak argues that though the idea of free will makes plants' and people's quests seem different, they are both ways of exploring the space of possibilities in the environment. ‘Physiologists and biochemists have taught us that there is little difference between an involuntary act like the beating of one's heart,’ he writes, ‘and a voluntary one’.
The rate of change in humans' lifestyle is greater than that of any other animal. But our behavior, though unique, is merely that of a rather sophisticated animal.
Pasternak proposes a genetic basis for searching, and
then surveys what he calls ‘the quest of modem man’ over the past
And, inevitably, ‘Is unrestricted quest by scientists acceptable?’ He surveys the controversies over genetic manipulation, again both plant and human. Then he peers into the further future. He believes that the ‘dumbing down’ of Western societies will lead to the ascendancy of eastern Asian cultures.
Quest is controversial, at times
superficial- especially historically- but often compelling. This is a book to
be argued over, which all ambitious works like this one should be. Brian Fagan
is emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Santa
Barbara. (In search of us, New Scientist
·
Various systems of psychology over the role of
meaning making.
******
Though
intelligence (meaning and purpose) has major significance for humans, ‘a
limited intellect is usually better, and creativity is often the last resort
for losers’ (NS article by Simon Reader (have)).
Mithen: modern
minds came about only after the ice age (NS article have).
22/8/05 Try calling it an anthropology of meaning.
Search for other uses of this term (e.g., Google).
Tie this stuff into belief systems (and see what new work's been done on that) - this may help with what's needed in comprehensiveness and interrelatedness and how to talk about the SoM as a system.
Another class of question is what type or depth of meaning. Meaning of life =~ what happens after death (a western Christian version of the question)? Versus what's the significance of my work? What really do we need answering in an overall sense versus that daily life gives answer to? Probably significance of my sense of self. If so, then the scientific type answers need to feed this question significantly. But could they? Or, is the real quest something other than the SoM?
5/10/05 Anthropology of meaning in a strict anthropological sense is what much of my studies have been about (e.g., myth, philosophy of science, science/religion); but now I'm especially interested in an anthropological approach to meaning for current society -- an anthropology of current meaning.
Sense/System of
Meaning
Based on my sense of self.
How important this is in psychology and social psychology.
How Christianity answers it: I'm important in the eyes of God who loves me, forgives me, and has a place for me in heaven. Secondarily, evil doers get their just rewards, etc.
How to go from sense of self to rest of meaning scheme.
How does the research undergird the sense of self? Perhaps how Christianity does this could be instructive. E.g., happiness feeds the sense of self: makes me feel worthwhile. So does to love and be loved.
How do the 8(?) traits (including purpose/meaning) work in with this?
To love and be loved by others - they can forgive me - can replace God's and in some cases is better. Do I have eternal significance? If everyone's forgotten me, who will love me?
No, I don't have eternal significance, except in what/who I and my body leave behind.
Evil doers get their just rewards? Not necessarily. Good people suffer - yes. Like to have hope for the otherwise, and the evolutionary story may have a little hope, but maybe not. Life's too complex for easy solutions anyway.
Swimme's universe story like mine but isn't enough.
Does the science provide the sense of self in other ways too? I.e., to make up for the lack of eternality. Need to look at a lot more of the social psychology stuff.
Not all religions have the life after death and reward/punishment there.
Suppose the scientific mechanisms do majorly contribute to a healthy sense of self; what else is needed for a SoM? A big set of stories that covers life's myriad of circumstances and questions.
21/8/05 The SoM is really the science of the various attributes I write about, e.g., love, happiness.
But instead of arguing against dualism and anthropomorphism, I should be constructive about what they say about living, values, and meaning. (In fact, create a set of categories for each 'attribute' to answer.) But is this really possible? I.e., could I actually pull this off? Is there the potential in the research for this?
It feels the right way to go.
Make a list of all the qualities and questions/issues I ought to look at the science of, e.g., things like love, happiness, and meaning.
In Notre Dame - power of religious ritual, music, participation, theatre, etc. Speaks to the human need to believe (= have a SoM) and acceptance of mystery. But church needn't be the only way to express and conceive of this.
Need to do a little on the appropriateness of ev psych explanations:
· 6/4/96 Going over my s/b and evil paper makes me realize how speculative my ideas on the s/b’al development of properties are – cf. the critique of Gould. What could count for proof of these ideas?
· A paper on the scope of e/p explanations plus its status as a science, i.e., the background research for SB22.
· I want to think of various strategies for their being empirical evidence for the various e/p hypotheses I use.
Outline of book on this:
Chapter 1. Scientific investigations of religious experience – conclusions form this.
· Oxford prof’s experiments on religious experience – Westminster College Centre
· Ramachardrin: temporal lobe and God experiences
· Andy Newberg and Gene d’Aquilli (P) 10/6/96
· PET on shamans (Lewis-Williams?) (P) 11/9/96
· Oxford woman on child religious experience
· Benson: are we wired for God? (P)
· Experiments on Eccles’ purpose stuff (P) 11/9/96
Chapter 2. Evolutionary biology’s possible story for God experience as natural
· Mithen on evolution of mind (P) 12/14/96
· Role of enjoyment in evolution (P) Csiz 1990:260
· Cooperation at roots of God-hole? (P) 10/6/96
· Innate structures in our minds (Gazzanaga) (P) R#112
· Brain part for making moral decisions (P) R#113
· Biological inheritance: feelings of guilt, shame, need for forgiveness (P) R#56
· S/b and morality from Bill and Phil’s work, e.g., Richardson’s book (P)
· All cultures have religion, which implies biologically inherited
· CroMagnon’s (and Neandertal’s) burial practices imply religious awareness goes way back
· Culture evolved from apes’ (P) NS 2/11/96: 46
Chapter 3. Proof. Status of e/p. Koonalda.
· Koonalda lines
· Nobel’s book: evolution of sign use (P)
· Status of e/p as a science (P)
· Comparison between ethics and language – their capacities and codes (P) Ayala
· Gould’s critique of s/b: what could prove my s/b ideas? (P) 6/4/96
Chapter 4. Given there exists a God-hole and its function, how ought it to be filled today? My theology / history of God / what ‘today’ is / projections (Guthrie)
· A Short History of God (Karen Armstrong)
· Nature of God-hole ® natural need for God today; ® nature of theology (P) 10/9/96
· Natural desire/road to God (Paul in NT) – lots on natural theology from the past
· God and evolution: Burhoe, Wilson, etc. (P) 10/9/96
· Entropy/thermodynamics – need for nonlocality for evolution (P)
· God is amoral – orthodox belief (P) R#____
· An evolutionary explanation for theology’s existence and content? (i.e., apply e/p to theology) (P) 10/6/96
· To fill the ‘God hole’ (P)
· My idea of God (P) 12/26/96
· Not questioning the existence of God, but our understanding of God (P)
· Anthropomorphisms (P)
· Projections (P) 11/9/96
Chapter 5. Conclusion. Questions open from this.
· Is an empirical task: approach God scientifically / testing models (P)
· Must have empirical evidence for e/p hypotheses I use (P)
· We can modify our genes, which implies what (re the God hole)? (P) 10/6/96
· Question of truth (P) 10/6/96
· Human nervous system affects its own state (modifying our genes?) (P) Csiz 1990:24
The prehistory of the God Spot: my archaeological work. (Have) Notes on Wentzel on this.
The biological basis of religious experience (also a reason why religious experience can’t be the basis for the truth content of theology). 11/9/96 Archaeology and the God Hole Chuck suggests PET etc. on shamanism (Lewis-Williams) to show a natural basis for religion. How about experiments on Eccles’ ‘purpose’ stuff to see if there’s a natural basis there too. Something on projections.
The Prehistory of God Make this my next paper (use Mithen) and bring out where we are now.
· Anthropomorphisms.
· God’s reality not questioned, just our understanding of God.
· ‘God hole’ to be filled.
· Is an empirial task:
o But the question is how to approach God scientifically.
o Testing models as adequate explanations (factual, consistency).
o Develop new concepts (e.g., transcended ones).
The idea of God in an evolutionary context (like Armstrong’s book, but a lot more).
See Allman’s book, The Stone Age Present, notes (have)
From an innate structure in our brain that give form to what we know/think (Gazzaniga?), but need to be supplied with content (notes have).
Ramachandran’s ‘God and the Limbic System,’ Chapter 9 (have) in Phantoms of the Brain. The God module in our heads.
Herb Benson has something on the God-spot ‘wired for God’ – see notes (have). Herb Benson’s new book: we are wired for God.
Mithen’s Prehistory of the Mind – have a review of it by Morton from Nature. Similarly, Noble and Davidson’s book Human Evolution, Language, and Mind (see note).
Tunnell article (have) on Darwinian perspective on origin of religion.
Telegraph article have: research on twins supports God gene.
Genetic influences on religiousness: have abstract: Laura Koenig.
Michael Gazzaniga, The Ethical Brain, has a section on the biological nature of belief [and ethics].
From an innate structure in our brain that give form to what we know/think (Gazzaniga?), but need to be supplied with content (notes have).
An area of the brain that makes moral decisions (note have).
Biological bases for feelings of guilt, shame, needing forgiveness (notes have).
God as amoral just as God just is (notes have).
The NS articles by Dunbar etc. (copied) describe the origin and operating mechanisms of religion. Also 2nd round of responses by Pitt, Bailey, Worley (have).
Stuart Walton, A Natural History of Human Emotions (SN review copied): fear may have given rise to religion.
6/4/05 The book about
meaning has to be about the nature of God. E.g., see all that work about the
god spot, which implies the nature of God needs to fit what the god spot needs
(= meaning). So if God = world (most obvious choice for the referent of the
word), then looking for meaning in what happens in the world and finding or
surmizing it is filling the god spot. But this does not say what God or the
world is like meaning-wise.
21/5/05 i've written on this before so I can start with those
synopses.
They're
really about the need for meaning and that its meaning of the environment
(making sense of it) and our place (including our lives and deaths) within it.
This could build on the meaning book by working especially
on the meaning of our lives and eaths in the context of the universe, a
personalized universe.
Bring in all the recent stuff and God genes, etc.
Part of the question is how far can we rightly anthropomorphize
the universe and how much do we need to anthropomorphize it.
How do we in religious traditions relate to doing to above?
What about the need for ritual and community?
What about ethics?
What about the unknown, mystery? Nonlocality - entanglement.
This raises the question of what is my theology, and
perhaps I want to develop it a teeny bit. See my little black folder for my
theology.
5/8/96 Maybe a look at
the evolution of religion (start with the book by Stuart Guthrie) (or its
biosociobiological function) would set the stage for this book.
Gene's
and Andy's neuro research on the nature of the 'God hole' -- an evolutionary
psychological model for its origin.
Thursday, 27 May 2004 @ 9:25:20 AM My book of lectures (or straight book) on the God Spot:
Refer to Wentzel's Gifford Lectures as evidence of
relevance
I'm a practicing not an armchair cave art researcher
In the tradition of Breuil and Teilhard and Glory.
14/10/00 The God hole:
our universal need for a god. How the image of the Divine in relation to the
universe works out in us. This also involves Petrovitch's work and the
evolution of mind work. [(Mary) Impressed by children's answers: they feel they
are part of the universe, a sense of being part of the whole. Adults usually
lose this through aculturation. This is my God.] And archaeology
(Lewis-Williams, etc.). God hole: evolutionary need for perspective; religious
experience. How the God-hole has been filled (historically). How it might be
filled: uaaw; LoL/natural morality.
10/6/96 I have to make a case for evolutionary psychology telling
us about the nature of our God-hole, and therefore about the way we perceive
God and why we do it. This informs theology, creating a scientific approach to
theology. So needs:
A) evolutionary psychology about the nature of religion
and God
B) research on the artifacts of this - cave art etc.
ie how to get back to see what the hole is and how it's
been filled - Cave art etc. (v. old) - Ancient scriptures (old) - Historical times
Modern (psychology, etc.)
Indigenous
societies (anthropology)
See Karen Armstrong's The History of God
THE PAST MOVES FORWARD by Kevin Sharpe
PRIOR
IDEAS
Discovering
and naming the soul within.
The
primal soul in nature.
Our
intimate mental/spiritual connection with nature.
To
sort out me and the new age philosophies.
Strong
social points.
The
art had a practical meaning, not necessarily esoteric.
Uaaw
comes through the spiritual and physical interpretations.
Evolution
gives me a perspective on the spiritual life: the evolution of religion.
John
Teske: Our spirituality is a product of the very processes of human evolution
which make the social construction of human culture, human meaning, and
individual psychology possible, and even necessary.
THOUGHTS
NOW
What
perspective does evolution provide on the markings?
What
can we obtain from them that tells us about the relationship between human
beings and the Divine?
Suppose
they were writing or communication. Suppose all life was riddled with the spiritual
for the line makers and artists. 1. Do we need to crack the code to be able to
say something about their spirituality? 2. How do we move from them to us? Or
is it necessary? Answers:
2.
The move could be subtle and implied. If I can show how their life was
intimately religious and that the Divine was for them the uaaw, that may be
enough, especially if I can also show how great they were and that that is our
heritage dismantled since the rise of science, much to our disadvantage.
That
sounds like an extremely tall order.
It
may be better to answer 1 and then 2 will follow.
1.
Obviously, we can't. So what do we have about the painters and line makers:
Very
talented.
Very
capable of all sorts of things.
Socially
complex.
Did
art everywhere.
A
world-wide system of marking.
Seems
like writing.
Feel
like I'm in the presence of something very great. Spiritual like the Sisteen
chapel.
So
what can I conclude from this that sounds like spirituality (in Covey sense) to
me?
They
were very spiritual people, and their sense of spirituality went through
much-if not all-their lives.
Given
the sophistication of their lives and spiritual expression, one might conclude
that their spiritual lives were as equally as sophisticated.
2.
To move from them to us, if necessary.
I
don't think I can draw supportable parallels.
But
I could do this through stories and autobiography.
What
do I want to say? That our spiritual lives can be in the Covey sense, that they
can be sophisticated though modernized. That they be intimately connected with
the world of our experience.
To
make these points I could draw on stories of myself, family, students,
archaeologists, etc., that have to do with the archaeology.
I'm
not sure yet what stories, but I'm sure they'll come.
The
next step is to write an introduction which is the lead and hook for the book.
ANOTHER
THOUGHT: Do I want to focus on
Our
spiritual experience and what that might say of theirs?
The
evolution of religion?
What
they thought about the Divine?
What
the line markings meant to the markers?
Perhaps
all three, but my challenge is the third and the fourth ones.
How
might I work the four of these in together? Try it this way:
It's
easy to talk about our spiritual and intellectual experience of the markings
and the art, and to summarize what other people say by way of explanations. The
art can also be put into the context of the evolution of religion and of
symbolic/written expression. I want to put all these together to come up with
suggestions as to ways to approach and perhaps answer these questions: What was
their spiritual experience? What did they think about the Divine? What did the
lines mean to them? And, as just as small tid bit on top of these, What might
they say to us moderns in our spiritual quest?
Actually,
the last question may not be that far away because the biological function of
spirituality/religion is still the same, even if its social expressions vary a
lot probably (but see how old the OT and Chinese traditions are). A good look
at modern histories of religion could tell me a lot about the religions of
hunter gathers etc. Back to their sociobiological functions, though. What
functions does a religion have to fulfill? See my list of what a mythology
should do. How are these fulfilled by what we know of these people's spiritual
practices? i.e., can we build a picture of at least some of their
religious/spiritual lives? I think we might. But it might be stretching it a
bit to look for implications for ourselves, at least explicitly. I do like the
idea of bringing out the ramifications subtly by weaving modern stories in and
around the scientific speculation, relevant stories to do with us, etc.
ANOTHER
THOUGHT: What about applying my Koonalda methodology including looking for
ethnographic co-terminal examples with the same structure. Or some variant on
this for trying to get at the meaning of art.
What
can I say about their image of the Divine? I think I should assume that they
thought of nature as divine in some way or at least as there being divinities
that had responsibilities for various parts of what we call nature. A sort of
pantheistic animism. The book should have a chapter on this sort of religion.
What should we look for as evidence for this sort of religion? Are there any
tell-tale signs of it? A good research project. This seems from my current
knowledge to offer little background but no real meat. It may provide as little
information as the French cave owners do.
This
seems like a very far fetched aim unless I find some other keys, e.g., in
Guthrie's book.
So
what's a better aim?
17/9/00
God spot -- related to the biological need (see work on this) on purpose.
Below
is another posting from Robert Wright on the theme of his new book NONZERO: The
Logic of Human Destiny. In the posting
below, Wright suggest that the mystery of consciousness is suggestive of higher
purpose, though not necessarily in the form of an omnipotent and omniscient
God. Wright argues that the subjective
experience of pain and pleasure is epiphenomenal to the material substrate. He
imagines a planet in which life evolved in purely mechanistic ways without this
subjective experience and concludes that it would be meaningless. In contrast,
consciousness points towards a kind of significance and meaning within the life
process. He writes: "This notion
that sentience naturally accompanies complex data-processing strikes me as the
most plausible explanation of consciousness around. And in its light, organic
history acquires an interesting kind of significance. Because, as I argue in my
book, organic evolution pretty much ensures extremely complex
data-processing." -- Billy Grassie
In
my previous two postings I contended that (1) both biological and cultural
evolution are directional in the sense that they have a strong tendency to
create more complex structures over time (animals and human societies,
respectively); and (2) in the case of biological evolution, at least, this
directionality is suggestive of purpose (particularly given the role that
information processing plays in sustaining the direction).
But
to say that evolution may serve a "higher" purpose in the sense of a
"larger" purpose isn't to say it serves a "higher" purpose
in the sense of a "divine" purpose. Even if you accept my contention
that the evolutionary process has some hallmarks of design, the question
remains: does the design seem to embody the values that religious people
associate with God?
In
one sense, the answer has to be no. The kind of God that is hardest to find
evidence of is the kind most people seem to believe in: a God that is
infinitely powerful and infinitely good. After all, presumably that kind of God
wouldn't permit the various forms of cruelty and suffering that afflict the
world (including those inherent in organic evolution, and thus in our
creation).
Still,
even if we acknowledge the problem of evil, and acknowledge that we can't solve
it, we can at least ask: Are there signs of *any* divinely imparted meaning in
the evolutionary process? Granted directionality in the sense of growing
complexity, is there any directionality along what you might call a spiritual
or moral dimension? For that matter, is there anything you might *call* a
spiritual or moral dimension? I think the answer to these questions is yes, and
I'll spend my final two postings explaining this position.
The
first part of my argument has to do with what I consider the mystery of
consciousness, or of sentience--the mystery surrounding the fact that we are
capable of feeling pleasure and pain; that, as the philosopher Thomas Nagel
famously put it, it is "like something" to be alive.
Let
me stress that the "mystery" I'm talking about isn't the mystery of
*how* the brain generates consciousness (the question Daniel Dennett addresses
in "Consciousness Explained").Rather, I'm asking *why* the brain
generates consciousness. And the point I'm trying to make is that, according to
what is the closest thing to a consensual view of consciousness in the modern
behavioral sciences, this "why" question is wholly baffling. The reason
is that, according to this mainstream view, consciousness--subjective
experience--has no behavioral manifestations; it doesn't *do* anything.
Sure,
you may *feel* as if your feelings do things. Isn't it the sensation of heat,
after all, that causes you to withdraw your hand from the surprisingly hot
stove? The answer presupposed by mainstream behavioral science is: no.
Corresponding to the subjective sensation of heat is an objective, physical
flow of biological information. Physical impulses signifying heat travel up
your arm and are processed by your equally physical brain. The output is a
physical signal that coerces your muscles into withdrawing your hand. Here, at
the sheerly physical level, is where the real action is. Your sensation of pain
bears roughly the relation to the real action that your shadow bears to you. In
technical terms: consciousness, subjective experience, is
"epiphenomenal"--it is always an effect, never a cause.
But
if this is true--if consciousness doesn't *do* anything—then its existence
becomes quite the unfathomable mystery. If
ubjective experience is superfluous to the day-to-day business of living
and eating and getting our genes into the next generation, then why would it
have ever arisen in the course of natural selection? Why would life acquire a
major property that has no function?
People
who claim to have an answer usually turn out to have misunderstood the
question. For example, some people say that consciousness arose so that people
could process language. And it's true, of course, that we're conscious of
language. As we speak, we have the subjective experience of turning our
thoughts into words. It even feels as if our inner, conscious self is *causing*
the words to be formed. But, whatever it may feel like, the (often unspoken)
premise of mainstream behavioral science is that when you are in conversation
with someone, all the causing happens at a physical level. That someone flaps
his or her tongue, generating physical sound waves that enter your ear,
triggering a sequence of physical processes in your brain that ultimately
result in the flapping of your own tongue, and so on. In short: the
*experience* of assimilating someone's words and formulating a reply is
superfluous to the assimilation and the reply, both of which are just intricate
mechanical processes.
Besides,
if conscious experience arose to abet human language, then why does it also
accompany such things as getting our fingers smashed by rocks--things that
existed long before human language?
The
mystery of consciousness has lately been underscored by computer science.
Though artificial intelligence hasn't advanced at breathtaking speed, there has
been measured progress in automating sensory and cognitive tasks. There are
robots that "feel" things and recoil from them, or "see"
things and identify them; there are computers that "analyze" chess
strategies. And, clearly, everything these robots do can be explained in wholly
physical terms, via electronic blips and the like. "Feeling" and
"seeing" and "analyzing," these machines suggest, needn't
involve sentience. Yet they do--in our species at least.
So
what is my point? Why do I attach such philosophical, even theological,
significance to the mystery of consciousness?
In answering
that question, it is helpful to imagine a world without consciousness. Consider
planet X, on which life evolves. Little bits of self-replicating material (call
them genes) encase themselves (by a process we'll call natural selection) in
protective armor that exhibits behavioral flexibility. One species in
particular--a brainy, two-legged organism--exhibits lots of behavioral
flexibility. These organisms are capable of great feats: communicating with
subtlety, creating art, watching TV.
But
these organisms have no trace of sentience; it isn't *like* *anything* to be
them. Yes, fire burns their skin, so, yes, they're designed to withdraw their
hands from fire, but, no, they don't feel pain. Or happiness, or anything.
Obviously,
such a world would lack the kinds of things many people cite as key sources of
life's meaning: such feelings as undying love, devout allegiance, the thrill of
victory, and so on. But there is something else, too. Such a world would lack
*moral* meaning. After all, these so-called "organisms" are just
machines, as devoid of feeling as a computer (or at least, as devoid of feeling
as we presume a computer to be). Is there anything immoral about unplugging a
computer for good? And if not, then how could there be anything immoral about
killing one of these insensate organisms on this emotionally barren planet,
where there was never any potential for fulfillment in the first place? This is
what a world truly without meaning would look like: it would offer no context
in which words such as "right" and "wrong" made sense.
In
this light, it seems to me that the mystery of consciousness takes on genuine
theological significance. I'm not saying it proves the existence of God. But
certainly the fact that the one feature of human existence that is of
mysterious, even inexplicable, origin is also the central source of life's
meaning doesn't exactly discourage speculation about divine beings and higher
purpose.
And
this fact renders odd the tendency of people convinced of life's meaninglessness
to cite, as support, science's having "explained away" the mysteries
of life. After all, it isn't just that science hasn't managed to *solve* the
mystery of consciousness. In a sense, science *created* the mystery of
consciousness; the mystery emerges from a hard-nosed, scientific view of
behavior and causality.
Faced
with the mystery of consciousness, some people--including such philosophers as
David Chalmers--have suggested that the explanation must lie in a kind of
metaphysical law: consciousness accompanies particular kinds of information
processing (perhaps only organic kinds, perhaps information processing in
general).
This
notion that sentience naturally accompanies complex data-processing strikes me
as the most plausible explanation of consciousness around. And in its light,
organic history acquires an interesting kind of significance. Because, as I
argue in my book, organic evolution pretty much ensures extremely complex
data-processing. Over time, we see more and more complex animals that process
information more and more elaborately.
And
it isn't just that natural selection favors *behavioral* complexity, and thus
deft data processing. Complexity of biological structure itself, from the very
beginning, entailed information processing. Forget about your brain and its
ability to plan vacations, wondrous though this is. Just think about your lungs
or kidneys, about breathing or urinating. These things, too, are data-rich--not
just via involvement with the nervous system, but via hormonal control, via all
kinds of minor bits of cellular crosstalk. For that matter, a single cell--any
one of yours or any one bacterium--has at its heart an information processor of
no meager sophistication, DNA.
Granted,
when it comes to our most sublime, most meaningful moments--feeling love or
empathy, joy or epiphany, even abject but profound remorse--kidneys and
bacteria just won't get the job done. Brains are where the action is. So it's
fortunate that large multicellular animals with great behavioral complexity seem
to have been in the cards. My point is just that these brains are a continuous
outgrowth of something at life's very essence: a primordial imperative to
process information. Given the connection among information processing,
sentience, and meaning, it is fair to say that evolution by natural selection
was from the beginning a veritable machine for making meaning.
(In
my book Nonzero, I argue that the logic by which complexity, hence
data-processing, hence meaning, grows is the logic of "non-zero-sumness".
The genes along a strand of DNA have a non-zero-sum relationship with one
another, as do the organelles within a cell, the cells within a body. In all of
these cases, the cause of the non-zero-sumness is shared Darwinian
interest--being in the same boat in one sense or another--and the result is
transmitted information. For, as I also note in the book, the successful
playing of non-zero-sum games--cooperative coordination--generally involves
communication.)
That
biological evolution has an arrow--the invention of more structurally and
informationally complex forms of life--and that this arrow points toward
meaning, isn't, of course, proof of the existence of God. But it's more
suggestive of divinity than an alternative world would be: a world in which evolution
had no direction, or a world with directional evolution but no consciousness.
If more scientists appreciated the weirdness of consciousness—understood that a
world without sentience, hence without meaning, is exactly the world that a
modern behavioral scientist should expect to exist—then reality might inspire
more awe than it does.
Of
course, a world full of meaning isn't a world full of goodness. After all,
sentience brings equally the capacity for joy and for suffering, for good and
for bad. It is the existence of meaning that allowed Pol Pot to be a person of
consequence. On Planet X, that imaginary world of zombies, devoid of sentience
and thus of meaning, the Pol Pots and Hitlers and Stalins would be incapable of
evil; however destructive, they could inflict no suffering, prevent no
happiness, affront no dignity.
In
short, the existence of meaning is morally neutral; it creates the potential
for good, but doesn't, by itself, tip the scales in that direction. In this
light we might hope for more from a divine architect than mere meaning, the
mere *capacity* for good things. We might hope for the *realization* of good
things--every now and then, at least, and the more often, the better.
Is
there any reason to think that the evolutionary process, in addition to
naturally creating and expanding meaning, naturally creates and expands
goodness? This will be the subject of my next and final posting.
Thanks
for reading this far.
Bob
Wright. Author of Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny http://www.nonzero.org.
10/4/04 From Richard Trowbridge, in his
evaluation of my seminar:
I mentioned in the required paper that I found a key idea of Wilson's (with which Kevin seems to agree) to be erroneous, and I repeat it here as it still appears a valid objection:
On page 130, E. O. Wilson is cited: "If there is any single value that is fundamental to all life it is the struggle to stay alive as a species", and Sharpe adds that "A meaning system that [denies that our survival as a species is the most urgent value] has gone haywire. . ." (131). These statements are so counterintuitive as not to be credible without being supported by evidence. In the first place, many humans may be observed to value companion animals or neighborhood animals or endangered species far more than they do distant humans. Also, the DNA that composes our species links us with a 3500 million year prehuman ancestry, a lineage in which our species occupies only the last 1 million years. How deep and how exclusive can species loyalty then be?
The assumption that the desire to survive is "the strongest drive in us" (150 et alibi) is questionable. It seems to me worth considering whether there may be something more fundamental still, a sort of simple joy in existence. After all, life at its most basic may have no suspicion of the possibility of nonexistence. And while the organism is short-lived, life itself is not. Our deepest identification may not be with the survival of the organism or of the species, but with life itself. I am thinking of Jung's statement in his memoir Memories, Dreams, Reflections:
Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away-an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost a sense of something that lives and endures underneath the eternal flux. What we see is the blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains.
The whole evolution of complexity may progress at its own pace not to keep us tied to this animal or quasi-animal form. Is it possible to say where another 3.5 billion years of evolution will take us?
Steve Wilson’s article (have) on worshipping Mr Loh – a made up god and its positive effects.
Whether what comes below will be a better SOM for modernity
To derive a SoM based on research (rather than speculation or questionably interpreted religious experience)