I return to this paradox which I contemplated at the start of Lent last year: Which of the two following statements are true?
- "You are as insignificant as a grain of sand"
- "The Universe was made for you."
As I wrote last Lent, both are simultaneously true. But now for the nuance - the new understanding that I have since acquired. The first statement is objectively true. The second statement is subjectively true.
Materialist reductionism holds that your existence is merely an accident in a randomly emergent universe. Here you are, a biological entity on a planet in a solar system, orbiting a star that's one of hundreds of billions in a galaxy which is in itself one of hundreds of billions of galaxies in a observable Universe that's 93 billion light years across. And that our Universe may be one of several, or even one of an infinite number of universes. In this objective perspective, you are indeed utterly insignificant.
But let's take the subjective view. Rather than look out to the furthest reaches of the Universe, focus on something far more familiar to you - your subjective conscious experience. If you were to be alive at a different time in human history, before anyone could imagine the size and scale of the cosmos, your subjective conscious experience would have been just as valid as what you are experiencing now - the feeling of cold on your cheeks as you open the front door on a winter's night, watching the sun sink over the horizon on a warm summer's evening. The memories of such experiences, or qualia, would still resurface.
Would the Universe still exist if you weren't around to be aware of it? If a tree fell in a forest and there was nobody there, would it make a sound? No - because 'sound' is more than just the vibration of air molecules caused by a falling tree - 'sound' is the conscious perception of that vibration.
Subjectivity - the subjective point of view - is the product of consciousness. The nature of consciousness was not something that science worried too much about until recent years. Traditionally, discussions about consciousness were limited to the realm of philosophy. These days, there a healthy debate within the scientific world - physicists, neurologists, mathematicians even - as to what consciousness is, how it evolved, where it is located, and how it functions. I will cover this in greater depth as Lent progresses.
Over the past year I have also written about the duality that exists between Ego and Consciousness, how ego can stifle the clear, calm voice of one's consciousness, and how the two ebb and flow over one other over time. The boastful, brash ego is a product of biology - it is the body's driver in a competitive and hierarchical mammalian society. It is concerned about how it is perceived by others. Consciousness - qualia - are the truest manifestations of what it means to be human, what it means to be alive. The negative emotions generated by the ego - pride, jealousy, are linked to objective assessments of one's place in the human hierarchy. "I want a better car, to show off in front of others." The ego drives us to do the wrong thing - working in jobs we don't like, to buy things we don't need, to impress people we don't know.
Being able to differentiate between the two is crucial to attaining a basic peace of mind. How many people I know torture themselves to prove something to others, when they could be seeking far more valuable outcomes from their life than material baubles. How we exercise our consciousness to edge it a tiny bit closer toward Universal awareness is something I shall be writing about over the course of the next 44 days.
This time last year:
The Afterlife - Faith and Doubt
This time two years ago:
Build your own religion: the trappings of faith
This time five years ago:
Health: duty of care
This time six years ago:
Cognitive bias in the search for God
This time seven years ago:
A spiritual frame of mind
This time eight years ago:
Sunday in the City
This time nine years ago:
God's teachings
This time 13 years ago:
A week into Lent
No comments:
Post a Comment