Pithy quotes from our current reading which give us pause to reflect

I decided to go back and look for Christian religious themes in Cummings’ poetry and came across this wonderful website entitled " Art & Theology. The author of this blog describe’s its mission this way:

The mission of Art & Theology is to help the church rediscover its rich heritage in the visual, literary, and musical arts and to open it up to the activity of contemporary artists, whose giftings can enable us to see God in new and different ways. Art can enhance our spiritual perception, enrich our prayer lives, stimulate renewed engagement with the Bible, make us more empathetic, challenge our beliefs in a healthy way, and bring us into more intimate contact with the world. Art testifies; it questions; it holds accountable; it stirs and reveals.

Art also slows us down: It invites us to gaze. Deeply. In doing so it fosters the habit of contemplation.

I’m glad to see more Christians discovering the spiritual relevance of his poetry. Cummings’ father had been a paster in the Unitarian church

Birth is a major theme in this poem. “i who have died am alive again,” writes Cummings as himself. He experiences a spiritual awakening, “the birth / day of life and of love and wings.” To me, this line is the most evocative one in the poem. I read into it my own experience of awakening—that is, my conversion to Christianity, my being raised with Christ into new life. This isn’t the same kind of awakening that Cummings is talking about, who, being Unitarian, rejected the divinity of Christ and the literalness of the Resurrection.5 His born-again experience seems to refer more generally to a sudden, sweeping awareness of the glory of God, a wonder that lifts him up out of either ignorance or depression, as if on wings.

There is a nice discussion of one of Cummings’ more famous poems “i thank You God for most this amazing” here. But there are many other relevant poems some of which lament how so many fall away from a regard for what is greater, without which it is so hard to make sense of what we are as people. For example this one “of Ever-Ever Land I speak” where the theme is most obvious in what I bolded:

(of Ever-Ever Land i speak
sweet morons gather roun’
who does not dare to stand or sit
may take it lying down)

down with the human soul
and anything else uncanned
for everyone carries canopeners
in Ever-Ever Land

(for Ever-Ever Land is a place
that’s as simple as simple can be
and was built that way on purpose
by simple people like we)

down with hell and heaven
and all the religious fuss
infinity pleased our parents
one inch looks good to us

(and Ever-Ever Land is a place
that’s measured and safe and known
where it’s lucky to be unlucky
and the hitler lies down with the cohn)

down above all with love
and everything perverse
or which makes some feel more better
when all ought to feel less worse

(but only sameness is normal
in Ever-Ever Land
for a bad cigar is a woman
but a gland is only a gland)

In my opinion he was of the opinion that conformity was a greater enemy of spiritual awakening than rampant individualism. When we finally know each other on the other side, it should be in our whole uniqueness. Otherwise we subtract from the depth and breadth of God.

Meanwhile, back in Phillip Ball’s How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology, specifically on Kiindle pages 333 and 334, at the beginning of Chapter 9, ‘Agency; How Life Gets Goals and Purposes’:

… Even if we can begin to glimpse some of the principles that create robustness instead of fragility, there’s something unsettling about the way a structure, a creature, so literally single-minded emerges from all those details. How can it be that these many steps all work together in synchrony to fashion an organism like us? Why, for example, should the process of protein folding to make an enzyme cooperate with the migration of cells, at scales many thousands of times bigger, to make a tissue? All these processes operate as if in thrall to some overall plan, with us as the goal. Biology looks uncannily teleological. That thought disturbs some biologists no end.

Yet their discomfort cannot be allowed to deter us from taking the question seriously—which means asking what all this intricacy and ingenuity of life’s mechanisms is for. It might sound like a dangerously mystical question, or at best metaphysical. But rather than simply dismissing it as such, the goal should be to shape the question into a useful, tractable, testable form. That’s to say, one of the big challenges for biology is to develop a rational, productive framework for understanding concepts such as agency, information, meaning, and purpose. These are not optional add- ons for the philosophically inclined, once we have solved all the minutiae of how life works at the microscopic scale. Rather, they sit at the core of life itself. Without that big picture, we risk ending up with the equivalent of a detailed description of everything about a complex machine’s operation except for an understanding of what it actually does. What, after all, is the point of knowing how life works if we don’t know what it is working toward?

@Kendel this may not be the sort of “purpose of life” you had in mind before but isn’t it interesting to see it emerge in the process of trying to understand biology more deeply?

2 Likes

I like this ode to awe, and think it ought to be a prelude to a willingness toward contemplation on many of life’s permanent fronts, not just the left brained one that ceaselessly strains toward ‘practicality’.

2 Likes

I couldn’t agree with you more.

1 Like

What do we mean when we talk about meaning? For me, this is a different but related consideration, but still an interesting topic.

And a very challenging one – for me.
Frustratingly, I see two possibilities. I understand other people see different possibilities than I do. I’m frustrated by those, because I don’t comprehend them in a way that makes them seem possible.
My possibilities are, roughly:

  1. an entirely naturalistic, existence that operates the way it operates, because that is how the existing material does operate. Any “rules” or “laws” that apparently “govern” it are a verbal description of the consistent processes of the operation. Its existence is inexplicable (for now); it’s functions occur because they are what happens under the circumstances in which the particular matter exists.

Or

  1. an independent, conscious, sentient, will-possessing creator is responsible for all existence. If we are to talk about God (or something greater) in relation to our “meaning” or “telos” I think all three features are necessary. As I understand the term, “Telos” implies purposeful direction toward a goal. The purpose may or may not be our own, but I think the term implies there is purpose somewhere behind the trajectory. I think it’s hard to provide our own trajectory as well, popping into the game as we do at birth. So, if this second scenario is true, I don’t grasp how there could be purposeful direction toward a goal, if the one responsible had no will or awareness or consciousness.

Likewise, I don’t grasp how how a telos-providing something can arise from the natural entities that it gives that telos to, unless the telos is an imaginary telos that we provide for ourselves. This seems circular to me. And takes me back to the first option, which I think you and @Klax discussed about roughly a year ago.

So to your highlighted section/question…

Why indeed? This question you highlighted is the basis for the logic of traditional Natural Theology – the working one’s way from observing these processes in nature to the deduction that there must be something/someone working from the outside. It looks like it’s going somewhere, therefore something must be driving it.

Neither possibility I described above satisfies all our felt needs and or answers all our questions.
If 1 is true, we exist without purpose, and maybe even worse, without the the external conscious recognition of or desire for our existence. Nothing exists to want us, notice us or to plan or care for or about us. We also can’t say anything definitive (I presume) about where it all comes from and how.

If 2 is true, I don’t think we can figure it out from observing nature, because there are so many good explanations that don’t involve telos, purpose, anything. We simply don’t understand the world the way the ancients did, which is view reflected in Romans 1:20

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

I don’t mean to imply that God or any other responsible agent doesn’t exist; but that the existence of God can’t be figured out from observing nature.
However, if 2 is true, there is the possibility that something real and independent of us recognizes us and our existence, desires our existence, has a purpose or goal for our existence.

I think the author fails to notice his own discomfort here. We WANT meaning (however each of us defines it ourselves) very badly. He is assuming, THAT the intricacies and ingenuity of life’s mechanisms are for anything at all.

At the risk of appearing doddery, I repeat what I started this post with. And add another question.

“What IS the point of knowing” is an interesting question and possibly satisfying pursuit. We’d like to know that all that work and effort someone (else) did has a purpose, a point. But does that desire to know what life is for - that feeling that it IS for something and is valuable - actually tell us more than just our desire for it to?

I don’t think so. And I don’t think nature helps us answer the question, either.

I’d love certainty that I don’t have. Until God reveals it, I have to take it on faith.

(Forgive me if this seems unedited and wandery. I’ve been working on it for hours, actually, but on very little sleep, living in an uncooperative body.)

Not at all it seems heart felt with strong undertones of truth. Especially,

I’d love certainty that I don’t have. Until God reveals it, I have to take it on faith.

I agree with this and think that everything God has ever revealed to anyone was for the sake of telling those people what they needed to hear in order to live together in the best way and to know about Him that which we are able to appreciate and which will help us.

Now here is where the kindest thing would be to stop talking and so not disturbing your peace and settled belief. But I have to tell you I think all of that applies as much to the Bible’s message as anything else. We shall never get to the bottom of or behind God to see what makes him go or who he is but I have my own way of understanding that now which I will share if you want to hear it. I believe it and it makes my faith stronger still. It was inspired in part by Ball’s book but he has no theological or philosophical position in any of this that I can detect and I know from his conversation with McGilchrist that he is absolutely determined not to worry about such things while there is the possibility to ask questions which can lead to better understanding life biologically.

Now I was in the middle of writing a letter to Rob and had come here to copy some bits from the post to share with him. So now I am a little discombobulated, moving in multiple directions at once which is something I no longer do well if I ever did.

I scanned your response and need to study it closer but can I ask you if you’d like to know what meaning I’ve gathered from Ball which bears on my faith in and conception of God? Or perhaps leave all this aside and seek your own peace in your own way without the disturbance? I have other outlets for sharing what excited me about this passage so there is no need to go there on my account. Sleep on it and let me know. I’ll probably turn in a little early tonight after a big day, a big walk and a lot of exchanges on multiple forums. I’ll be lucky if I can relax and get a good night’s sleep as it is. Hopefully yours will be better.

But I can tell you from McGilchrist alone I don’t believe life has any instrumental purpose toward anything beyond itself, and doesn’t need it. Life is amazingly improbable from a physics POV and yet here we are zillions us dancing on the head of a pin and laughing in the face of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hopefully we are fully appreciating this miracle.

I shared the first video of Ball and McGilchrist’s conversation. About a month ago part two came out if you’re interested. The two together create quite a spark.

1 Like

When you have time and energy, go for it, Mark. I look forward to your response.
Please include more in what you mean regarding the 2nd law.

1 Like

Will do. I hope to be winding down soon but I’m nearing the end of the video I recommended and started watching again. So exciting! It is not helping to bring delta or REM any closer. But I’m excited to say more if you’re sure. I think you know I don’t think my new idea is at all damaging to belief in God or valuing one’s culture. But if what constitutes my faith loosens the bonds of your own I would regret it.

1 Like

Much better than my last attempt at a post – my fever is back, this time with nausea that’s making me wish I hadn’t managed to eat a (healthy) snack, and when I started to review what I’d written the words didn’t even form coherent sentences. In a way it’s amusing, but very frustrating.

. . . while we serve it! Life builds order by increasing entropy.

I read that somewhere; don’t ask me to explain it.

1 Like

You’re right according to my sources. Life uses a lot of surprising methods to maintain equilibrium (avoid death, i.e.) but it (we?/God?) does it very well.

Ugh. Praying you’re back to health soon!

1 Like

Mark, I look forward to reading what you write. There are many, many different views around here,

2 Likes

Here you go:

Warning: this is the dimly perceived outline of one person’s conception of God influenced no doubt by having been brought up, though imperfectly, in a largely Christian culture. My advantage or disadvantage depending on your perspective and commitments is that I didn’t get formal instruction which could have pinned down meanings in orthodox ways. I think it is both because there are two ways to go wrong where the sacred is concerned: one is to fall prey to ego driven delusions; the other is to fall prey to conformity toward a poorly understood set of orthodox bullet points which have no real hold on us. I don’t believe one has to choose to be gored on one of those horns.

Reading Ball has convinced me we’re not zombies powered from below by genes as Dawkins would have it. The many cells that make up our bodies are not directed by us anymore than we are directed by our genes; we just emerge from what they’ve discovered is a beneficial way for them to live together. Joining together in what we might call their ‘new kingdom’ has brought about metazoans like ourselves which bring new possibilities into the world including values, self awareness, meaning and a sense of the sacred.

We cannot explain how exactly we emerge from the trillions of cells who collaborate to form our bodies but clearly we do and they manage to provide us with a very generous lifespan. My new thought is that when creatures like ourselves come together in recognition of all we’ve been given and the mystery which calls us to recognize values, even more possibilities are made possible. Like the recognition of a being that has made ourselves and our world possible. When we reach the point that this being becomes real for us we attain the potential for transformation which can lead to harmony and peace like that which the cells of our bodies display (not that their inner states -whatever those may be- mirror our own).

I think this being we become aware of is God and that He has been pleased with what we’ve become even if not with how we often treat each other and with how we are often blind to Him. Now I see God as a higher order metazoan being who arises from our communities of metazoans just as we arise individually from the community of cells that make up our bodies. Whereas we arise as metazoans with minds independent of the cognition and agency of the cells which support us, God likewise arises from the activity of we metazoans in a way that is independent of our cognition and agency. That we’ve become suitable to the task isn’t our accomplishment but something we’ve been guided toward for a long time.

Now I don’t claim that this God as I conceive Him can support the entire back story of the Bible’s God. But I do believe that all people only ever are given to know about this being what He thinks we are ready for and will be helped by knowing. That is what I think the Bible is but I do think some of its metaphors are dated, such as thinking of God as a sort of celestial liege lord to whom one pledges oneself in exchange for protection and advantage. I’ll stop there. I’m okay with people venting but I won’t respond to anyone’s questions or comments which cannot rise above the indignation to consider that people’s experience can actually differ. I’m not looking for agreement, just sharing my position.

1 Like

I find “1” untenable but “2” differently as you can tell by what I already wrote about my evolving sense of God. Let’s take your three necessary components one at a time.

Independent - Yes for me. Just as I feel we are independent of the cells of our bodies whose intersactions constitute and sustain us, so I think God is independent of those same cells and of the metazoan minds which somehow sustain this greater being.

Sentient - I think so but I do not assume that means for God what it does for us. God does not need to fret, plan or execute a plan to be God. But I think He does feel/know us in ways we do not know the cells which make up our bodies and enable our metazoan minds. More specificity seems only possible if one accepts authoritative texts which I don’t. Where as you are choosing between a couple of alternatives theologically I am feeling around in a dark room for something I don’t already know the contours of. Something greater for me is not answerable with a multiple choice test.

Will possessing - absolutely. Somehow life has found a way and got a start under conditions we do not understand. If everything was simply inert matter up until life showed up - where could it have come from? Where could consciousness have come from if not already present in some way or other? Something greater than the stuff we know of was necessary. What? For us it must be a mystery.

Nor do I but I’m pretty sure what we seek was always already there. God was there and brought forth order from chaos. Not that we will ever know it but I think God has a back story. He wasn’t always as He is now and in becoming what he will become he has brought everything else into being too. It isn’t that God just is an extension of the natural world but rather the other way around. God had values and that has shaped the unfolding of the world as we know it. He wasn’t some humanoid something like us sitting around for eons who suddenly came up with and implemented a plan. Being proceed from becoming and God is first and foremost becoming. Being is the residue of His back story which we can only guess at, or if revelation is given then we can wonder at why and for what purpose but I don’t think we will ever have “just the facts”. Science can only reach so far.

We will never understand the world, ourselves or God/what-is-greater mechanistically which is what I think you mean by studying the natural world. But something calls to us and we need a way to think of it. I think we have that.

I’ll stop here as I too am feeling repetitive.

1 Like

Moved into the second stage; milder fever, coughing up gobs of gunk, able to eat some, don’t need to nap every few hours. Had to keep the volume down for ‘online church’ this morning for the sake of my head.

If this follows the progression I’ve come to know, it’ll all be over in seven days, but it could last a week.

Still can’t walk fast or far, which means Knox is quite annoyed with his ‘papa’, but I’ve also learned that if I push too hard it can be like hitting a reset button and I go right back to the start.

3 Likes

Mark, thanks for both your explanitory posts. There is an enormous amount in them for me to consider.
I really like your image about feeling in the dark for something of which we don’t know the contours. In different ways, yes.

3 Likes

Yet, I exist in a world that is set on reflecting and representing an objective reality full of other people and objects. There is an expectation that we are all performing and perceiving other minds, yet no solid proof that this is what’s going on.

Mark, I’m still puzzled about this statement. Could you help me out? I haven’t had time to sit down and concentrate on the videos you linked. And I’m not sure they would answer my question.

Can you tell me what this is about, please?
Thanks!

Entropy. I’m no science guy but the second law of thermodynamics says that systems will tend to lose energy and tend toward disorder over time. And yet life while it is able self manages itself to maintain its order. We have impressive life spans for a metazoan and some bacteria are at least potentially immortal.

Life is amazing.

1 Like