Bite-size pieces of miscellaneous considerations.
Is the Ego just Evolution's Latest Trick?
The ego rightly gets a battering for being responsible for our worst behavioural traits, but why have humans developed this sophisticated idea of 'self'?
I was much struck by a concept mentioned by Richard Dawkins concerning any entity that develops the property of self-replication: it will continue to do so whilst conditions are suitable, and will evolve better ways of doing so over time, simply because that is what it does. Glancing back over the history of evolution, there have been countless instances of physical, physiological and behavioural adaptations that seem frankly miraculous, simply because they occurred over a timescale so far outside our own experience that we cannot get a proper grip on the thing.
And so for the average (free) human, for whom individual existence is paramount, for whom self-expression is a necessity (if only through self-assertion), perhaps the ego has evolved to better propagate and 'improve' the species by ensuring that the most driven (the 'fittest') will continue to reproduce their kind and best provide for them in an increasingly dynamic world.
And those of us who have learned to sidestep the ego's depredations: the future? Or just a glimpse of a possible state thereof?
Being and Becoming - The Calculus of Life
In considering the 'opposing' notions of being and becoming (perhaps best encapsulated as the essential difference between traditional western and eastern thinking respectively), I saw a possibility in using the calculus as a wonderful metaphor for the difference.
Consider life as a function of many variables: L = f(x1, x2,....,t)
'Being' may be considered as a series of moments in the overall development of the function, hence may be represented as:
δL
δt
'Becoming' may be considered as the development of the function itself, as defined above.
But this leads to a new possibility, that of the integral of the function: ∫Lδx1δx2....δt
What is this entity with respect to the original metaphor? Perhaps it's what I once saw nicely described as "God-mode" - a new plane of consciousness that is already embodied in the raw material (of our brains, or perhaps in the fabric of the universe itself), just waiting to be tapped....
Coined by Richard Dawkins from the Greek word for memory, a meme is an idea (or an image, or soundbite...) that is capable of implanting itself into (especially the collective) consciousness. The similarity to the word gene is, I'm sure, no coincidence; the idea is that a successful meme can become so well-established that a semi-permanent association can arise (eg. Hoover for vacuum-cleaner BUT watch out for Dyson!).
If all this sounds too esoteric for most, some practical value is obtained by careful study of what makes a successful meme - physical word structure, means of propagation, natural associations etc. Of course, this leads to more successful advertising, but may yet be utilised to assist in the downfall of the current 'cultural' climate, that of bland moronic self-interest and the worship of the twin deities fame and money.
The adage that power corrupts has never been more relevant (oh, Tony, I remember the hope of '97!); a different slant, however, would be that those who desire power are the least suitable to wield it, and therefore power is best held by someone who has no real conception of it. This was explored by the late Douglas Adams in his portrayal of "The Man who Rules the Universe" (in The Hitchhiker series) as a rather bemused, eccentric old man living in a hut on a deserted beach with just his cat for company. Perhaps if such a person was nominated for P.M., I'd vote for them!? :-)
When I first came across Plato's ideas concerning his "Forms", I pooh-poohed them, declaring myself thoroughly Aristotelian. Then I came across something in a discussion around Chaos Theory that made me think again.
In essence, Plato believed that what we see in our 3-d space are merely imperfect "shadows" of some higher-dimensional blueprint forever inaccessible to us. The standard examples are:
1. imagine you are in a cave and can only face the rear wall (you CANNOT turn round); things happen behind you, but all you can see are their shadows on the wall, projected by a light behind them.
2. we recognise, say, a horse when we see one, but what exactly constitutes the quality of "horseness"? Mere descriptors like "quadrupedal" and "possessing a mane" run into problems of ambiguity. Perhaps an analysis of the relative dimensions of a population of horses would yield a set of mean values corresponding to the ideal, the Platonic Form? But this is cheating, using our crass statistics to divine the divine! (sorry!)
Most people are aware of the Darwinist theory of evolution, part of which is functional adaptation to environmental conditions. It seems that this is not the complete story. Scientifically stated, there are dynamical attractors in the space of morphological possibilities. Essentially, this means that within any given environment, there are a limited number of possible "ghost species" which may or may not evolve. These, then, are the Platonic Forms, and the main body of evidence arises from what is known as biological convergence, the tendency for similar species/attributes to evolve independently (it is said that the eye has evolved independently over 50 times!)
Perhaps if there is life elsewhere in the Universe, it will be depressingly like us!
1. How is it possible to change the system - from the inside, or from the outside?
2. Is there not an inherent contradiction in a desire to effect change from the inside?
To answer the questions in turn:
1. I don't believe that change is most effective coming from one direction or another, rather from both. Society is always suspicious of those who choose to live outside its comfy confines (although for me, such people are heroes for their non-compromise), and is generally more willing to listen to the views of its own. So where do the outsiders come in? They raise awareness of issues, first in a way negative to many due to the often necessarily confrontational manner this entails, but this lays the groundwork for others to form arguments more aligned to mainstream thinking. For examples, think slavery and women's rights.
2. Each person should be evaluated within the context of their own personal history. Those lucky or wise enough to take in the corruption of the System at an early age are most likely to reject 'normal' values and live on the fringes of society.
Those whose formative years precluded such radicalism will mature within society. A few may begin to think like the outsiders, but many will not be able to 'renounce all worldly possessions' due to the huge break in continuity that this would entail. Such people may feel divided, by the opposite demands of Society and their own conscience. The only way open is to reject the grosser elements of consumerism and conformity and try to show others that there are viable alternatives.
All very well in theory, but sadly, in my experience, this has not proved to be the case; you're still considered crazy by what Nietzsche called "the all-too-many"!
This is an elusive quality which cannot be merely taught; it must be attained. By all means study the wisdom of acknowledged masters, but don't leave it there: use that body of knowledge as a springboard to original thought.
It could be said that the journey is an essential part of getting to the destination. Imagine how much more rewarding the feeling of having climbed the mountain rather than merely being deposited at the summit by a helicopter!