Number 95 : February 1999 |
Existence: I wished this implies I am in space and time. I did not wish that implies there is something else in space and time. I repeatedly wish this to become this and do this but in some places at some times it becomes that and does that. Both I and the something else limit choice. I can use what I can make and can have it become and can have it do to find out what else can be in space and time, and what it can become, and what it can do, and what choice is mine, and what is random, and what I must accept. There are many somethings; some affectables, some fixed, some variables. Some somethings can choose. There is another; friend, neutral, foe, bridge, window, wall. There are others; law, politics, jaw-jaw, war-war. Note 1: If one formed a single first "I" it would imply no more than existence in a point in a moment. Note 2: With regard to the first sentence - to write a record of what one has done (the first "I") requires space; to read that record back (the second "I") requires time. Note 3: It is only to see what happens if one begins actively rather than passively.
Probe: Show it would be possible for a human being to make a perfect God angry.
Life: How might one answer the question as to whether life has meaning and purpose. The question appears difficult. No definition of life is given and there are two unterminated sub-questions. Taking a minimal approach. Life must be defined and both sub-questions must be terminated. An answer in two parts will then be required, and each part will need to be the value of a variable which one can suppose to be in the range yes through maybe and maybe-not to no, depending upon what life is assumed to be and into which particular collections of evidences and beliefs the sub-questions are sprung. Possibly it is desirable that any answer should be compatible with both evidence and belief.
In the question life can be set to represent a composite of all living things and their activities together with associated observations and opinions. And meaning can be understood as backward looking and terminating with regard to someone, whilst purpose is taken as forward looking and terminating with regard to something. Also, because not all evidence is available, life, meaning and purpose, the someone and the something must all be seen as not entirely understood. So, whilst one might reasonably seek a partial but adequate answer, it would be quite unreasonable to require a complete and fulsome answer.
Our understanding of life in the universe is obviously limited as yet but is still substantial. These days the individual arises in an environment only half way through its development, and, in barely a moment, becomes exposed to a past saturated with raw data and existing opinions on what that data means. Clearly there is no shortage of meanings at all and the problems here are mainly; (i) determining which data is and is not sound, (ii) determining which opinions are and are not firmly rooted, (iii) gathering and refining collections of data and opinion, (iv) detecting and correcting errors, (v) overload. Meaning that any overall answer to what is the meaning of life is likely to be not entirely true.
All the same as above can be said in regard to what is the purpose of life, and something more. The individual does not know if they have become tangled up in a pile of scrap that just happens to be here or if they have been carefully placed into some kind of training camp. But, nevertheless, they try to predict some end. In doing that, overlooking that they are participants in whatever happens, they implicitly surrender themselves to whatever might then come about, and show in process that they have not yet formed any definite view at all as to what sort of end they want, let alone on how to bring it about. What does that mean but that it is still to be properly grasped the purpose of life is pretty much whatever the individual or community give it, towards achieving pretty much whatever the individual or community want. These options are certainly the common property of all life, for all individuals and for all communities, in proportion to their particular ability to look, choose and act. Here the main problem is only that any individual or community with no chosen end will of course be short of purpose. NB: Purpose can include reversion or prevention of change. For some creatures in some places at some times these two special kinds of change can be in their best interests - some animals best nip back in their burrows and wait when the fox goes by, some states best hesitate and withdraw in the event of a war.
However, from the above we can see the meaning of life is that it can do and its purpose is to do. This brings us close to a definite answer. We can see the world is a variable and all individuals and communities spend most of their time changing it. In due course the universe will be the variable. Now we need only declare that our end is to create new worlds in new universes. Hence, there is a fairly general purpose for us in the third and succeeding millennia. And, by coincidence it fits well with what we like to do.
Nuremberg: Quite a lot of cherry picking was done on Nuremberg, and some gooseberries were left to quietly rot. Göring put the original nazi argument on genocide, saying a state's leadership had the political right to ignore convention in deciding what were threats to the state and how to deal with them, some groups had been considered threats and dealt with, legalities and moralities were of no relevance at all. Exploration of that view was politically unacceptable at the time. The court's pragmatic solution was to set aside what Göring said, causing all defendants to either say nothing or base their argument on law and mitigating circumstance. Now, one can argue that because they chose to do the latter ipso-facto they demonstrated recognition of the court and overwhelmingly contradicted Göring fundamental rejection of law and morality in regard to the issue. But, to suggest they leapt into legal argument is an unnecessary historical distortion. In fact, and quite rightly, they were taken very gently by the neck and most carefully lead into the legal field. Note: That Göring's proposition was not properly dealt with has always been seen as unfinished business and, over the years, many have tried to find some completely satisfactory response to it. Unfortunately, no state having a perfect record, there is no such completely satisfactory response. Whatever one comes up with always compromises at least one of the untouchables; law, politics, logic, morality, fact, faith, instinct, emotion. So, how can one respond to Göring. You might care to try two fingers extended in the naughty manner, and say exceptions exist to every rule and here is an example from the one about decorum.
Albert Dean
Albert : I should, I suppose, have something to say on the first part of the above, but I’ll pounce on the Göring piece, as it’s easier. Personally, I think the proper response to Hermann is to point to the facts of the case. It could, I suppose, have been the case that the Jews had been a malignant tumour in the Teutonic body politic, as the Nazis made out, and that it was a mere act of self-preservation to eradicate them. But, in point of fact, they weren’t, as any reasonable person sifting the evidence at the time (or at Nuremberg, or now) would have had to admit. Now is not the time for entering into the psychology of anti-semitism, but one imagines that greed, jealousy and xenophobia had much to do with it, as had the convenient consequent existence of the unifying effect of an internal, punishable scapegoat for the country’s ills.
Theo