Here is some long overdue autobiographical background to this web site and blog.
***
As far back as I can remember I have been enthralled by the mystery and
meaning of conscious existence: It has
always seemed to me a most peculiar, remarkable and unjustifiable state of
affairs to suddenly find oneself with a level of consciousness complex enough to be able to
probe its own existence. It is a mystery which demands attention; but how
does one meaningfully present a “solution” to such a mystery when in the final
analysis all one can do by way of "explanation" is describe, categorise and offer up inexplicable brute
facts? Explanatory narratives which compress the apparent complexities of our world into succinct principles are themselves no more than contingent descriptions that beg the question of absolute origins.
As a rather solitary child at infant school I used to walk around the playground by
myself quite convinced that the other children were evidencing no conscious self-awareness. Those other children were so taken up with one another socially that none showed any evidence that they were, like myself, startled by their own existence and none appeared to be asking any questions. Solitary figures are rare; either that or they are so egocentric they don't notice one another. So, I came to believe that I alone was consciously aware. But how and why was I here with the power to ponder self and the organized and regular pattens that presented themselves to the senses? From a relatively early age these thoughts propelled me on the lifelong quest for meaning & purpose. This quest started with a deep interest in the physical sciences, but it soon became apparent that these sciences only describe; that is, as it is often couched, they give us the "How", but not the "Why?", if indeed the "Why?" is an intelligible question in this context. Some might say "No" it is not intelligible, but I was banking on my deeper intuitions which answered "Yes" to the intelligibility of that question: After all, the complexities of my conscious cognition were a fundamental existential feature without which the meaning of reality is lost altogether; so, if conscious thought is fundamental to the Cosmos then the question "Why" becomes meaningful.
With my tendency toward an introverted and egocentric
reclusiveness, it took me some time to recognise that all those others, too,
had a full complement of consciousness. Although I am no longer a self-centred solipsist I am, however, left
with the feeling that the so called “material world” has no substantive existence independent of mind. My view has been and still is that my own conscious patterns and the patterns of consciousness of other beings are the touchstone of reality.
In our normal mode of consciousness those patterns are for the most part controlled
by a perfect registration between sensations and a systematic and ruthlessly rational mathematical logic, all of which facilitate the definition of mathematical materialism: “Materialism” is just a
name for highly rational patterns with a faultless registration.*1 It is this rationality which facilitates the definition of coherent material objects. This is cognitive positivism.
I have searched for answers in physics, programming, philosophy, psychology,
history, the paranormal and above all in Christianity; the latter, to my mind, supplies
the nearest to what could be called the meaning of life*2. Huge
continents of mystery remain, however, but as it turns out this is a very good
thing; engaging mystery has become the staple of my mind; without it life would
be incredibly dull; with it life becomes an exciting adventure! My web site articles and blog are, as it were, a kind of diary of an
explorer who loves dabbling in mystery and logging his thoughts on the subject. But it’s a good thing that the journey excites
me more than the destinations because one can so easily find oneself going down blind alleys or round
in circles! For me the exercise is a case of unburdening myself of a cognitive load; without this unburdening process I think I'd have to be committed!
I cannot make claim to being a “writer” per se anymore than an explorer who keeps a scrappy
log of his explorations can be called a writer: After all, a true writer is
trying to make a connection with an audience. True writing is a social exercise which seeks, above all, communion and community status. A log writer is just writing notes to himself; all part of a
rather self-contained perhaps even egocentric enterprise.
It might seem strange that my "explorer's log", which appears on the very public world-wide-web, is only secondarily about currying favour with a readership. Readership and followership are about making social connection and seeking to be coupled into a community. Trouble is, I’m under-motivated when it comes to this kind of thing and I’m not any good at it anyway. No surprise then that my readership is
minimal.
So why do I, nevertheless, write publicly? Actually, as it turns out,
this is all about defence. If I didn’t have a public presence people would
think I do nothing with my time and that I’m just
another senior citizen put out to grass with time on his hands and on standby waiting for someone to find him something to do. But
even more pertinent, especially if one is involved in Christianity, one finds the world to be full of self-promoting doctrinaire gurus whose gullible followers see them
as God’s gift to end all disputes at an authoritarian stroke. When these
conceited peacocks and dandies, with their wake of partisan followers, flit
across one’s line of sight demanding obeisance it is wise to have one’s six
guns loaded and at the ready. So, if you have something immediately to shoot back at these organ grinders and their monkeys, if they should appear, it is one way to keep them at bay. And when they have gone away crying crocodile tears that you’ve lost your
salvation because you have paid no more attention to their works as they have
to yours, you can then get on with the business of exploring without further interruption.
Exploration is an art form: One’s travels and one’s record of it have a
personal aesthetic value. I am reminded
of theologian Don Cupitt’s Artist Theologian
concept. None of my writings are primarily for reading by others, although it’s
a nice bonus if people take an interest; but then I don’t think I personally can handle too
much public attention. The hazard with social linkage is that it attracts further social linkage and as with internet web sites, social linkage is probably
governed by a power law: If this (probably) non-linear feedback effect takes off it is possible to find oneself with a large audience and tempted to play to the gallery and therefore tempted by group think. One is then in danger of being compromised.
 |
| Byron |
A true explorer can’t live for the
accolades that social coupling brings. But in my particular case I can’t expect people to
take an interest anyway; for me the journey has been long, meandering, sometimes
very tedious and not really very ground breaking; therefore my explorations have to be their own reward. But if I stopped
exploring it wouldn’t be long before the men in white had to come and
take me away!
On the subject of exploring the good book says this:
25 And God is not served by human
hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and
breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they
should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in
history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would
seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from
any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of
your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring. Acts 17:25-28 (See also Hebrews 11:6, Ps 53:2)
Let's take it away then!!
APPENDIX
The video below (Deep Water 2006) is an interesting case study in the psychology
of ambition, exploration, and adventuring; it warns of the psychological hazards. In many ways it is a sad story, but salutary. Comparing and contrasting Donald Crowhurst with Bernard Moitessier is an illuminating exercise. Both were very gifted but their motivations were different. In the latter-day writings of Donald Crowhurst we see a man who was desperately trying to restore his ego in the face of his very public catastrophic failure. He was attempting to make sense of the contradictions in his life via his writings, if rather incoherently and the only way out it seems was into delusion. Crowhurst was betrayed by his vested interest in social connection & accolade and that set him up for a fall. Moitessier, on the other hand, was a philosophical loner who loved his work above the social accolades, accolades about which he was ambivalent. He was, however, neglectful of his family as a result. Both men, in the final analysis, found themselves struggling with their egos in different ways. This is why Phil 2:1-11 is so relevant to the human predicament and, I believe, to the very meaning of life.
I believe I have some empathy with the struggles of both Crowhurst and Moitessier. I can empathise with Moitessier's diffidence toward crowds and attention (Not a fault of Crowhurst's!) but I also empathise with Crowhurst's ambitious, hair-brained and pretentious plan! After all, I thought I was in with a chance with a theory of gravity! But I at least completed the course, after a fashion, and did not put all else at risk!
Footnotes:
*1 But what about those distant galaxies and times when there were no human observers?
That’s an issue for another time!
*2 I’m thinking in particular of Philippians 2:1-11 which indicates that
getting community right and getting the right balance between human relationship
and status is very close to the meaning of life. Ironic really as my aptitude
in this area is rather limited and it hasn’t been my main goal in life; God has made it all about us, but we in turn must make it all about Him. We make it all about God by making it all about others.
But having
acknowledged that Christianity is where the meaning of life, the universe
and everything is found, I must qualify this by admitting that the intellectual degeneracy
found in many
Christian sub-cultures is self-undermining: Who needs atheists to undermine the faith when
there are plenty of Christian fundamentalists doing just fine without them!
(See here,
here, here, here, and here ). I have to confess that having discovered Christianity and concluding that it contained the meaning of life, only to be confronted by countless plastic fundamentalist clowns, real doubts began to set in: Another reason why defense, particularly of my faith, became all important!
