DELUSIONS — Pragmatic Realism

by Stanislaw Kapuscinski (aka Stan I. S. Law)

  Oh, they did exist––but not where we presume them to have been.

  We place them in those inaccessible locations to hide them from our ineptness of not being able to locate them in our objective universe. But in the oceans of today, they don’t exist; they never existed. No more than our world will exist after the end of the present procession of equinoxes. Every 52,000 years, every double grand cycle of the Zodiac, our psyche takes a gigantic leap into the unknown. The leap is so fantastic that, had we been able to retain the memories of previous experiences, our mind would not only reject them, but we would get seriously... unhinged. Perhaps stark, raving, mad.

  But you don’t have to worry.

  When the time comes, we shall once again start at the bottom rung of the ladder. We shall enter Eden with joy in our hearts, with untrammeled faith that this, new Eden shall last forever. It almost will. Every Golden Age is by far the longest. We shall be spared the knowledge that Silver, and Bronze and the Iron Ages will follow. They don’t have to, but... such is our nature.

  We shall always strive to be gods, creators. Our minds shall crave knowledge even as our bodies crave physical sustenance. We shall always reach out for the stars...

  But these changes will only happen when we are ready. Then the critical mass of people will make the next objective universe come into being. Yet even then, some, whose minds cannot shed archetypal memories hidden in the bottomless pit of their subconscious, shall create legends of the universes past. Some will try desperately to reach back in time. Back to an all but forgotten reality. But the critical mass, perhaps even majority of us, after eons of dabbling with the creative surges welling in our ever-expanding consciousness, shall become drunk with power. We shall come to regard the objective worlds as real universes, as worlds of substance.

  And when we stray too far... an Avatar shall appear. He will remind us that the True Reality is a state of consciousness. That it exists only within our hearts. That we all, every one of us, create the ephemeral universe we live in. Some of us are proactive, some reactive, but we all take part. The Avatar will remind us that the material reality is an illusion, that it is transient; that, in time, it will dissolve itself. That it will vanish. He will remind us that the True Reality is never physical, material, but that It has its Being within the realm of the infinite potential, of inexhaustible ideas. By telling us the Truth, He will attempt to free us from our neurotic attachment to our past anchored in our own creations. We shall sense the Truth and listen to Him carefully, but the price of freedom will be too high for our egos. We would have to give up our illusory world. Our creation. So we shall crucify Him.

  Just wait and see....

  I wrote this essay in 1997. I could as easily have written it today. At the time, it was inspired by, who else? By Socrates. Was he an atheist? To my knowledge he didn’t belong to any religion. That is why, in fact, he had been sentenced to death. Here, he is speaking to Meno:

  “The soul, then, as being immortal... and having seen all things that exist... has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things, there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection...”

  We don’t sentence our atheists to death anymore. We don’t even force them to drink hemlock. Perhaps we’ve made some progress.

  In the course of this book, I hope to prove that those invisible particles, so small that we can’t see even vast quanta of them, don’t really exist, either. They do but they don’t. Not really. They exist only for as long as we sustain them with our minds. You’ll see what I mean.

  Furthermore, I also hope to prove that the reality you regarded from the moment you were a baby as real, does not really exist either. Nor do you exist, nor does your body. Nor any part of you. Nor the chair you sit on. I’ll show that what the old masters were telling us is real, only they didn’t have the means, the words, the metaphors to convey the knowledge that was within them.

  Conversely, I’ll show you what is real. Later, in the PRESENT, I’ll show who you really are. And why. And… you will be amazed!

  Chapter 6

  Why We Were: Phase One

  Education: A succession of eye-openers each involving the repudiation of some previously held belief.

  George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British dramatist, critic, writer.

  THE KINDERGARTEN

  (Excerpt from Beyond Religion 1, Essay #52)

  “It begins when the rudimentary consciousness asserts its will to survive as an individual unit. An ameba, a virus, a bacterium. The mono-cellular entity becomes aware of the inside and the immediate outside of itself. It defines its territory, its boundaries. The primitive consciousness learns the laws of survival by re-embodying itself within ever more complex physical forms. Each re-embodiment is designed to increase the scope of its operations. The Sanskrit scriptures place the number of transmigrations of (each individualization of) consciousness at 8,400,000. Hopefully this number includes the second phase of our (human) evolution, though I doubt it. Suffice to say that the primary stage of our existence consists exclusively of assuring physical survival and wellbeing (through which consciousness can experience the process of becoming).

  The learning process in this phase relies on repetitive conditioning. The method is that of trial and error. The repetitions serve to develop a subconscious––a storehouse of information, on which the primitive consciousness can draw to survive within its embodiment in ever changing environments. Its responses to challenges are reactive, i.e. automatic or instinctive. There is little evidence of free will or deductive reasoning; although the acquired experience is carefully stored in the genetic code of the biological constructs the entity produces to advance its evolution. At this stage, the individualized consciousness is subject to the indomitable laws of nature. A mistake costs it its life.”

  And nature is a very cruel mistress.

  The main problem with Kindergarten is that there is no discernible communication. What little there might be, by observation only, is immediately adapted to one’s own survival. Otherwise, it is ignored. This acute, purposeful self-centeredness seems to persist in some individualized unit of awareness for many eons. I know people who behave in this fashion even today, a few million years hence.

  Nevertheless, nature in her wisdom has equipped our rudimentary units of intelligence with genetic memory storage, well ahead of any computer. This code carries most if not all the instructions for survival, short of the unit coming across new, unprecedented hurdles. In such circumstances, one of two things can happen. Either it follows the input from its genetic code, or, by accident or design, it tries something new. If the new works, it becomes incorporated into the revised, enhanced code, and is passed on to future generations in order to assist them in survival. I believe this is one way of looking at Darwin’s “survival of the fittest,” although “survival of the most resourceful” again, by accident or design, might, perhaps, be a better way to describe the Kindergarten. Nevertheless, the Kindergarten is the only phase of our evolution wherein the process of natural selection reigns supreme. Millions of years of natural selection results in a veritable plethora of most diverse, complex and beautiful organisms imaginable—not the least of which is man. Alas, at the end of the School Year, man and natural selection must part company.

  Thus, the learned biologists must resign themselves to deal only with primitive life forms. Unless they prefer to sit back, wait, and see what happens to their own bodies. It might prove to be a very, very long wait.

  While the process of natural selection is, by definition, a process, i.e. it is not limited by time and thus it continues even today, in more advanced forms, e.g. in humans, all too often its built-in rare but necessary tendency toward mutation, turns ag
ainst the organism it helped develop, by attacking the organism’s immune system. The extremely prevalent rheumatoid arthritis is a well-known example of this. I suppose one could say that if it doesn’t kill one, it makes one stronger. Regrettably, it takes a lot of joy out of life.

  Amusing though it may seem, there are people, today, who seem motivated exclusively by the above method. They have not, as yet, taken charge of their own natural selection. They still have a 50/50 chance of survival. A little like tossing a coin. In fact I met very few people who were willing to take full responsibility for their actions. There was always someone else to blame. Perhaps, at their stage of development, they were doing the right thing.

  There is one other vital lesson that we were to have learned in the Kindergarten. The lesson deals with evolutionary absolutism. It is also very pragmatic. It states quite simply: kill or be killed. You must kill to eat, thus to survive: carnivore and herbivore alike. Let us never forget that it is the same life-force that enlivens both fauna and flora. Kill or be killed is not a suggestion, it is an absolute prerequisite of natural selection.

  It is unfortunate that the majority of the human species still conforms to this primitive evolutionary demand. In fact, many us don’t just kill to survive, we kill because we enjoy killing. We enjoy the hunt. It seems that natural selection has not succeeded in eliminating this trait, as yet, from the human species. Will it ever?

  Chapter 7

  Atheist’s Delusion

  In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong.

  John Kenneth Galbraith

  Canadian-American economist and author (1908—2006)

  It all started with the Democritus of Abdera, some 2400 years ago, who declares that: “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space. All else is an opinion.” In his day, atoms were pictured as tiny particles, invisible and solid. Of course, in ancient Greek, a-tomos means indivisible, thus making atoms the smallest particles around.

  This vision of reality persisted for more than two millennia. Then, all hell broke loose. At the beginning of 20th century, the physicists decided that atoms were divisible after all; that they consisted of even smaller particles. Some, a hundred thousand times smaller.

  Of course, some elements have many more protons and/or neutrons than others. A carbon atom, for instance, has 6 protons and, usually 6 neutrons. Its many isotopes, however, can have from 2 to 16 neutrons. An extreme example would be roentgenium with 111 electrons, though with electrons usually contributing less than 0.06% to an atom's total mass, and some 1836 electrons needed to add up to the mass of a single proton or neutron, we needn’t worry about excessive mass invading the space around the nucleus.

  So we can see that although the number of electrons would influence, marginally, any calculations of the total mass they might add to space surrounding the nucleus, the subatomic particles are so incredibly small that the effect on the total mass would be, I repeat, negligible. But these were just numbers, without anyone apparently trying to visualize them.

  And then problems started in earnest.

  Some did try to visualize them.

  There were many comparisons. If the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton and neutron, were to be magnified to the size of an orange, then the cloud of electrons (in case of hydrogen just one) in orbit around this nucleus would measure several miles across.

  At the onset the last century, Sir Arthur Eddington, an British astrophysicist and philosopher of science, declared that, taking into account the distance between the nucleus and the orbiting electrons, atoms were mostly empty space. More precisely, he calculated that they were approximately 99.9999999999999% empty space. To wit, our bodies, the Earth, the world, all consist of atoms.

  Perhaps, we might wonder, perhaps he was right. After all, surely, we all believe every word a knighted scientist would say. Always. Perhaps, to use his words, “not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.” As for the electron, which has (as mentioned) 1823 times smaller mass than a proton, do we really care about them at all?

  A void is a void is a void.

  Thus, we are stuck with a problem. A very scientific problem, yet one about which scientists don’t seem too keen to talk about.

  One could say that the so-called atheists are preoccupied with 0.000000000001% of reality, which surrounds us. The rest they leave to… the ‘faithful’?

  Credo in unum Deum… …factorem cæli et terræ, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.

  Assuming scientists believe in the existence of atoms, they are not so far from the dictates of the Roman Church. All that is “visible and invisible”. That’s saying a lot about almost nothing.

  Towards the end of his book Dawkins accepts the quantum reality around us, and writes that we cannot perceive the empty space of, or within, rocks, and see them only as solid, because such perception as we are equipped with, is all that’s necessary for our survival; that, at least for now, we are not disposed to be able to navigate the reality of atoms. What he fails to point out is that while as animals we have sufficient perceptions to survive, we should not trust, nor draw any intellectual conclusions, from the input of our senses, as representing reality. That, regrettably, is exactly what religions of the world teach. Religions which he rejects out of hand.

  Unfortunately for the scientists, the spaces between the stars, not to mention the galaxies, are proportionately even greater. You could say that the voids, of which the stars (also) consist, are separated by the astronomical voids of outer space. Thank heaven for black holes. At least they contribute a little density for the scientists to get their teeth into (although I don’t recommend it, unless approved by your dentist). They, however, the scientists, seem to leave those solid jewels of the universe alone. Who knows, perhaps gods live in them?

  Very, very, extremely, solid gods?

  If we discount the fields of energy, then there is great probability that we, you and I, and the Earth, and the universe all around us, are essentially very EMPTY SPACE.

  So much of ‘physical’ reality.

  The fascinating thing, at least for me, is that scientists, who often base their theories on speculations, as in theoretical this-that-or-the-other, are invariably as fundamentalist in their assumptions as their counterparts in the field of theology. Since I began writing on the subject, the world had began with a big bang, invisible matter was postulated to enable the world to collapse in a big crunch, only to find, soon after, that the world continued to expand, at an ever-faster rate. This last acceleration left the scientists completely baffled.

  Next to nothing, a huge mass of near empty space, speeding into the unknown nothing at astronomical velocities.

  And now a word to aid the avowed atheists, who must be looking for ammunition to use against the theists, deists, and other believers in the intangible. (I feel particular indifference towards all of them—not to the people but to their views. It all seems to me to be much ado about nothing). Nevertheless this is what Jiddu Krishnamurti, of whom Henry Miller once said: “Krishnamurti is one man of our time who may be said to be a master of reality… …I know of no living man whose thought is more inspiring.”

  Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words:

  “Your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life.”

  Aren’t we glad that we all have a wonderful life?

  Mr. Dawkins’ highly amusing tirade about the god of the Old Testament is based on the most fundamentalist assumptions imaginable. It is abundantly obvious that Dr. Dawkins has never heard about symbolism that is so prevalent in both, the Old and the New Testaments. Perhaps symbolism is also inherent in scientific calculations, and that is why they don’t make much sense to amateurs such as I am. If so then I’m also not aware of such. So far, no scientists cared to enlighten us. Perhaps the near-empty constituents of the near
-empty universe move only symbolically into the great near-empty unknown?

  It’s highly likely that two thousand years ago people, in order to survive in a vastly more challenging social environment, had to be vastly more intelligent. They may have been also more skilled at picking up symbolic meaning at will—except for those few who misunderstood the teaching and, as their equivalents today, were determined to destroy it. The teaching, which had been intended solely as a means of freeing man from the constraints and limitations imposed on them by distorted precepts of Judaism, now put new noose around peoples’ necks. To blame the teaching for such a turn of events would be like blaming science for the ineptitude of most scientists.

  Most, not all.

  In all walks of life only a few are chosen. Perhaps only a few are capable of sublimating their ego to serve humanity?

  Fanatics in the ranks of religions and science are chained to their dogmas, determined to destroy each other. To blame only half of the equation will not lead us to Pragmatic Reality. As science is based on intellect and religion on emotions, I expect more from the scientist. Yet, to think that we can eliminate emotions from our life, is little more than a scientist’s delusion; even as setting limits to human potential is the delusion of all atheists.

  On the other hand, there is a reason why people succumb to religion, which later takes over their minds and allows priesthood to control their lives. And the reason is Darwinian absolutism. In its truest sense, Darwinian natural selection deprives people from any say in their future, in their developments. The religionists state that we are more than what nature, in her bounty, has given us; that we can make our own decisions regarding our evolution. I don’t mean religion as understood by masses. They will forever (although that’s a really long time) be exploited by some mental, intellectual or political oligarchy.