Getting to Eukaryota

Micro-eukaryota
 
It’s strange how one thing can lead to another. Sometimes the result is hodgepodge, sometimes pattern. Today it was intricate, well ordered, lustrous pattern.
 
I began this morning by picking up where I left off last night with my “drifting off” thoughts in bed. Ironically for someone who, like many others, has preparation for sleep in mind when he reads in bed the subject of my evening’s read was mental restlessness. I’m reading “Open Minded” by Jonathan Lear and he puts the idea of restlessness out there as a basic feature of the human psyche. OK, maybe not the best book for your bedside table at night. But I get up this morning (having successfully put aside that concept in favor of actual restfulness) thinking about the disruptive function of restlessness and how it works to break up the cozy comforts of “knowingness”.
 
My Sunday morning pledge is to not look at social media until I actually accomplish something. Sunday morning is also my “Bible study.” Well, that’s what I call it anyway and sometimes it involves studying the actual Bible. But it is always dedicated to pondering imponderables. After sitting quietly with the usual morning muddle of my own thoughts during which I drink my first cup of coffee (I told you this was a routine!), I go off in search of the term “disruption.”
 
This leads to a chain of exploration which winds up with Eukaryota, which is kind of an important word for reasons we will discover. For now let’s just leave it here on the page with its lovely pronunciation: “You-carry-oh-tah.”
 
I’m glad I woke up today. I say it out loud: “You-carry-oh-tah.” (just so beautiful.)
 
Let me recount the descent of thought I followed from just typing “disruption” into the search field. If you prefer “ascent” that’s fine. Just beware that you are now identified as hopelessly cheery.
 
Up pops “The Disruption of 1843.” Sounds curious. Many years are full of disruption. Why does 1843 rise above the others to earn distinction on the disruptiveness scale? It turns out that a great schism occurred in the Scottish church that year involving dissent over who controlled the placement of clergy in local churches and who was really in charge after all. According to those rebels who decided to part ways from their established church, it was most certainly not the state! 
 
“The Disruption Assembly” by David Octavius Hill

 A side discovery to this was finding an amazing portrait of over 400 of the 1000 plus Scottish dissenters who met to begin their independence movement. A painter present for the festivities wanted to memorialize the confab and a photographer who was also present offered to take pictures of the rabble as reference material. It was a pioneering event in the history of photography and resulted in one amazing 5’ x 11’ painting. (See image here)

 
From there I picked up on “Presbyterianism” because I remembered something about it starting in Scotland as a religious movement with emphasis on local control of church teaching and organization, rather than relying on hierarchical dictates. In that Wikipedia article there was a curious editor’s warning that said emphatically; “This section possibly contains original research.” Well that certainly caught my attention since I was under the impression that Wikipedia was all about original research. Turns out to be anything but! A basic rule for them is that nothing should appear on any page without referencing established resource material. In other words, you can’t just put any old shit up there. Wait… this IS the internet isn’t it?
 
From there I went off onto a little bit of a worm-hole tangent. Just stay with me.
 
On the Wikipedia page that describes the above policy regarding “original research” there was a small flag at the bottom “Wikiversity allows original research”. Hey, thank goodness somebody does! Again, my interest in the theme of disruption was demanding some access to the open air here. And “Wikiversity” sounded interesting. I think I could afford to go there!
 
Wikiversity is part of the “Wiki” nebulae, an element of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is in turn part of the Wikimedia Movement. And that’s a lot of Wiki. Wikiversity is a free school, a collection of learning materials developed through the generosity of spirit that runs rife through this whole enterprise. After noodling around this cloud college for a while I saw a list of other projects that the Wikimedia Foundation has going. First I tried Wikinews but that was a little thin (the content seemed to be dominated by English football for some reason.)
 
The next morsel of click bait for me was Wikispecies. I have no idea why. There was also Wikivoyage which sounded too leisurely I guess. This was study time after all. On Wikispecies I looked at several pages but they all contained just taxonomy with no narrative content. I did learn that wrens and finches are related so now I’ve got that little factoid to wield on my next trip birding. (me) “Did you know wrens and finches are related?” (her, looking at a wood duck) “What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?”
 
Now comes the part where those members of my audience in the “cheery” faction get their due. I found myself looking at the taxonomy structure and wondering what was towards the top. I was ascending! Way up there, above order, above class, above phylum, above kingdom even… was that word: Eukaryota. “You-carry-oh-tah.”
 
This was the big kahuna! The Domain. All organisms with a cell structure that contain a nucleus with genetic material belong to it. Its the mother ship. The uber category. The Realm of the Seven Kingdoms. The background category that every form of life belongs to.
 
Except for bacteria.
 
That will have to wait for another Sunday.
 
 

Our Life in Between

The theme of this blog is the life we live in between. We have our main life, usually one of work and home and family. And we have our other life. The one we use to offset the primary life. Vacation. Hobbies. Community service. If we lived only in the first life we might function responsibly but we might also arrive at that dreaded sense of stagnancy. Endless cycles in the mundane. Featureless existence on a long slog towards our demise.

Life proceeds without our prompting. But our sense of being alive depends crucially on our ability to inject our energy into it. And this ability must be expressed in two ways; our responsible existence, and our crazy life. In the time we are allowed we are provided the opportunity to create this crazy space that helps us to regain something. I know that life wants a discussion about what is possible. But practical Dave says this can’t happen. Or that is just plain crazy. We can’t afford it. It can’t be done. Dreamer Dave says “Why not?” So we move into little spots where our dreams can meet up with reality. We buy a boat. We start a project that benefits the community. We open our minds to a way of thinking that isn’t part of our habit.

I find that this creates a space in between. I call it “Life in the Hyphen” because it exists as real as both sides of life. It is where we find wholeness and peace. If we are courageous enough to create both we can then find a point of balance in that “between”.

 

 

The Big Question

“What do you know for sure?” I’ve always liked this greeting because it gets beyond the niceties of “How are you?” (which is seldom asked as a serious question)  and goes straight to an inquiry about ideas. Taken as a serious question, the modern skeptic would answer “Nothing, absolutely” because every statement contains a contingency which becomes the seed of its own rebuttal. But there’s a difference between giving incontrovertible evidence of the truth and asserting from the heart what is true. Only the cynic would deny me this.

So…. what do I know for sure? Well, that beauty trumps science. Because without a sense of meaning and value the other operations of humanity are pointless (see Trofimovich’s speech in Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov.) Another thing I know for sure is that all is one. Best said in the original Sanskrit (…and after all, what isn’t?): “Ekam sadavipra bahuda vadanti”, “That which exists is one, sages call it by different names.” The last thing I know for sure is that everything is going to be just fine. Don’t ask me how I know, I just know.

But what about more contentious issues, like… does God exist? Blaise Pascal said belief in God was the safe bet but I’m not sure. I think landing on either theism or atheism lets me off too easily. Everyone seems to think that answering this question needs to come prior to getting on with the rest of our lives. Actually, I prefer leaving this as an open question, one that my life periodically bumps up against. An odd thing happened one day when I realized that my belief in God actually relies on periodically returning to the question…” does God exist?” So for me, the answering of this question short-circuits the investigation. It should never come first. As my wife says, “Let’s not get previous here!” We rush to answer it when we should make examination of ourselves and our place in this world the priority. To say that “God exists” is not the result of establishing a first principle. It is a hard-earned realization.

Having said that,  I must confess to a distinct penchant for magical thinking. Sometimes, all that my “sensory antennae” pick up is background static but sometimes… its a kind of music. On certain days the world, its plants, its people, its buildings all sort of glow with an unearthly light. It happens on days when I’m not pushing my agenda. Not analyzing, not deciding, and definitely not in charge. Sounds like mysticism, right? Might well be something along those lines. In these moments the “God question” itself doesn’t exist. Why even ask? Who’s doing the asking? Exist? What, are you kidding me? The question itself seems to be a silly, petulant demand from someone willfully oblivious.

What I don’t get is why I find it so important to defend the thing that is absolutely indefensible in any objective sense? The existence of God. Who is my dog in this fight? Why not let everyone come to their own decision about it and let that be the end of it. Fine and good. There’s powerful truth in that. But if I just leave it at that, life starts to flatten out. What happens to the interesting story we can tell each other about it? Where’s the color and contrast? Where’s the challenge and the sense of open-ended possibility? My rule number one in deciding on a path of action: Go to the one that promises the more interesting terrain.

But maybe we aren’t seeking proof of God. Aren’t we looking for meaning? Then let’s look at basic beliefs. Basic beliefs are those that need no proof, and often cannot be proven. These are the “What I know for sure” statements that provide the foundation for what we finally decide and discuss. Things like; the belief in our individuality, the belief that our senses tell us all we need to know about the world, the belief that time in linear with a beginning, middle and end.

There are many others basic beliefs that start with questions. Are there other minds besides ours? Does the past exist? These questions can never be proved “objectively”, yet they prevail as common sense perceptions. And we make extensive use of them every day. So… is my argument for God only based on what my “sensory antennae” tell me? Well it does start with that.

My steadfast and trustworthy rational intellect quickly counters with: I have no evidence for the existence of God therefore God does not exist. What am I talking about with all this touchy-feely sense of the divine stuff? My rational mind tells me I’m an atheist, right? I mean, do you really see God out there anywhere? Fair enough. And there lies the challenge to the believer. But its the corollary “The evidence as I see it eliminates the need for God” that oversteps into intellectual arrogance. First, I would argue that the “god” you are eliminating is a caricature, a straw man that only exists in the minds of very unsubtle true believers (as something to affirm) and materialists (as something to deny). And second, I would hesitate before prescribing the benefits of existentialism to us all. We aren’t all born to be self-justifiers.

I understand the dangers of the religious subjective with its desire to persuade instead of demonstrate. The philosopher warns us to “Beware of exuberance…” (John Locke). On the other hand, I’m not sure that the rational mind can answer all questions. Or that on its own it can lead us to a proper life.

An interesting insight along these lines comes again from Dostoevsky and has been called his “Golden Dream”. Rowan Williams describes it as “…(envisioning) a world from which belief has disappeared and in which the muted sense of bereavement caused by this (drives) people closer to each other, loving each other.” In other words, the demise of simplistic and servile belief might just be a healthy entree into true compassion.

John Milton examined a very important pitfall in our ethical life when he told us that we have a tendency towards “slave mentality”. He shows this to be a common danger, either if we see ourselves as religious fundamentalists or rational materialists. Both groups are given over to the view that there is a literal understanding of reality. We see the world as formulaic, understandable by creed and conclusion. We become enamored of the icon, focusing on what it can do for us instead of the meaning it can impart to our lives. We limit ourselves to appearances instead of complexities.

Independent of the argument denying God any objective reality, God is a story we tell ourselves. To say that we invented God is not a reduction. As Louis Borges says so well “metaphysics is a branch of the fantastical literature”. Religion is our most wondrous creation. We invent what we need and our sense of the divine leads us to tell the story. I’m not limiting God to our story about God because it is part of my belief that there is an independent reality involved. But even if you don’t subscribe (and my own doubt is basic to my understanding), it is still possible to see that our religious “fabrications” are an essential component of defining ourselves as human.

One of the most ironic developments in the scientific critique of religion is the blindness to the history of science itself. Without the establishment of our basic integrity as human individuals operating in history and without our sense that the universe itself is sensible and understandable, we would never have the necessary tools to investigate nature properly. The gift of independent rational thought (in the west) was presented by a religion of grace combined with its humanistic offshoots. An eternally revolving universe of endless cycles populated by tribes does not suggest intelligibility in the same way as a world of precious individual souls operating in linear time. Our culturally ingrained interpretation of time as linear may or may not be absolutely factual (and who can tell) but it profoundly affected how we operate in it.

I guess my main objection to scientifically based anti-theism is that it presents a substitute hierarchy of knowledge. Instead of the old Catholic church model (pre-Vatican Two) of the priestly class saying “there, there” to the laity, we have a new Illuminati (Dawkins, Hitchens) preaching a rational clarity that can eliminate God from our lives. I’m a proponent of a more level playing field, an egalitarian exploration into matters both rational and intuitive. I find the possibility of God to be a leading edge motivator that is basic to my imaginative capabilities. If I decide that the theoretical physicists have answered all the basic existential questions (including the “Why?”) then I give over power to the new priestly class and diminish or de-legitimize my own capabilities for personal exploration. And it is important to keep in mind that any knowledge, be it derived or experiential, carries with it the responsibility of skepticism.

So I think the old theist-atheist debate might be missing the point. Each side tends to argue from entrenched positions which can only result in nothing gained, no information exchanged. I also think that each side represents the extremity of a functioning polarity that is closer to representing truth. I actually find it more useful to categorize people as being either “Possibilians” or “Limitarians”.  And these more basic dispositions can be found in both believers and non-believers and transcend those contentious categories.

Do I believe in God? Might be the wrong question. Does a sense of divine presence inspire me? Better.

Have we met?

I was trimming my hedges the other day when I came across this big fellow hurdling through the neighborhood.

At first I couldn’t quite believe what I was seeing but then I realized that my beliefs were also “be-leaves” so I just raked them into a big pile of believes and burned them.

The giant man-shrub wasn’t too thrilled about that. Said he didn’t like the smell. He said he only came over because I had put down my hedge trimmer. I told him the only reason I still saw him was because my believes were burning. His top branches seemed to nod.

The Moon in the Trees

Tonight I watched the moon rise in the trees. I sat on the porch in comfort with the evening breeze and a full easy moon rising. In the beginning it was a group of yellow flickering lights in a dense branch as the wind twittered the leaves. I drifted into wonder as I could now see the moon moving slowly on to other openings. Brighter lights gained strength in the flickering. Then gradually a slight arc appeared on one side as it showed a dignified curve through a larger gap. Another minute and the curve slid back behind more dark leaves. Here the moon became a constellation. I tried to count the moon stars in slowly shifting numbers… ten, fifteen, then twenty stars flashing on and off, sparkles moving higher in the sky. It sparkled like quiet fireworks. The motion of the moon… mostly lost when it sits locked in the timeless night sky. But a moonrise is a slow unfolding drama in time. And a moon rising in the trees adds a dance of light to this. I watched and waited as the moon now made its move towards final escape. The sparkling slowed and then stopped. The arc of its leading edge was coming clear of the tree. The high leaves on the top branches were now small silhouettes on the proud round stage. And then the yellow moon slipped free. And I watched one last leaf drift into the wings as the moonlit night began.