My previous blog post, “What if there’s no deep answers to cosmic questions because there’s no deep truth,” made me aware how dubious the assumption is that there’s a deep meaning to the universe in addition to facts about the universe.
Facts, after all, are much closer to being an objective quality of the universe than meaning is. Meaning is manufactured by human minds. Facts arise naturally from investigations into the nature of reality. As noted in the previous blog post, it seems entirely possible to know how the laws of nature operate without adding on a layer of deep meaning to those laws.
One reason for this could be that “deep” and “shallow” are purely human notions, metaphors that don’t bear any relation to how the universe actually functions. Alan Watts points to this in his book, This Is It.
The agent behind every action is itself action. If a mat can be called matting, a cat can be called catting. We do not actually need to ask who or what “cats,” just as we do not need to ask what is the basic stuff or substance out of which the world is formed — for there is no way of describing this substance except in terms of form, of structure, order, and operation.
The world is not formed as if it were inert clay responding to the touch of a potter’s hand; the world is form, or better, formation, for upon examination every substance turns out to be closely knit pattern. The fixed notion that every pattern or form must be made of some basic material which is in itself formless is based on a superficial analogy between natural formation and manufacture, as if the stars and rocks had been made out of something as a carpenter makes tables out of wood.
Yesterday I got an emailed post from Joan Tollifson’s Substack titled “Two Inseparable Truths.” It’s well worth reading in its entirety. Tollifson starts off with a discussion of basic Buddhism that rings true to me.
In one response to the question What IS This?, Buddhism speaks of the Two Truths, the relative (or conventional) truth and the absolute truth. From my perspective (and that of Buddhism), it’s very important not to lose touch with either one. They are both here simultaneously. They arise together. Fixating on either side to the exclusion of the other is delusion.
The relative is the apparent world of discrete forms and the relationships between them. It is the world of cause and effect, birth and death, here and there, this and that, you and me, time and space. It is the capacity to distinguish healthy from unhealthy, good from bad, kindness from cruelty, love from hate, apples from oranges, and you from me. It is our much needed sense of healthy boundaries and limits. It is the functionally necessary sense of being located in a particular time and place. It is our unique individuality and our concerns for healing what is broken, discerning injustices, and acting in wholesome ways.
The absolute is the emptiness of all forms, the fact that no-thing ever actually persists, and therefore, never actually exists as some-thing that can be carved out of the whole. No-thing can be separated out from everything it supposedly is not, and all apparently solid forms are actually unresolvable, thorough-going flux. This is the recognition that reality (otherwise known as Here-Now) is a limitless, boundless, seamless wholeness or unicity, one without a second, no-thing-ness appearing as everything. In the absolute, there is no birth and death, no inside and outside, and no separate thing to cause or effect any other apparently separate thing. There is no self separate from the totality to be in or out of control, or to have or not have free will. It is impossible to pin down where any apparent person or thing begins or ends, and there is no such thing as beginning or ending.
Both of these perspectives, the relative and the absolute, are present and discoverable in this very moment, right now. They show up together!
Most humans are living completely from the relative or conventional perspective, or more accurately, they think they are! Explorations in nondual spirituality and practices such as meditation are one way to deconstruct and see through that perspective, not just philosophically, but through direct experience and observation, and also to discover (or notice, or realize) the absolute truth, not as a mere idea, but as this direct immediate experienceable reality right here and now. This deconstruction and realization is very liberating and wonderful.
But then, spiritual people often get stuck for a while, and sometimes forever, in the absolute perspective. They seem to see and acknowledge only the absolute truth. They deny that relative reality has any reality at all—which, from what I regard as a misunderstanding of the absolute perspective, it doesn’t. Buddhism identifies being stuck in the absolute as perhaps the greatest form of delusion. I would say that the absolute includes the relative—they are not one, not two. Non-duality includes duality. Otherwise, it would be dualistic. As Zen Master Dogen put it, true realization is “leaping clear of the many and the one,” not fixating anywhere.
In my Tai Chi classes, the instructor often cites the adage, “Rise up from above, sink down from below.” It also could be stated as “Rise up from below, sink down from above.” Either way, the notion is much the same as what Tollifson says above. We need to become whole in our Tai Chi practice, a single body/mind moving smoothly and harmoniously. We are rooted to the floor even as our spine and head are directed upward.
Modern physics is struggling to figure out how to reconcile quantum theory, which governs particles and forces in the realm of the very small, and relativity theory, which governs gravity in the realm of the very large. Quantum theory describes the discrete bits of reality. Relativity theory describes the seamless space-time continuum.
Is there a quantum theory of gravity? Is there room in relativity theory for quantum phenomena? Or is there another way to bring the two together? I just read an article in New Scientist about an attempt to come up with a viable theory of quantum gravity that does away with our usual notion of causation. Intuitively this strikes me as having something to do with the subject of this blog post, but I can’t put that intuition in words that make sense, so I’ll just share a passage from the article, “A step beyond the quantum realm,” by Karmela Padavic-Callaghan.
One of its key features is that it bends the conventional idea of causality. Conventionally, either event A causes event B or vice versa, but in QBox, it is allowable to have mistures of “A causes B” and “B causes A” where it is impossible to say which one is unambiguously correct.
“This is causal indefiniteness. We should care about it if we want to pursue a theory of quantum gravity,” says Carlo Maria Scandolo at the University of Calgary in Canada. This is because our best theory of gravity — Albert Einstein’s general relativity — imposes different orders of cause-and-effect at different points of space-time, he says.
This manifests itself, for instance, in thought experiments where people traveling in different spaceships observing the same set of events can’t agree on the order in which they occurred.
The universe simply does what it does. We humans have a lot of trouble figuring out how to fit that simple doing into our concepts. Perhaps we really would be better off if we gave up on trying to discover deep truths about the universe and were content with just describing how the universe operates — even if that means giving up our cherished concepts about reality.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The significant flaw in Watts, Tolifson, Padavic-Callaghan and Hines Ji’s argument is simply the presumption that one can categorize reality in all its aspects, known and unknown as whole vs forming, relative vs absolute, and unknowable.
Here is a more parsimoneous explanation.
We don’t know even half of reality so we are in no position to make sweeping statements about the whole of reality.
While it appears that we see things from a relatively finite point in time and space, that relative position changes with our attention, so that our presumption of relative truth or reality is a human, perceptual limitation, not reality.
If we can know ultimate reality it won’t be with the cognitive powers of the human mind. Mind can only make symbols from limited information. Direct knowledge, which the Saints speak of, is an unutterable but wholly knowable experience, which only meditation can bring to us, since that is the practice of moving our limited attention beyond body and thoughts, where it can really breathe and see and hear through its existing connection to all life.
And yes everything is evolving and being made. Didn’t these guys learn anything from Darwin?
Surely, the search for meaning in the universe is very much a human search for self-vindication. In our desire to feel significant, we invent the idea that life and the universe have to have meaning. Whether through the sciences or the spiritual organisations, many proclaim to be ‘hot on the trail’ of revealing the meaning and the answer to discovering ultimate reality.
The scientific method is to examine what can be observed and measured, and to that extent it has made some noticeable discoveries – and no doubt will continue to do so. (From Big Think. Dec 1925: – “The notion of “absolute truth” is not something we worry about or even attempt to prove in a scientific fashion. There are no absolute truths in science; there are only approximate truths, and the “goodness” of a truth depends on how well it matches experiment, observation, and what we measure.”)
What if there is no ultimate reality, no meaning to the universe and what if science and physics can only ever keep discovering what the maths project? (From science focus. March 2023: – “The most common response I get when I talk about dark matter is: “isn’t this just something physicists made up to make the math work out?” “The answer to that might surprise you: yes! In fact, everything in physics is made up to make the math work out.”
And as for the spiritual approach, Buddhism, or more pertinently, Zen: “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.” It seems that all we can ever honestly know is our moment-to-moment, ever-arising experience of now. All else probably stems from our human desires and our search for some sort of permanence and meaning.
We are arrogant enough to believe that we should know and experience ultimate reality, and to that end we practice one of the many methods to achieve that. But what if they only affirm what we desire and what the particular practice inevitably produces? The mind (brain) is geared to accept what it sees as necessary for survival – even if such experiences are delusional.
Excuse me for taking up space, but I just came across this on a news channel – quite relevant and fun: –
“After a century of observations spanning the breadth of the cosmos and theoretical insights that push humanity’s vision of the universe to its utmost limits, we can finally, confidently say that the universe is infinite.
Or not. It’s complicated.
Let’s start with something we can say for certain: We live in an expanding universe. But if the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into? And what is it expanding from? Where’s the edge of the universe, and where is its centre?
It’s easy to imagine an expanding universe, and there are plenty of analogies to help guide our thinking. We can imagine drawing little galaxies on the surface of a balloon and inflating that balloon to see the galaxies getting farther apart. We can imagine baking a loaf of bread with raisins in it and seeing how, as the bread rises, the raisins get farther apart.
Here’s the uncomfortable answer: The Big Bang has no center, and it has no edge. How can this make any sense?
Let’s start with the center. Where did the Big Bang start? Right here. And right over there. And in the next galaxy over. The Big Bang happened everywhere, all at once. It had to happen everywhere, because everywhere is, by definition, part of the universe. It was not an explosion that occurred somewhere in space. It was an explosion of space — when the expansion of the universe first got started. It was not a place but a time.
Now what about the other side of the coin? If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Where’s the crust in our expanding loaf of bread, and what’s the oven we’re sitting in?
This is going to get weird. I don’t even want to say something like “the universe isn’t expanding into anything,” because that still conjures up the wrong mental image. It’s too tempting to imagine a wall or boundary, with galaxies and stuff on one side and nothingness on the other, with the universe expanding to fill that nothingness.
But that’s wrong. Even the vacuum of space is something. There are still points, locations and existence. There’s no “outside” of the universe because “outside” implies existence, even an empty one. But the universe is, by definition, all there is. There is nothing to physical reality except the universe. Walls separate one region from another, but the universe comprises all of the regions simultaneously.
If there were an edge, you could imagine working hard enough to get outside that edge. But that’s not possible. There is no outside; there is no side. There is just the universe.”
And I would add – no meaning.
From Gemini
“No Actual Center: The center of the expansion—the point where the balloon inflates from—is inside the 3D space off the 2D surface. Similarly, the “center” of our universe’s expansion would require a higher, unseen dimension, and there is no physical center on the “surface” of space.”
There may indeed be a center to the universe, and a source to the inflation of space, but, according to Gem, such a center would have to exist in an unseen higher dimension.
So? Duh!
Like what every mystic has been saying since the dawn of recorded history.
I’m open to belief in a creator. And I feel I have the freedom to follow the evidence where it naturally leads. In contrast, atheists assume that God does not exist.
Atheists also assume that our world is an unintended accident. But I think the most straightforward interpretation of the evidence points to our universe having a beginning. If space and time had a beginning, then there must be a “beginner” — some First Cause, outside of space and time, that started the universe and put it in motion. Also, the laws of nature appear ultra “fine-tuned” and designed to support life. Therefore, the cosmic creator must also be personal, and wield unimaginable power. All these traits are consistent with the traditional understanding of God.
Every model that attempts to evade the conclusion of design must incorporate numerous highly questionable assumptions. And note that these models only work if reality were carefully engineered to allow for a life-permitting universe. It turns out that very model developed to explain away the evidence of design thus gives clear evidence of design — the evidence it was attempting to avoid!
In other words, if any of the models that atheists propose is right, then the universe must display more fine-tuning, not less. No matter what option atheists choose, they cannot escape intelligent design.
Evidence for design in our universe is clear and unavoidable. This will always be an insurmountable problem for apologists for atheism.
What is our purpose? To fulfill what we were meant for.
Isn’t a caterpillar meant to be a butterfly?
It’s by design.
Our meaning is to fulfill our design, to fulfill our capabilities.
Now, we have capabilites on many levels, physical, emotional, mental and even capabilities of awareness, of consciousness. The ones that are hidden are most interesting. It is often the case that when we don’t feel our true purpose is physical, emotionsl or mental we sense we are something else and meant for something else. And there is something else buried deep within. Scientists have only begun to explore how the mind and brain function in deep meditation. Even the brain, even our genetics change from long term meditation practice in ways that no other activity can produce.
So, there is a purpose right there inside us for those who are pulled to pursue it. It is as natural as any other propose but it exceeds them all because it is the path to libertarian from life and death. We weren’t meant to stay here, but to return to our true home. That path is built into us, just like all the other capabilities. And so it is indeed pure purpose, pure meaning.
Oops it is the path to liberation…
Science, based on the scant evidence they have and the observations that they witness, make the best guess about the origins and workings of the universe. Mostly it is hypothesis and conjecture – but it may form contain a grain of reality. Basically, we don’t know.
The caterpillar is not fulfilling anything, it is just being a caterpillar; it requires no choice or meaning. Meaning is a human projection, peculiar to the mind that projects it.
The talk of any spiritual purpose or meaning can be seen to be the result of the human mind/ego, searching for some answer in its attempt to maintain its invented structure and is nurtured by, quite naturally, human arrogance. All this can be seen as conjectures arise in mind.
Introducing mystics and their utterances is the minds last ditch attempt to satisfy and introduce meaning or purpose to its tenuous existence.
Life does not ask for meaning. That is the province of we insecure humans. It is only the human primate that postulates meaning in order to prop up its felt sense of being alone and small in a vast universe. No other creature needs this. It is the downside of our amazing cognitive abilities
If the science or the various gurus, mystics and philosophers give one a sense of purpose and meaning, then that’s fine. In the end though, without relying on any of the ‘experts’, being just who you are, right now, free of any one else’s formula – or one’s own – is all that you can ever know and be.
Hi Ron E.
You state that
“The caterpillar is not fulfilling anything, it is just being a caterpillar; it requires no choice or meaning. Meaning is a human projection, peculiar to the mind that projects it.”
The caterpillar is working day and night. Who compels it to do so? Does it have a choice? Nothing is more precious to it than its purpose. If you look carefully, you see it is making choices all the time. What leaf to eat, when to stop and sew its cacoon, when to move, when to remain still. You would call that instinct. But the processes of decision making also is there.
Humans have a little more latitude. But not as much as they think. They can invent things to do, so many that they forget their own natural instincts, and the sensitivity to themselves, their own awareness of their connections to each other and even to all of nature and reality.
This severance from their own selves helps them get work done, their karma, their dharma. They have taken the elevator down to the basement and happily do so every day, only slightly uncomfortable of something they can’t recall that they work hard to push down. They have gotten into the habit of forgetting on purpose, thinking this is for the best.
Generally what comes to their mind, they do, just like the caterpillar. They have choices to consider: But only the ones their mind presents to them. The ones they feel compelled to do. Other caterpillars might suggest better options a little further on, but humans have a much greater capacity to deny, ignore it all together. And so a large part of reality isn’t hidden from view. Humans choose to look away. And in time they lose that capacity. It’s still there, but dormant. So then it becomes invisible, buried under old persistent distractions, habits and addictions.
But then life events bring some to consider a more primal capacity. And therein also lies purpose and meaning. It arises naturally.It is the primal purpose.
People do attribute meaning. And events shape those choices.
Meaning comes from capacity for greater things. And awareness of that capacity, when it comes in its own time. That drives purpose, effort, value and meaning.
Until then, to conjecture about the future or the past, ourselves or others is really just to create these things from imagination. No problem there when imagination is informed by something greater. But in all events it is conjecture. Like the good caterpillar we have plenty of work to do instead to make the best use of each available moment. To do so? To prepare ourselves to see what we do not yet see? Focus on an open mind and develop the discipline of observation without judgment. Just learn to see and hear.