Hubris

I feel quite shaken by the level of uncertainty associated with knowledge that presents itself at a university level. After almost a semester in medicine, it has become apparent that while we write volumes on what we do know, my reference books are regularly admitting that certain mechanisms and various aetiologies of numerous conditions, esoteric and common, are rather opaque to us. There are even occasional inconsistencies between sources, which does nothing to assuage my fears that academia in general is in danger of building castles upon castles in the cloudy skies above the ivory tower.

It ought to be exciting, that we know so little, because it speaks of the possibilities out there, the research to be conducted, the potential applications and miracle cures that might present themselves upon the successful comprehension of various pathways.

Yet, it seems as though these vast unexplored regions of undiscovered knowledge have been cached in a collective wilful ignorance. Only a select few peer out over these shadowy realms and tremble at its inexhaustible expanse, the rest have come to believe that someone else always has the answers.

Perhaps it is a consequence of specialisation, coupled with the socha of modern life. Professionals want others to believe that they have all the answers, as part of earning the trust of the majority who entrust their information, assets and occasionally, their very lives to those who are likely complete strangers. Society interrogates their professionals with the question: 'You know what has to be done, right?'

Often, we can confidently answer that yes, we do know how we can help. This has unfortunately led to the perception that we have, collectively, got all the answers. That, in turn, has led to terribly high expectations and to the readiness at which we interpret mistakes as malevolent manipulation of some secret gnosis.

We want to believe that we know enough, for as the adage goes, knowledge is power. We would like to believe that we have more control over our fates than our less informed ancestors. In truth, we ought to know that we know little, that our knowledge base is vulnerable and often incomplete, and we plug ourselves into a global system that wants desperately to conceal the fragility of its foundations. How long will it be before the pride of our modernity is irrevocably shown to be a passing illusion? The sentiment of 'sic transit gloria mundi' will undoubtedly reverberate till kingdom come.

De Imagine Dei

This is going to be a fairly short article on my current understanding of what it means for God to have created us in His image.

To begin, this concept is based on the Word, and blended funnily enough, with a little bit of dimensional speculation from Flatland, by A. Square.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

- Genesis 1: 26-27 (ESV)

What is an image? In our most frequently encountered expression of images, they are two dimensional representations of something in three dimensions. By virtue of the fact that we see things from a limited perspective, we are able to represent something of three dimensions in a recognisable fashion, even through it has much less information than what the image claims to represent.

So an image is a snapshot of something complex from a limited perspective. It is a representation of something in a lower dimension that can only exist in a higher dimension. An image of a hypercube would be a cube, that of a cube, a square, and that of a square, a line, and a line, a point. Or not. 

Depending on the angle at which the image is taken, a cube can look like a hexagon or a rectangle. A scene can be viewed from a thousand perspectives. A building, whether le tour Eiffel or the Sydney opera house, have an near infinite number of possible vantage points by which they may be reduced to an image. Some may be more familiar than others, more or less conventional, close or distant.

If we are images of God, by this analysis, God must be more complex than we are. Our most distinguishing factor as human beings is that we are personal. We have the ability to form personal relationships with one another, and with God, in a way that the rest of natural creation cannot. What is a more complex version of personality? Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Trinity is only possible in what is somehow an additional personal or spiritual dimension, which we are unaware of in the same way that A. Square could not, at first, conceive of a sphere. In order for God to explain Himself to us, He has to reduce Himself into relatively comprehensible expressions. Most directly, by dipping Himself into our dimension as Jesus Christ. As how the sphere appears as a circle in Flatland to be able to communicate in a limited way with his prophet.

We are all made in God's image, yet we possess such diversity in our expression of that image. The analogy still holds, for a complex being like God cannot be captured in His entirety by a single image, a single human being. In His infinitude, all the billions of us who have ever existed still cannot fully capture all the ways that God can be imaged. And of course, while we may look like God when He is viewed from a certain angle, we cannot hope to be Him, any more than a picture of a pipe can be a pipe.

Vignette: Mare

Evening promenade ambulations were the always the most calming. The trees lined the right and the sand on the left. The sea reached out for the shore, pursuing and receding. How many people had looked out in just this way over the centuries? Caught up in an idle thought, the germ of a reflective cascade, the bud of a mental exercise through the high-vaulted halls of philosophy.

Perhaps it takes a certain disposition to appreciate this environment. A quieter, reflective temperament with a grandiose capacity for trying to comprehend the mysteries of this world. The sentiment charmed. It repelled any thoughts of loneliness, replacing it with a profound solidarity with all those who must once have stood here, in tranquil contemplation. It was an order, implicit, a gathering of kindred spirits who meet each other not in person, in speech and actions, but in prose or verse. The records of their hearts laid bare for another sensitive soul to imbibe, empathise with, and express in yet another flourish of creativity.

On more transcendent days, it seemed that the spirit of that quiescent community was closer to the sea, the land and the sky than to any other human organisation. How many regimes, triumphs and tragedies had this sea observed? Older, older still. How many births, deaths, frustrations and elations had been absorbed into the memory of the sea? Absorbed and absolved in the sublime depths that deny any attempt at exploration. Like the subconscious of the super-consciousness of humanity, which discovers a rare listener out of every few thousand individuals, who tries to give it a voice for the next explorer. 

The exclusivity of the organisation was a source of clandestine pride, but its reality could never be certain. Perhaps such perspective was all too common, disguised in innumerable variations, lenses and distortions into the full spectrum of superficial personalities. Or perhaps it was a phantasm, an ideal borne of a romantic hope of easing isolation, one too acutely felt by asocial individuals, read into the texts and expressions of others. 

At other times, the sea lost its symbolism, snapping back to a churning body of water, unconscious, unobservant and unfeeling. It reclaimed its position as a sublime force with mastery over a presumptuous humanity. It broke its mental alliance with a callous fickleness and left the observer stranded and alone. No longer a comfort, but a font of unease.

It would not do. The observer grants his own interpretation and voice to the voiceless, and Oceanus, for all his pretences, could be neither friend nor foe to the community that personified him with recall, and attempted to co-opt into their quest for questions and answers. It was a tool, a platform from which to explore realities beyond the physical, but only as much as a mind was willing to grant it metaphysical meaning by analogies and association.

A Reluctant Road

An ironic turn of events does reveal itself through the contents of my posts in recent months. When I started my creative oeuvre, it was intended to be a synthesis of all the knowledge I valued, and sensed that I wanted to include in a grand design. A world in my image, a playground of the mind, a canvas for the emotions, realm where I could create the creator and explore the implications of the rules I had set.

While writing, I researched, I thought, and my investigations began to take precedence over the actual opus itself. I had sought to reconcile multiple truths, and in that course, I found some beliefs were not worth maintaining. Veritas took precedence. Scriptio continued in ill disciplined streams.

That which I had determined to do changed. Now, the sub-creation became a vessel, centrum sapientiae scientiaeque. It had to embody the final understanding, it had to contain as much as it could possibly contain without being reality, for my perception of reality had grown to be far fuller than versatile shadow that dwelt within my soul.

I see now that I will be bound. Trapped between a journey of discovery and a process of expression, in a constant tension, I am strung. The magnum opus must concede to my own 'De Civitate Dei', 'Summa Theologiae' and 'Institutio Christianae Religionis'. Perhaps one edition will be insufficient.

De Progressione Hominis

Since the age of exploration, the world has been wondering what catapulted the nations of western Europe to global dominance. We have come up with several theories, explanations for the narrative of modern history, and the fruits of those stories are evident to those who will take the time to delve further than the coasting observer. Reading the book 'Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures', I feel I finally have an answer to this enduring question which makes the most logical sense.

First, let's examine the other answers which have been submitted though, for sake of comparison. No doubt those who have lent credence will assume that my understanding of these theories from the readable books meant for the layperson are insufficient, but I ask for your toleration my amateurish philosophising. In decades past, the primary candidate for white supremacy was a biological superiority. The nations of Europe represented the cream of the human crop, the apex of evolutionary development. The Japhethites took their place in the great chain of being and had the right to exercise their ascendancy to accelerate the natural current of mother nature. We observe the terrible fruit of such a story, with hundreds of native peoples being treated as less than human, studied to determine if they represented the fabled missing link, roped into slavery and exploited as if they were included as objects of Genesis 1:28. 

The ripening of this cogitative mode was in Nazism and other similar ideologies, which seized upon the pseudoscience of nature in red tooth and claw to justify unprecedented genocides and launch a eugenics program. Now we deal with a tamed version of evolution, still distorting the way we understand the world, but not to the extreme degree which it once did. Any suggestion that human development is linked to evolutionary advantages is now met with extreme aversion, and certainly not deemed politically correct.

So now we look for alternatives, and one that had appealed to me before was suggested by Jared Diamond in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' and further elucidated by Ian Morris in 'Why the West Rules: For Now'. Their suggestions about the influence of geography and biogeography, I feel, still cannot be entirely disqualified, and have much merit. The argument, in very general brushes, is that all societies have the same baseline humans; there are no biological advantages or handicaps as a whole, and certainly not be race. It is almost the antithesis of the toxic racial theory that was once so dominant in its aversion to any mention of genetic differences among Homo sapiens.

Instead, what shaped our societies is put down to geographical differences. Europe fostered competing nation states which existed separately because of natural geographical barriers while China had long been unified because of the comparative lack of such features in the landscape. Domesticable species were far more common in the old world than the new world. The old world's horizontal axis was far more facilitative of cross pollination of ideas, inventions and trade routes than the latitudinal variation in the new world. They are really good, thoughtful books, I do recommend them.

Recently, a third perspective has helped me to understand this issue with a different take, which I figure is far more holistic than either of the last two theories. Some may take offence at the idea that biblical truth is what transforms nations and generates wealth, but the facts rather speak for themselves. Loren Cunningham's 'The Book that Transforms Nations' offers a brief overview while 'Discipling Nations' offers a heftier elucidation. This idea in essence, suggests that God intended for societies to arise, and designed them to function in a certain way. Societies that function according to those principles; such as honest government, concern for the poor, valuing individuals and so on, will thrive, in the same way that a body that is respected by being fed the right food and well exercised will be healthy. God made societies, and knows how they should work better than any of us could, and He has graciously revealed His principles for a successful society in His word. This view holds that there is an absolute truth and an absolute standard which we can either choose to abide by, or abandon.

The advantage of this view over the second is that it gives us hope. The second view is ultimately deterministic, as much of the rest of the modern cosmological evolutionary account is. It diminishes the epic turns of history and the brilliant impact of artists, inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs and missionaries on this world by attributing them, indirectly, to probabilistic chance. No doubt Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus, but we ought to be wary of going overly fatalistic. The second view encourages us to think that nations which are underdeveloped will never be able to change, and so those who are more advanced have also diminished their sense of responsibility to share the blessings and wealth they have obtained.

What we believe about the how we relate to God and how we relate to the rest of material creation affects the attitude we have about our purpose and potential. The fact remains that the answers God has given are the only ones which enable us to see the perfect balance between divine providence and our responsibility to subdue the earth.

The stories we tell ourselves either create death, destruction and poverty or life, vibrancy and abundance. Either development or devolution in our societies. The stories we tell about our societies shape how we view the outcomes of success or failure, and the solutions we try to implement in order to pursue further prosperity. 

De Gravitate Voluntatis

This post is somewhat connected to the thoughts I've shared in my recent posts on predestination, and is primarily a discussion of choice and meaning.

In an earlier discussion, I made a suggestion that meaning in life comes from the value that God grants to us and our choices, finding meaning in what we do. After further thought, I feel that that statement is far too cursory. An idea I would like to weave into the tapestry is that choice is inseparable from consequence. The key to meaning is that our choices have been given the authority to shape this world, to have consequence.

God has made a beautiful creation. He invested His awesome power in this planet, life, our bodies, our minds. Crafting a whole system in intricate detail and with great care, He then gives humans authority to chose what to do with it. Our choices affect this world and that power gives our choices significance. Likewise, in a narrative, the we are able to find meaning in the characters and their decisions because their decisions affect their lives and the lives of people around them within the established context of the story.

When we are born, we have little authority. We observe the world, our parents, other adults, and everything is decided for us. Our clothes, the food and drink we ingest, the places we go are all at the discretion of those who have guardianship over us.

Then we develop and gain abilities we had not before. No longer a passive bystander, we take our first steps and speak our first words. In our action, we acquire authority over where we move and what we say. We are allowed to expand gradually into the full expression of these two abilities at a measured pace. At first we only toddle around the living room, then our parents hold our hands as we cross the street, leave us to play in a park. Our vocabulary grows, allowing us to articulate more specific concepts, give compliments and complaints, and to express love and hate. Steadily we gain more authority over where we spend our time, who we socialise with, the emotions of others through the words we say. We may not be kings, but in our own little worlds, we begin to assume more responsibility and influence.

After ability comes mastery, which comes as we learn to wield the power we find that we have. We learn that when we are late, it inconveniences others, while if we are in the right place at the right time, things proceed more smoothly and pleasantly. We learn that the words we say can make or break someone's day, particularly those who are closest to us. We begin, hopefully, to be sensitive to the consequences of our choices, and choose as wisely as we can.

Yet we make mistakes. We underestimate traffic, we forget appointments, two careless drivers meet, a ferry capsizes. A rash word is released in hissing anger or writhing insecurity, and by words, wars are declared and marriages bitterly annulled. Then we step back and wonder why such power was given to fallible creatures such as ourselves.

These are not the only abilities we have, nor the only powers we steward. We learn that we are responsible for our physical bodies, the exercise we do and the sustenance we ingest. For our souls, we select the media we experience and the things we learn, the thoughts we dwell on and those we take captive, the emotions that we allow to run rampant and those we temper. We choose to fill our spirits with the love of an awesome God, or a fake facsimile that deadens our humanity. We plan our days and our careers.

For some of us, a great transition is made upon the birth of a child, when, for the first time, your choices carry supreme consequence, not only for yourself, but for another, as of yet, helpless human being, and the cycle is complete.

In the face of this weight of choice, we all try to choose what we believe is best. Some despair and back away from choice because of past failure and fear. Others thrust on ahead with a complex system of justifications which lets them chose what they wish because balancing the multifarious demands of society and individuals is too tedious a consideration.

We can also choose to submit the authority we possess back into the hands of the one who gave it to us. For who would know how to manage the weight of will better than the one who constructed it.

Meaning comes not from independence, but from consequence. Thus, any system of thought that attempts to distance consequence from choice is straying from the truth and diminishes the sense of meaning in our lives. Any system of thought that connects a choice to the wrong consequence is misinformed. Making choices based on what we know is human wisdom, while making choices based on what God suggests is Godly wisdom. As far as I can tell, the latter is the most reliable and sustainable way to manage the gravity of volition.