Art, Performance, and Life in God

John: Mike, in our live concert yesterday from the Berlin Philharmonic, one of the pieces was Rachmaninov’s “Isle of the Dead” which he composed after observing a painting of the same name by Arnold Böcklin in 1883.  I asked Grok (AI) to show me a picture of that artwork.  Instead, Grok generated its own rendition of what it “thinks” such a painting should look like:

  • Thomas: Grok certainly captured “the isle of death.”

John: The actual painting is this:

John: I looked it up because I wanted to see the visual of what inspired Rachmaninov to compose his piece of the same name!  Damn, he did a great job.  He wrote adjacent bars in different meters to capture the random swaying of the paddle boat against the ripples that lap at the boat.  The piece is all in one movement but very dramatic.  I had never heard it before.  You can probably find a recording on YouTube.  The music describes this scene of the boat arriving at the island with a coffin, then unloading and carrying the coffin, the final placement of the coffin, and then the little boat paddling away.  The music also hints at “what death might be like” – hinting that death MIGHT be better than life.  There is just enough hint to be mysterious.

  • Thomas: Adjacent bars with different meters is a dramatic technique to capture swaying, which is incredibly difficult musically! The somber memorial of a coffin coming and going is striking in its step-by-step reality. The hint that death may be better than life has two implications: that a heavenly world awaits and that the peace of death is better than the struggle of life.

John: Before the concert, a preview showed their rehearsal of the piece.  Many conductors might say, “I want this section louder,” or offer other technical suggestions.  But the Berlin Phil conductor only described the scene and the emotion of the boat passenger and then left it up to the incredible musicians to interpret that scene and those emotions their way.  Wonderful artistic communication and musical results!

  • Thomas: This is like method acting, where the actor attempts to become the character. https://poe.com/s/IqAsYwkIgtEiNVXfTFXc This raises the question of “what it is to be a person.”
  • This brings up the issue of character development. We devise different methods of coping with reality, which typically become habitual. That set of behaviors becomes identified as the person’s personality. I think the happiest/most joyful life arises when we choose Godliness as the pattern we attempt to emulate as we grow from the flexible shape of the child to the carved-in-stone character of adulthood.
  • Ideally, our parents should teach, and we should choose to develop character habits pleasing to God, which of course is taught in the Bible. We could do the same thing divorced from the Bible if we knew for a fact what the best way of behaving in reality was. Still, we don’t, so following God (reading the words repeatedly and getting insights on how they apply to our circumstances) is the time-honored way of learning God’s way.
  • By choosing God’s way, we act in ways that produce feelings of the most fulfillment in every life situation.
  • Most drama portrays people acting out of their animal instincts rather than their highest God-pattern of life. This is what makes drama: people behaving badly. Often, the value of watching dramatic performances in live theatre and movies is the lessons we learn about how not to act in various fictional scenarios. Drama is like school, learning from virtual life experiences.
  • The same is true of still-life art (photos, paintings, sculpture…). It represents an aspect of the human condition as felt and captured by the artist. It’s a method of acting in still life: taking feeling and capturing a moment.

John: That also reminded me of an unforgettable rehearsal I witnessed of the Santa Rosa Symphony a few decades ago.  The conductor explained to the musicians “this passage represents the integrity of the leading character in this piece”.  The conductor immediately stopped and corrected himself, “No!  This passage IS the integrity of the leading character!”  That hit me hard.  I never forgot it.

  • Thomas: I think symbolic performance art, symphony, bands, ensembles… in sound is similar, a capturing of the feeling of an episode or epic drama, as felt by the artists. That was your point about the musicians feeling the episode as coached by the conductor.
  • The conductor’s comment is an excellent observation about character. We act out who we have trained ourselves to be by habit over a lifetime of choices. When our entire being is our character, we have reached a place of integrity, integration, and oneness.
  • I’m reading a book, “5 Types of People that Can Ruin Your Life.” It talks about five personality disorders. If you are in a relationship with them, you will be manipulated, lied to, disappointed, and maybe end up dead. The types are sociopathic, histrionic, borderline, paranoid, and narcissistic.  It raised the question of how people develop such bad behavior to exhibit a personality disorder.  I ran into a few in my practice, and they ran me around severely. It was a great puzzle how to help people with such distorted habits of relationship, self-other perception…  It was intriguing, involving, and scary. They all called themselves Christians, and I think they wanted to behave better. They would get better if they followed the Biblical prescriptions of living a Godly life. I want to see what it takes to get that more profound transformation of spirit/soul/mind. What makes an actual difference in behavior and experience of life? I don’t think believing something is valuable if it doesn’t translate into actual behavior.
  • As discussed in my last essay, I think the reality of life is that God lives us.  There is no other reality other than God observing, being observed, and living in relationship to Himself.  I think this is what life is, but we don’t see it.  We see God as a separate entity, a being to fear and love. And this conception is true in that God has created the universe for His pleasure and satisfaction.  And for it to be satisfying, our relationship with him must be a relationship of free will/choice to serve/love (expressed by living His way).  And one other thing: He feels us entirely as we live, which gives Him the experience of our life, which is enjoyable. He stays close and interacts deeply with us or separates far from us (being not of His nature or affinity).
  • I went to a concert last night with Gary here in Portland.  You would have hated it.  It was so loud it made your clothes vibrate and hit your body with each beat. It was unpleasant.  It was a Christian rock concert. It wasn’t what I consider to be a sustainable life experience of being in a relationship with God. It seemed that people enjoyed it, though. I assume it was because the sound, the words, and the sensory stimuli in some way resonated with some people’s lives. This may be how some people feel close to or resonate with a supreme entity. The attendance almost filled up the Rose Quarter/Moda Center in Portland. Thousands of people were there. A pastor from Atlanta that Gary liked was there.
  • The way that most people relate to God is as being “other.” The concept of God being the source of life, the essence of being, the only one living, is uncommon, but I believe it is, in essence, what all world religions imply. It is not recognized commonly, but I believe Christianity also implies this fact. (The verse which most strongly captures this perspective/insight/truth is, “In Him we live and move and have our being.”) If God really is All, then I think God needs to create a separation between the parts of His mind. Thus, there is a strange juxtaposition of two realities: 1) He is experiencing us fully, and in a very real sense, He is us. and 2) He must separate Himself from the unity of all His mind as the source of all being. If my Conscious Point Hypothesis is correct, He experiences every particle of our being because mass and the carriers of energy are (in some mysterious way) produced by His mind.
  • So, that’s the latest on my magical mystery tour to Portland.
  • TLA.

Life Lived with the Perspective of God as the Only Being

John: In your previous email about MACBETH, when I said that Macbeth says that life has no meaning, you made a comment that Shakespeare is saying that life has no meaning! That’s not what Shakespeare was saying at all. Shakespeare was saying that, for Macbeth, who had violated all sense of morality by murdering, Macbeth had destroyed his own value system so that life no longer held any meaning. Shakespeare was not saying that life has no meaning. He was speaking from Macbeth’s broken perspective when he wrote that line. And that’s how I reached my conclusion that morality is part of hard reality, like physics. Morality has very little to do with religious faith, except to learn the warning from religion about the penalties for breaking morality.

Thomas: Again, yes, that was exactly my concept of what you were saying. My point was that Macbeth was just a sock puppet for Shakespeare. Shakespeare said everything in the entire play (not that he believed or advocated the perspective of every character, only that he put on that valence to dramatize humanity speaking from that personality-type.) Thus, it was from the worldview/character of Shakespeare that every character’s word was spoken, and in this sense, there was no one else speaking but Shakespeare.

But having said that and putting the wool back over our eyes (the pretense that there is a Macbeth, a man with his particular character/worldview/emotional habits/moral disposition), we see Macbeth speaking a particular perspective on life. Using Macbeth as a vehicle, Shakespeare gives us a dramatic presentation on how life could look as it did from Macbeth’s perspective (his upbringing, his traumas, his lessons and successes…). In that dramatization, the vignette of life seen through and colored by that lens, and we see a lesson, a crystallization of life from that point of view.

And yes, when having seen the devastation that Macbeth experienced by living life without the proper perspective of Right/Good/Godly/Reality-based/action-consequence-rule reality we see that morality is a categorization of the rules of life/the heuristics of actions he/we choose by so organizing life. We see clearly in this light that there is an absolute map of morality, which reflect/categorize the consequences of certain choices, in a certain context, which dramatize the effects produced in reality. In this play, we see what one should do to have an excellent life, by consideration of the consequences of what happens when a man chooses the opposite.

I think the realization you came to is that religion/morality is an unnecessary overlay of reality. (Am I correct?) Your realization was that reality is reality, and that religion is simply talking about what is and what works. Your realization was that religion is simply talking about reality, rather than being reality, it is the map, not the territory. And further, I think the implication (because of previous conversations/knowing you and your leanings/beliefs) that you were getting a sense/realization that religion is an unnecessary step/an overlay which is not fundamental. You are trying to live life and judge truth at a base level of reality. You want to go for the source, not the shadow, to learn directly from the purest lesson-giver, which is for you, reality. You have judged that what happens, the action and objects of life, are the fundamental reality, the bedrock of truth, the actual object. You see that religion is merely a story about the more fundamental “what is” and ”what’s so” about life. Am I correct?

Of course, I agree. Reality is the final arbiter of Truth. And assuming I have accurately judged your motivation/conclusion/perspective, let us explore whether there is another even deeper perspective than physical reality. I believe that there is a spiritual nature, a finer realm which infuses/underlies the world of reality, and that it is this world of which religion speaks. The perspective that Reality is the fundamental arbiter of truth is one perspective, and the most obvious one to the eye which cannot see the spiritual world (which is all of us). There may be a little objective proof/evidence that reality includes a spiritual dimension, but that evidence generally requires inference, induction, and extrapolation of the meaning of pattern recognition. We are like the people living in “Flatland” who cannot perceive a 3rd dimension, but the movement of shadows indicate the presence of another dimension. I believe we are like fish in water, who do not realize or think much about the most obvious fact of their reality, that the live and swim in a medium which pervades every aspect of their lives.

To say, as you did, that religion speaks only of the rules which are present in reality is correct. But, again, this does not imply that there is not a more fundamental reality underneath reality, from which the rules of reality have arisen. And as I have stated, numerous times, this is my perspective. And, if this is the case, then studying the rules of that reality is even more direct/fundamental than studying the rules deduced from observing the cause-effect consequences/rules/relationships of physical reality.

I see God as the source of all reality, as the ultimate cause of all effects. (Any deeper/simpler/precursor/more fundamental reality is unfathomable, and any more complex assemblage of parts is superficial.) I believe that physical reality is the consequence of the substance of God’s mind.

I have elaborated and justified this postulate as a factual reality in my writing. I postulate that the method by which God manifested physical reality, was by looking at Himself from many points of view. I believe He gave each of these portals of perception persistence and independence, and the ability to “see” perceive His other portals of perception. Thus, in this conception, the universe is a collection of innumerable viewers, portals from which God’s mind looks at other portals of His own mind.

Thus, the substance of physical reality is composed of these zillion viewers. The object of observation is the other points of view, the other viewers, each of which see God, and the other portals of perspective compose physical reality. If this is true, then the “what is” of reality must be observed and the rules of life/cause-effect must be extracted from examination of this level.

If this postulate is correct, then we are spirits/sentient beings supervising a body-soul composed of innumerable points of perspective. I postulate that we, as conscious beings, are but one of God’s points of view, that we are one point in God’s mind looking at the rest of the universe.

We are not God, but we are also not “not of God.” In my postulate, there is nothing which is not God in this fragmented/pointillistic sense of what actually composes reality. If this postulate is true, there is nothing which God does not see, hear, and feel, if in fact every point composing the universe has its origin from/by/within His mind. If He is the substance which underlies physical reality, our every act is felt by Him.

If we are, as stated in Scripture, created in His image, there is some way in which we are like Him. I take this verse to mean that we perceive what feels good and bad based upon His perception. But having said that, having a human/animal nature underlying our brain/reflexes/instinct, we are pulled to act out our animal drives, which may be in opposition to His plan/way of being for His own acts as God, and by extension, as humans.

Having noted that there is nothing which is not intimately connected to His mind and hence perception, there is nothing which He does not feel. To cope with the pain, I believe He dissociates/forgets/disconnects from/goes to sleep to/ignores… that which is painful. I justify that postulate based on the fac that this is a coping mechanism that humans use to tolerate the intolerable. I also see indications in Scripture that God turns His back on the unholy. He does not invite the unholy, the rebellious, the non-family into His intimate relationship. This is what He does to create a tolerable universe. Coping with feeling everything by shutting down/separating from that which is painful is understandable.

And given that God has free will, so do we. As a spirit, we are a single point of His consciousness, and just as He has free will, so do we. We have the prerogative/right/ability to do as we please with our bodies, minds, and hearts. It is such a strong drive that the Libertarian movement has based their platform fully on the right to do anything that they want, if it does not hurt anyone else. The problem is, that from man’s limited perspective, the harm done to others, to the harmony of life, to the joy of God is unseen. We are easily blinded by the personal pleasure we get, and thus the harm, pain caused to God, is disguised.

God has the same prerogative/right/ability to do as He pleases as we do. Exercising that right, He chose to create a universe from His own being, and He gave every point in the universe a nature, just as He has a nature. He has the potential of a zillion natures, but He has chosen the moral system that pleases Him, and it is that one that is rewarded and punished by reality. We don’t see Him executing judgment on anything, or on anyone. We only see reality administering the consequences of force and motion in physical reality. And of course, the physical laws of cause and effect appear impersonal, free of dogma or moral lesson. But, behind this appearance of objective physicality is God, and the rules which govern the motion of His points of view.

He is the source of everything. He has assigned a nature to every animal, whether by choice or by perfect adaptation to its environment, each animal spirit embodies a potential configuration of emotional-dispositional nature. While He was the organizing force for every animal, and the emotional nature of every animal, He has chosen to be/act out/exalt/revel in a subset of all possibilities of the totality of all acts. He has chosen a subset of that totality of all acts/natures to be/have/act and love.

God gave man, a spirit, the essence to choose any way of being. Jus as He is free to choose His subset of possibilities made available by nature, so is man. It is this separation, this choosing of the set of all acts to which He embraces, that defines or reflects His character. And having chosen a polarity, that which is of the same nature as Himself He takes into His intimate chamber, into His center, into His unprotected place, to fellowship with, to love. And given that He has embraced one aspect of the manifested world, and rejected the other, He hates that which opposes/destroys/overtakes/usurps His place of beauty and safety.

He is all, being the source of existence itself. But even though the universe arose from/by/in Him, He does not embrace/love/include/approve of those acts/configurations which are of His chosen way. He opposes all who rebel against/violate His standards and sully His beauty. Thus, He separates from that which rebels against Him, and He draws close to and blesses that which embraces His way.

Consider the implication of the following perspective in the light of the concept of God is simultaneously Himself, the man who has violated God’s way/nature/law, and the man who has been violated. In the above, I have postulated that God separates Himself from sin/unGodliness/acts which violate His standards of propriety.

Consider the case of being angry at another person because of an actual violation, a real true violation of nature (murder, rape/adultery, theft, perjury/false witness, violence…). Scripture presents a collage of God’s relationship to evil, “Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord,” and “Owe no man anything but to love,” and “Against thee and thee alone have I sinned,” and “God hates evil.” The implication of this big-picture perspective is that it is God’s job to discipline wrongdoing because it is against Him that the offense was committed.

If God is Himself, the sinner, and the violated, this implies an ability to separate Himself into independent parts, each capable of independent moral choices. He has created a world where there is a meaningful/real relationship between independent beings because each party can make actual moral choices, each with different implications and consequences.

Scripture says, “God is love.” Since God feels everything, I believe God has the desire to feel love from every person toward every other person. I believe this is the fundamental motivating principle driving God’s morality/His character/His rules-laws governing the universe. I believe morality is a subset of that criteria, that He wants to expand His experience of love in His universe/in His body.

Why did Scripture say, “Vengeance is mine?” Possibly it is because if we hold ill will in our hearts, we are a source of pain to Him. If we take vengeance out of a spirit of revenge, rather than out of love that disciplines another in hopes of their rehabilitation/repentance, we are acting in a way that causes God more pain. In the scripture, we see that it is God’s job/role of disciplining and correcting those errant/rebellious/unpleasing aspects of Himself.

If we take vengeance, our correction if done in a spirit other than love, will be sin in its own right. If we act out of rage/impulsiveness, we will likely miss the mark and begin a new spiral of violation. When we act out of love and deep care for the other, the lesson can be seen as divine. When we act out of love, we leave room for Him to miraculously move circumstances. When we act out of love alone, the message is not confused with being an act of petty personal ego retaliation.

God can work through a word. His presence and acts can be silent, as seemingly random events, thoughts and choices arising as a message from widely dispersed people and times to create His outcome. It is for this reason that we should forgive and love, have pity on the sinner/the violator. In so doing we act as one of God’s cells, as His agent, one of His portals of perception and experience, one of His points of Consciousness which He has given independent thought, feeling, and will in executing His will.

He is the origin of all existence and the one who experiences all. It is in this way “we were created in His image.” We are all spirits from God, and God experiences all that we say, think, and do. We can influence the experience of others by our thoughts, words, and deeds. By choosing His morality, choosing His way of living within the reality of the laws of the universe He has created, we give Him an experience of joy. The result is that life works well when we obey His laws of physical-emotional-logical reality.

All that to say, I agree. The morality of formal religion is a crude approximation of the detail that is required to function in the universe perfectly. But, having said that, without a guide, however approximate, people tend to follow their passions, their habits, their animal instincts, and fall far afield of the perfection of God’s physical-emotional-logical reality.

It is for this reason that a study of the Bible (God’s revelation of His nature/what pleases Him), fellowshipping with other believers, supporting each other in the never-ending struggle to live perfectly/Godly is such a valuable, and necessary, effort. The rules of the Bible, and the rules of physical reality are the same to the perfectly rational omniscient being. But given that we are mere mortals, we do not naturally know/deduce/choose the perfectly rational choice that reality dictates.

Thomas

The Requirement for Faith

Author: Thomas Lee Abshier

 

The fact of the existence of the physical universe is the ultimate mystery.  We take it for granted, we don’t think about it, it’s like air, it’s simply there, and we live inside of it every day.

When we do ask the hard questions, like, “What did the universe come from?”  We can’t answer it, so we often listen to the experts, who are the physicists who have become philosophers.  And, since they are experts, we may believe their theories about the origin of the universe and life.  After all, they are the experts.  They think about this stuff all day, and they went through really hard and specialized schools,  they are super smart, and they have equations that prove everything, and people got Nobel prizes for their discoveries and theories.

Some physicists rationalize the existence of the universe as being the result of a quantum fluctuation in the pre-creation space.  That is, they believe the whole creation may have come into existence spontaneously.  They use the Casimir effect (and other experiments) as evidence that virtual electrons and virtual positrons spring out of the empty space.  (Note: this “empty space” is actually filled with a “quantum foam,” from which virtual electrons and positrons spring for a moment before quickly they recombine and disappear.

In other words, this creation scenario depends upon empty space (from which virtual positrons and electrons spring and recombine) as being the incident from which all the particles constituting the entire universe of particles sprang in a moment by a massive quantum fluctuation.

This spontaneous quantum fluctuation (that didn’t recombine) creation theory depends upon the theories and evidence of quantum mechanics.  While such a cosmic split in the void of space cannot be ruled out, it still begs the question of what/who created the pre-creation void?   What natural process generated it?  And what natural process created that?  In other words, what is the original cause of the creation original space come from which the space came that generated the quantum fluctuation from which the universe sprang?  Obviously, the best and brightest physicists of our time have no answers to this question.

Such problems are called an infinite regress.  Physicists, atheists, and philosophers criticize theists who say that “God created the creation” because that raises the question of where God came from.  But obviously, the physicists who believe in quantum fluctuations creating the universe have presented a solution that offers a solution no deeper than the theist’s faith that the creation was generated by God.  Neither solution resolves the fundamental mystery by proposing an original cause, a first cause that generated the mass, energy, space, and time we see in the physical universe.

In other words, both conventional physicists and theists rely on faith that their theory is correct.  And being realistic and intellectually honest, neither theory gives a logically satisfying answer to the question about the final/ultimate/original origin of the creation/universe.

The physicist seeks to identify ever more elemental physical processes that may explain a more complex/higher level phenomenon. Staying inside the self-constrained boundaries of physics, no cause other than physical processes can even be considered as the cause of phenomena.  In other words, God cannot be considered the cause of the creation, because only non-God solutions are considered.  Thus, the physics community has committed itself to the exploration of only physical phenomena, and only physical causes and effects.  Thus, the physicist in effect has declared, “I have faith in physical processes” as the cause and origin of the universe.

But, such a position, cannot declare that there is no God, because there has been no search, no study to test whether there is or is not a God.  Instead, all physics community can say, is, that they have looked for smaller and smaller, more elemental physical causes (masses and forces) and inside of that domain of research and theoretical consideration, they have not found evidence of God.

Of course, if you don’t look for God, and specifically restrict the consideration of God as a causative factor in the existence of the creation, then it would not be likely that a physicist would conclude that God was the cause.  The physics community is looking in a different arena, and what they do is amazing, skilled, intelligent, logical, and imaginative.  But, all their work proves is that they have been able to explain every physical phenomenon in the fields of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, field theory, particle physics, and relativity using ever-smaller phenomena.  Such discovery and elaboration of the details of the physical world does not prove, or disprove, the origin of the universe as purely physical or God-created.

In the case of the typical physicist, many hold to the religion of secular humanism and Scientism.  As such, many seek to justify all knowledge past the current level of explanation by identified physical causes as in the realm of “someday science will fill in the gap and identify the details of the currently unseen/unidentified physical phenomena that produced xyz particle or force.

It may be true that all forces may be someday be unified as originating from a single primal force.  And, it may also be true that all particles may someday be known to have decayed from a single primal mass.  But, even in that scenario, the man who believes that the physical universe is all there is, will not be able to take his knowledge any farther and say, “This is the source, this is the beginning, there is no God.”

Rather, the man of faith in God, and the man of faith in the physical universe-alone will both still be men of faith, each clinging to his own religion.

Thus, the question of origin cannot be resolved by finding the unified mass and field theory.  Rather, each man must decide in his own heart whether he hears a still small voice speaking that convinces him of the existence of God.

The man who believes only in the existence of the physical universe as the source of all creation and life will also explain the mystery of life by another process of faith, that the theory of evolution was adequate to explain the entirety of the ascent of life from primordial slime to man.  Such a doctrine seeks to entirely replace the working of the hand of God with the blind hand of chance and time, and survival of the fittest as the motive force that shaped the minds, hearts, and bodies of all animate creatures.  Each man must choose in who and what he believes.

Origin of the Universe

  • Facebook

Thomas Lee Abshier

Author: Thomas Lee Abshier

 

Dr. T., In response to your article, “Physics and Faith”, you are putting words in the mouths of physicists to suit your premise. Here is what Stephen Hawking thinks about the beginning of the universe:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Jonathan


Jonathan, thank you for sending the Stephen Hawking article. I enjoyed reading it. My comments about the consensus of physicists come from my interactions with physicists on the Physics Stack Exchange. The rules of the discussion are quite clear and are enforced strongly by correction or criticism, with participants being told that the question or answer was “off topic” if a God-related or non-conventional or metaphysical answer was given as a solution to any physical process. It’s okay to mention God, but not as a serious answer to a question; rather, it’s used as an alternative solution that’s not being considered the primary answer.

The argument about time and space being so entangled that you can’t tell the difference, and heading out in a direction of time, where any direction of time was the same as heading out in any direction of space, is a wonderful imaginary scenario. Still, it doesn’t give us any insight into what time or space actually “is”. And, even this scenario does not solve the problem I was addressing in my essay: we still don’t know what created (or, more specifically, what was the causative origin of) the space-time ball that then expanded, much like leaving the South Pole. That was my major point. There is no possible (or even imaginary) scenario or theory where the beginning of all possibility starts. The theory of God creating the universe does not solve this problem, and analogies about walking north from the South Pole on a space-time ball do not solve this problem. From our perspective, this problem is not soluble. A physicist may believe in South Pole Space-Time balls, and he then feels no pressure to consider the origin of all causes. But, such a man would be shallow indeed if he did not realize that such a solution did not solve the underlying problem of the origin of the space-time ball. Likewise, the man who believes that his belief that God created the universe solves all the logical problems of origins/beginnings – it doesn’t. The origin of the God who created the creation is still unknown – we have merely pushed the mystery back one layer. The infinite regress is encountered by the materialist/natural-law/natural-processes-only believing physicist, as much as it for the man who sincerely believes God created the creation (whether a universe with a history 6000 years ago or by providing the materials for a big bang to explode and inflate, and then expand and accelerate). Regardless of one’s cosmology and belief structure, this problem cannot be resolved. The origin of origins is logically impossible to solve. This is well recognized in the physics community.

The story is often told about the man who inquires of the guru about what holds up the earth. The guru responds that the earth is supported on the back of an elephant. The seeker asks, yes, but what is the elephant supported by? The guru responds, The elephant is standing on the back of a turtle. The seeker then asks, But what is the turtle standing on? The guru responds, “The turtle is standing on the back of a turtle.” The seeker then asks, “But what is that turtle standing on?” The guru responds, “It’s turtles all the way down.” I’m sure you’ve heard that story before. It effectively illustrates the principle of infinite regress. There is no solution to it.

Regarding the issue of gravity waves, it is true that they have been detected, and we can observe the collapse of a binary black hole-star system as a ripple in space. This is an interesting effect, but it is nothing that significantly shakes the universe in terms of importance. It means that we can detect that big things collapsed. Possibly we could get some information about how things moved/collided in the early universe if we could get a lot of these signals and decode the superimposition of all these collisions, and reflections – kind of like taking the blurriness out of a frosted glass or out of focus camera lens. So, I suppose it is possible to learn something about the universe in ages past by using a LIGO gravity sensor (or many of them, with much greater sensitivity than this apparatus) and using the signals to resolve early universe collisions, thereby gaining a better understanding of the originating signal. However, even this will not help us overcome the problem of finding the source of the original turtle. That problem is beyond technology, and strange as it seems, it is also beyond imagination, logic, philosophy, and religion. It cannot be comprehended. So, we are left with the belief in nature as all there is (and we don’t know where that ultimately came from), or believing in God (and we don’t know where He came from) as our creation paradigm. And that’s as good as it gets, and that is where we have to leave it and live in this world.

The reason all this makes any difference is that depending on our concept of the universe as an accidentally created, non-personality-driven place with laws that are pretty much just dictated by feelings, or what you/I/we think is right, then people are pretty much free to experiment, and do whatever they feel is good/right, and works before for them.

The other option is that this universe is/was created and the maker of the universe has rules that make the experience of life better if followed, or worse if not. In the case of the Christian religion, the rules that God gave were revealed in the Bible, both the Old and New Testament, the testimony of His Way, and we can take clues from that to determine what works best in life. My experience has been that the rules that I have derived from the Bible work well in guiding my life. In my counseling experience, I found that people who follow the rules tend to do well, and conversely, choosing other rule-sets often caused problems (which is why they came to see me) that could be rectified by adopting the Biblical rule-set. The success of the interaction was always dependent on choosing the correct rule set to apply, which isn’t always easy. This is why they came to me to help identify the core issue —the core error of action —that they could not identify or change.

Anyway, it all comes down to a very practical consideration, choosing what rule set you are going to follow. My experience has been that many non-Christians, perhaps most, follow the biblical laws because they are the rules of life that work. So, the actual issue is how to make life work well. When there are problems (which is when most people come for help), I’ve found that going back to the Book and checking how the thoughts, speech, and actions around the issue causing problems are due to violating or diverging from the owner’s manual specs. Identifying errors and making changes accordingly usually brings things back into line, and life works better.

So, again, for me, it was just a discussion about deciding which life paradigm worked best – and for me, the Biblical one, where God created it (and we don’t know what created God), and following the rules He published in the Book approach is what has worked best for me.

T.

Inequitable Distribution of Wealth

by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
12/14/2008
4/5/2019 rev

Summary: The formation of pockets of dynamic stability in turbulent flow provides an analogy and insights into to the macro & micro economic processes involved in the formation of stable pockets of inequitable wealth distribution in a land of plenty.  The economic forces acting inside the flow of an economy (production and consumption) act on the individual person in a manner somewhat akin to the forces acting on a molecule in a stream with various types of stationary obstacles, suspended particles, flow restrictions, channel bends, and merging flows.

The individual has internal psychological characteristics, such as the motivation to avoid pain and pursue pleasure, which is the central driver of all human action.  Humans have degrees of freedom of action such as the ability to communicate, think, act/work, feel and move to satisfy emotional and physical needs (e.g. survival, friendship, mating, reproduction, warmth, shelter, hunger, love, peace, etc…).  The individual’s external environment includes 1) the economic climate (recession or boom, inflation/deflation or stability), 2) the availability of resources (energy, land, minerals, water, skilled and unskilled labor, sun…), 3) the climate of international relations (open/restricted trade, war, cultural affinity/opposition), 4) the political climate (scandal/corruption, investigations, environmental fear/care, news polarization, stratification of wealth, identity politics, illegal immigration, moral legislation (abortion, homosexuality, divorce, pornography…), and 5) the cultural climate (e.g., unity vs balkanization, spiritual/religious/theologic principles reflected in the law), etc.  The internal environment of the individual interacts with his external environment, resulting in a flow where he either contributes and participates with the bulk of society and is rewarded according to the magnitude of his contribution, or he marches to a different drummer and finds himself engaging at cross purposes with those in his world, contributing little, and associating with those who are likewise disaffected.

  • (The Phenomenon of Turbulence) Turbulence results when the ratio of the kinetic energy and the viscosity of the fluid rise above a certain value (e.g., at a Reynolds number over 5000).  In other words, when the velocity becomes high enough relative to a surface, collisions between the particles in the fluid flow and the surface results in particle velocities perpendicular to the flow.  In short, collisions resulting in velocities of particles perpendicular to the fluid flow produce turbulence if the fluid doesn’t damp out that velocity.

The collision of the individual with the larger environment creates a disturbance in the flow of production and consumption.  The local conditions of the individual’s environment (local business profitability, marital satisfaction, education, family or personal illness, etc.) interact with the person’s individual capabilities and character to produce a stable flow of wealth if he is able to contribute significantly to the overall welfare of others.  If the individual has developed antisocial habits, adopted a self-focused narcissistic perspective, or habitually behaves according to the vast family of traits such as breaking contracts, denigrating his fellow man, using substances that dull the mind and disconnect him from the external and internal reality.

These pockets of poverty can be family, local, regional, national, or worldwide.  The point being that forces, internal and external, predictably interact to create stable pockets of wealth inequity that do not reflect the larger economic welfare.

This essay took its inspiration from the article: “The Long Arm of the Second Law”, Scientific American, Oct 2008, pg. 62-68.


Economic, Political, Moral, and Natural Forces as Determinants of Wealth
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
12/14/2008
4/1/2019 revision

In general, wealth accumulation is dependent upon a society.

Thermodynamic theory has now been given mathematical understructure and variable names to describe the formation, persistence, and decay of local pockets of order and disorder.  The conventional calculation of entropy only applies to systems at equilibrium, but turbulent systems of moving particles (and economic systems) are neither linear nor in equilibrium.

The concept of entropy is examined for those interested in understanding thermodynamics.  Understanding entropy is not necessary for understanding the metaphor of economics.  Systems in thermodynamic equilibrium systems are those in a steady state of temperature distribution, and such systems have a well-defined entropy.  But, dynamic, non-equilibrium, chaotic, turbulent systems cannot be easily assigned a value for the entropy of the system.

Entropy is defined as the amount of heat in a system divided by its temperature.  This rather abstract term has been used more commonly to describe the degree of randomness in a system, but this conception does not capture the real essence of entropy.  Entropy, using a strict definition increases each time a new possibility is introduced into a system.  For example: the entropy of a system increases each time one of its sub-elements goes through an irreversible process.  This happens when the kinetic energy of a single mass collides with a system with many particles, and the directed motion of the single particle is converted into the random/chaotic motion of many masses.  In other words, in the state before the collision, the system had only one degree of freedom, the movement of one mass in one direction.  After the collision, the target masses were moving in many directions, which means that the degrees of freedom of the system increased, and hence, the entropy of the system increased after the collision.

Another example of an entropy-increasing process is friction. At its elemental level, friction is a series of inelastic collisions. An inelastic collision converts kinetic energy to thermal energy – in other words, the coherent, single-direction motion of one large mass is converted into the randomly directed motion of many atoms.

  • (Elaboration of the physics of friction:  A mass M1 composed of a large number of atoms has a kinetic energy KE1 before it begins to slide on the surface of M2.  The irregularities on M1 and M2, high points called asperities, collide as they slide over each other.  The collision causes them to deform and reform repeatedly.  To the extent that the deformation does not spring back completely and return that energy of deformation to the KE of M1, that energy is retained by the atoms of the lattice of M1 and M2.  The retained compression of the lattice atoms and the motion imparted to the atoms of the asperities is transmitted by further micro-collisions to the atoms composing the molecular lattice.  Thus, some kinetic energy of M1 is lost to friction, which turns into heat and permanent deformation of the atoms on the surfaces of M1 and M2.  Energy is conserved, in that it was converted from kinetic energy to thermal energy.  Thermal energy is merely kinetic energy on a micro-scale directed randomly.  The original kinetic energy of M1 is transmitted to atoms in the lattice, thereby increasing the average vibratory rate of the atoms in the molecular lattice.  Thus, a portion of the KE1 of M1 is dispersed through M1 and M2.  The higher random kinetic energy of the atoms of M1 and M2 is perceived as a higher temperature.  This random, non-directed energy of the atoms in the molecular lattice means that the system has more degrees of freedom than the single-direction motion of KE1.  The strict mathematical definition of entropy is an algorithmic summation of the degrees of freedom of the system.  Obviously, when all the atoms of a mass are going in the same direction, there is only a single degree of freedom.  But, after the collision, there are many degrees of freedom with every atom having its own direction and its own velocity.  Thus, the system went from a low entropy system to a high entropy system through the process (innumerable inelastic collisions) of friction.  The concept of entropy is a high-level summary (a single number that reflects the degrees of freedom of a system) of a very complex underlying state.  But, in even more complex systems, such as water flowing over a rough surface and past obstacles, the concept of entropy is not sufficiently granular for modeling such complex systems, thus the need for the more recent advances in theory of turbulence and chaos theory.)

Linear systems are defined as changing properties at a constant rate with distance or time.  But most real-world systems are non-linear, given the complexity of surfaces and environments, with their associated inelastic collisions, changes in direction, and interactions between the individual atoms composing the stream.  For example, consider the case of water molecules in a stream flowing over a rocky river bed and shoreline.  The complex surfaces alter the velocity and direction of flow changes in a  complex, chaotic, turbulent, non-linear manner.

Most of life is composed of nonlinear interactions between people, objects, concepts, and spirits.

Atoms and molecules behave differently depending upon the state of the system.  For example, at high temperature, water changes state from a liquid to gas, and at a low temperature, it changes state from a liquid to a solid.  Fundamental to the bulk behavior of water is its dipolar nature due to the 109-degree angle bond between the two hydrogen atoms as they bond to oxygen.  The hydrogen loses its electron to the oxygen for a portion of its orbital and ends up with a partial positive charge, and the oxygen becomes partially negative.  The polar nature of water causes the hydrogen atoms on water molecules to be attracted to the oxygen of other water molecules.  This attraction between water atoms is due to the attraction between the partial positive and partial negative charges of the different portions of the water molecules.  This low-energy attraction between water molecules is called a hydrogen bond.  Even though this is a low energy bond, the attraction influences the local movement of the water molecules as it is jostled about by Brownian Motion.  The macro-effect is seen in its unusually high freezing and boiling point compared to other dipolar atoms.

This example was pursued in detail to illustrate that small forces at the molecular and atomic level affect the behavior of a bulk system.  The dynamic interaction with gross macroscopic objects (such as the rocks on the river bed and shore) depends largely on how water molecules interact with each other and with the masses at the surfaces of the stream.  Expanding on this concept: the atoms on a water molecule exert different forces depending on their proximity to other molecules and the forces associated with the water’s velocity, purity, and environmental conditions such as pressure and temperature.

By analogy, people are different in their affinities and repulsions and react differently to other people based on the inner forces that drive them to act, repel them from interacting, drive unusual effectiveness, and cause significant weakness.

Thus in general, each molecule will have a different reactivity associated with its type/weight, shape, charge distribution (and its associated affinities and repulsions to other molecular shapes and their charges).  This fundamental force of attraction is in turn modified by its local environmental conditions, which causes the bulk behavior of the molecule to change.  For example, a higher temperature molecule will have greater velocity, and thus will get closer to other atoms and molecules before being repelled by the like charges of the electron clouds.  Closer proximity may allow the molecules to temporarily bind and resist the process of dissociation, causing water to have an abnormally high boiling point.  The force-distance relationship will also change in the presence of contaminants, causing the bulk material properties to change.  Interaction with large external forces, such as colliding with a rock in the stream, will redirect the water’s downstream energy, causing turbulence and a stable micro-environment.  On its surface, turbulence does not appear to be a stable environment, but if we view “turbulence” as a state, and the water stays in that state, then the local condition has created a stable local condition.  The particulars of that state will be produced by the combination of the micro-forces of the molecular interaction (hydrogen bonds) and the macro-forces of the environment (water colliding with rock).

By analogy, note how the characteristics of an individual interact with family, city, corporate, governmental, international forces and create the turbulent sensation of being out of control.

At lower flow rates, the disturbed local states’ stability and order depend more upon subtle forces (water flow rate, rock size, rock roughness, water temperature and purity, etc.).  The system will come to turbulent stability as it forms a turbulent local microenvironment of the stream water.  These local pockets of order are not equilibrium, nor linear, but they are a type of stability in the midst of a turbulent, and high energy system.

Individuals face multitudes of factors that exert force upon their lives.  The greater the force, the more turbulent, chaotic, and unpredictable will be the local environment.  There will be limits to the chaos, and there are elements of predictability, but the linear predictive cause and effect nature of the system will be limited.

  • In systems exhibiting turbulent flow (e.g., chaotic, non-laminar flow, in a liquid), patterns of “order” form.  Turbulence is any pattern of “order” (i.e., the relationship between the velocity of molecules is chaotic rather than laminar in relation to the boundary conditions of the system).  Turbulence is based upon inelastic collisions between objects which increase entropy.  Turbulence is caused by collisions vigorous enough to produce a rebound which projects the individual elements (e.g., molecules) out of a stream’s laminar flow (roughly parallel particle velocity). The order formed in turbulence may be difficult to identify as ordered.  But, when “order” is defined as any pattern other than total randomness, we realize that even the most complex motion is “ordered”.  The “order” of a turbulent flow arises because of the collisions with walls, barriers, and other fluid-particles.  The pattern of this “order” is not easily identified as a repeating pattern or a volume of disturbance that holds a particular shape.  And, the chaotic “order” cannot be currently predicted using numeric or algorithmic methods to predict the volume, location, and periodicity of stable areas of turbulence.  Still, even though complex, when a sufficiently high-velocity stream strikes an obstacle to flow, quasi-stable volumes of turbulence will form in response to that collision. When particles strike obstacles, regions of dynamic stability form, that are “ordered” in some way.  These areas of rebound may look like swirls, ripples, or zones of stasis.  The volume of the chaotic “order” may migrate over a volume and repeat that pattern, change shapes, or move unpredictably within a volume and set of behaviors.  Zones of correlation are identifiable as stable domains of organization that arise from random collisions with the environment and mutual interactions between the particles.

The same is true of people when their lives collide with (are influenced by) large external forces, such as war, recession, off-shoring of industry, health-care costs, advertising campaigns for addictive substances, changes in technology that obsolete skills and labor, etc.  In response to these forces, some populations of people will be disproportionately affected.  These groups of affected individuals form a domain within the larger population.  They may form a colony where their life continues with little change, but other areas will suffer huge impacts and large stable turbulent variations in function and routine form.

For example, when the economy goes into recession, hygiene and sleep may be unchanged, but marital stress and discord may be elevated.

A non-equilibrium state exists when a set of particles is divided into isolated subsets, and those subsets are altered in state from the bulk or average state.  Subsets may form because of the interruptions of communication (breaking of bonds) with the larger body.

Particle subsets form due to forces converging to compress a system of particles.  This results in local bonding and forming a region of stable self-interaction.  And, given that the bulk medium is dynamic, such as in flowing water, the system has particles leaving, and coming into the stable turbulent region at the same rate. Any accumulation or depletion of the state is only temporary.

This corresponds to life experience where one problem is solved, and another arises; it does not appear that progress is being made because the same large external force is disturbing the routine, resulting in a never-ending struggle to maintain a constant output or production.

These turbulent volumes remain stable as long as the dynamics of the system remain constant (e.g. an eddy in a stream forms and remains within its parameters of chaotic variation as long as the water flows at a particular rate, pressures, temperature, purity, etc.).  But, no flow, and no system of turbulence will endure forever.  Regardless of the system’s stability at constant flow conditions, the system will eventually change because the source flow will change.  No source is infinite in its capacity, everything exhausts its supply eventually.  Dynamic systems such as streams and turbulent eddies depend upon a source and a gradient of concentration.  Thus, the universe, the ultimate source of all energy and concentration, began with the highest source concentration of mass and energy at the Moment before the Big Bang. In any portion of the universe, the energy gradient that allows for turbulent chaotic systems to exist, the source will exhaust, and the turbulent systems dependent upon its flow will cease.  Energy does not generate and flow eternally from the same source in the physical world. Thus, every local microenvironment will eventually lose its stability and form new states of order or disorder.

While, no dynamic system can maintain bulk stability forever, an intelligent system with a survival instinct and detection systems, and mobility, can seek new existent energy-gradient systems, such as stars, to maintain the energy flow environment required to maintain life.

The same is true in the life of the suffering human.  For example, his life may become chaotic due to the forces of government, economy, and nature.  The one refuge a man can always take is the fact that the circumstances and forces operating in life will eventually change.  The misery may change from one form to another, but life will not maintain eternal stability in one form.

This thermodynamic concept has applicability to economics and human drama because the market is composed of billions of people-particles.  Each person acts with his own set of rules of action and reaction in the marketplace of consumption and production of goods and services.  Each people-particle acts according to his own inner ruleset of action and reaction as dictated by his aversion and affinities, needs, will, and ability.

Economics is defined by the bulk behavior-flow of production and consumption.  The limits and characteristics of the economic flow are determined by the nature of the constituent people-particles.  The individuals of any productive system may be of high potential, but with enough force can be overwhelmed and rendered ineffective.

A local environment, such as a company, city, state, nation, or world can be overwhelmed by outside forces and fall into dysfunctional low productivity.  The subprime mortgage crisis, in combination with the high oil prices, has delivered a blow the world economy.

The convergence of these two forces delivered a large force to the normal flow of the economic system.  The raising prime rate pushed up interest rates for mortgages, putting people who were marginally qualified for home ownership, and financed by ARMs, close to the edge.  When oil prices rose, that extra expenditure put a number of mortgages in default, making the Mortgage Backed Securities go into default when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s credit rating dropped.  Such a sequence of economic facts and forces creates a change in the flow of compensation, consumption, and production.  The size of the force, in this case, was so large that the entire world economy was thrown into turbulence, with some points of the system maintaining stability.  Again, the point being that various forces can bring instability to various parts of an economic system.

Other strong forces that disturb the invisible hand of the market are monopoly, corruption, legislation, and taxes.  These forces distort the normal flow of production and consumption by introducing cost disincentives that influence the behavior of the individual in protecting his self-interest.

In a system with good communication and a Godly sense of service, education in right principles, and leadership in the promotion of right principles of living, the concentrations of local stable poverty could be dispersed.  With sufficiently strong intervention, coaching, training and support, virtually all poverty could be eliminated.  With such intervention, the pockets of poverty could be raised to the average levels of prosperity.

Leadership introduces forces that produce open and properly compensated knowledge transfer.  Corruption (e.g. bribes, dishonest measures, theft, slander, perjury, revealing secrets) reaps its appropriate consequences, such as deficient quality and quantity of goods and services, and the breakdown of affinity and trust among men.  Leadership confronts and motivates sloth receives no support other than education in a skill that produces a return on the investment.

When Godly character is instilled in the perpetrators, manipulators, cheats, cons, criminals, and sloths, the largest internal source of social distortion is eliminated.  The monopolistic distortion of the market is eliminated when people are willing to play fair, and take personal accountability for the actions and moral judgments of the corporation.

In a transparent system, the important pieces of the economic engine coordinate with each other.  Finance, energy, transportation, communication, and regulation, etc are applied morally, moderated, and appropriate throughout the system.  When people care about raising the quality of life of those caught in locally depressed states, the inhomogeneous domains of the economy eventually smooth out.  Every individual should be trained to produce at optimum, consume modestly, and receive appropriate compensation.

When individuals are separated into isolated environments that create or reinforce fears, anger, and sorrow they can develop stable suboptimal behavior far from normal, optimal, and moderate.  Rehabilitation should include the development of proper behaviors, desires, activity, and will, so as to bring the stable dysfunctional individual into the group norm.

The forces of perversion and destruction produce suboptimal conditions of economic flow, political organization, and restriction of freedom.  Changing a local system after it has established a dysfunctional stability requires penetrating that system with an organizing energy.  Energy can be injected as education in life and trade skills while withdrawing support for dysfunction.  The heart must be changed to effect such a change, so integral to training must be tutelage in the Word of God, accountability and consequences, both reward and punishment for following the way of Right thought, speech, and actions.

Monopolies, governmental corruption (bribes), dynastic ownership, societal ignorance, worship of false gods and idolatry all produce stable systems where a few profits while many suffer.  To overthrow the conditions that allow the continuation of these suboptimal economic eddies, the system must be disturbed.  Prayer, forgiveness, love, and Righteousness are the foundations of any proactive action.  Having clearly identified the pathological disturbing forces in a family, business, corporation, judiciary, legislature, administration, we may then choose the best strategy for interceding in eliminating the disturbing forces.  Many common tools have been used including counseling, personal meetings, expert testimony, peaceful public demonstrations, letters to the editor, lawsuits, boycotts, strikes, and media campaigns.  Each of these may have their place, but most important, it must be guided by a sense of propriety and service, rather than revenge.  Once the perverting social/economic/political force is eliminated, the Godly patterns of conduct may reemerge and bring the larger system to a greater state of health, relationship, and productivity.

When the bulk system is decaying, the natural sequences of pain require confronting all the players in the system, both leaders and followers.  When large systems are in states of extreme inequity of wealth distribution, such as corporate executives versus workers; dictator versus the serf and peasant class; an intervention must break the habitual stability of the inequity.  Revolution is one way, but education, public education through the media and passive resistance can also produce change.  There is a time for force, but all other options should be exhausted.  When people will not participate in the immorality of a nation, corporation, or family, the system has lost its power.  The best revolution is led by God and overthrows the false gods in men’s hearts.

The capitalistic system of commerce lends itself well to a natural gradient of proper compensation for production.  The reward of work should be related to production in rough parity.  If an executive makes millions, we must be sure that his compensation is not being used as a Faustian bargain, which gives him the courage to sell his soul in various ways.  Again, the compensation across the entire economic system should be roughly commensurate with production, and all market advantage should be motivated by service, rather than simply profitable.  Since the prurient and avaricious drives of men can be used to appeal and make profits, each entrepreneur, executive, and the worker should take the fruit of his production personally, and say “no” to giving life to the immoral and unGodly.

There should be no a fixed maximum compensation for a man’s service, rather, there should be a market-based relationship between compensation and production, and the market should be fairly open to movement by allowing the disgruntled to relocate to a competitor.  Such mobility should be executed on the individual business level, rather than forced by administrative law.

When the wages have become inequitable, the employee should intervene and advocate for fairness.  Ideally, such clear communication may be the only force necessary to disturb the system and bring equitability to the individual system.  The same standard should be applied to the other systems of life, including family, boss, employees, corporation, and government.  When we hold Godly standards, speak our truth with love, expect to be heard, and relentlessly advocate for Righteousness, the disturbing forces of the system will eventually crumble, and goodness will rule.