where you may have entered this site
fun and chaos
of Science &
CyberSpace does not exist in the real world of material objects. It only exists as an energy system, either as temporary connections in the BioNet we call the brain, or as a rapid stream of ordered voltage levels in an electronic circuit or as an electromagnetic wave form.
The distinction between body and mind/soul, which is perceived by our consciousness, may be the same distinction as between matter and energy. As well as our physical bodies (the corpse we leave behind on death) we are also a lot of energy stored mainly as chemical energy and potential energy. We are constantly converting energy from one form to another, an activity we usually call "living". At a quantum level, each of us is a vast wave-form; all our dreams and plans are possible futures which collapse each instant into what we perceive as the world around us.
A Conscious Being Known As me.
What shall I do? I cannot sleep tonight. The work I've done has energised my brain. Each time I try to lie, I rise again And walk or drink or smoke or wank or write. This lack of sleep will be tomorrow's blight, When daylight comes and I shall suffer pain, Then, when I try to think, I'll go insane - If I don't get some sleep before its light.
Consciousness exists at a cellular level. Single cell organisms, have the same sense of self that we have. It is a binary thing, like the perceived spin of a particle, either it is there or it is isn't. Sure, in some ways, spin can store varying amounts of energy, and even have polarity, but in other ways it just exists or does not. Same for consciousness, and the cells have it.
All matter is imbued with this phenomenon, just as Aristotle suggested. Gosh, finally I have quoted a Classical source, giving myself away as an old fashioned Classical scholar, who has just been too lazy any too busy partying (doing Phenomenological experiments, if you don't mind) to learn the Latin I should have written this in, please excuse me.
This seems to be something that one must accept as an act of faith. The only argument that I can find from the point of view of pure science is the Second Law of Thermodynamics: If the Universe were a closed system, as proposed by the "Bangers", then entropy would prevent the complexity and order that obviously exists.
An infinite universe corresponds to the Jewish (and most other old Religions') view that G-d is infinite and timeless. This contrasts with the alternative (limited) view that G-d is an unimaginable entity that exists outside the reality of matter and energy, which must therefore be limited in extent. The Hindu/Buddhist concept that the Universe is that it is the body and soul of G-d, and seems a better model. There are dire Jewish warnings against this idea, however, because, G-d is not merely the sum of the totality of individual existences, but vastly greater than the sum of the parts. The idea of an infinite G-d only works with the idea of an infinite universe.
The "Creation" that the Bible refer to has meaning in terms of a "known universe". Any and all sub-sets of the totality of all existence (infinity) must be the result of some sort of creation, whether spontaneous, or whether the result of natural laws that exist at a larger level. Those who deny "Creation" also seem to deny the possibility of the universe being infinite. This is as much an "act of faith" as belief in G-d. There may be a psychological explanation for the denial of an infinite universe. Some of these "scientific minds" had a religious upbringing, which they rejected. Sadly, some popular, main-stream religions have a lot of garbage that deserves to be rejected. However, these people have also rejecting the idea of the infinite as an act of faith. They have taken this stance to prove to themselves (and to other of a like mind) that they are "modern", "scientific" and not bound by their religious up-bringing. By denying the existence of the infinite, even the possibility that there could be any sort of Universal Consciousness is excluded from their own limited consciousness.
Consciousness, and life itself at a personal level, is the energy system that is the workings of the physical body. We are all aware of the existence of Social Consciousness, which includes all knowledge (that not even needs to be known by any body) as well as the rules and customs of society. The universe contains not only matter, but also energy. The energy is bound up in energy-systems at different levels. What we perceive as our own consciousness is our own energy-system, and it is not unreasonable to postulate the concept of consciousness at the levels of other energy systems, including the social. It is a simple process of deduction to understand that an infinite universe is not only an infinite extent of matter, but also an infinite energy system. That system may well be some sort of Universal Consciousness.
Whether this energy system existed before the existence of any matter, and whether it converted some of its own energy into matter (according to the famous e=mc2) by its own will is a moot point.
The purpose of this brief discussion is to show that the Duality can by Synthesised. Science and Religion may still be found to be the same thing. However, as I think I have shown, it is necessary to accept the existence of the infinite as a real phenomenon, and not just a mathematical construct.
Just to add further complexity to this debate I should add that it seems that this infinite universe of which I speak is greater than our mental concepts of it could ever be. It is not a Euclidean "flat" universe, extending off in all directions for ever, but one that is somehow folded about itself in time and space, with hyperbolic increasing magnitude, the larger it gets.
By the way, in 1995, the Philosophy department at Melbourne University nearly failed me for expressing ideas like this, but then they are still trying to deny what they call Cartesian Dualism, which means denying their own consciousness, and believing in a closed, finite universe.
How anyone could think they could have been written after the return from Babylon is a mystery. It does not stand up to textual deconstruction of the Post-Modern variety. Such criticism is rooted in German antisemitism, and is pre-modern, textual propaganda, not genuine scholarship. The argument that the Torah can be divided up on the basis of the different Sacred Names which are supposed to have been used by different writers, is obviously false to anyone who has read the Torah in its entirety, as there are many places where the multiplicity of Sacred Names is used in the same verse, and it is clear everywhere that different Sacred Names have different symbolic meanings and uses. This falsity of this argument discredits those who claim the Torah is a recent document, and that Jewish history is not what we believe it to be.
This is using Science to discredit truth with the specious argument that because something cannot be proved, or has not yet been proved, therefore it is false. This argument is also used by the Official Church of Imperial Roman, though not in this religious context, because they discount the validity, if not the authenticity of the Torah, in any case, just as they do the real teachings of both Plato and Aristotle and their Academy, being Sceptics.
It is regrettable that the strict adherence to Rabbinic Halakah, has made this stream of Jewish Consciousness a threatened species, like other Australian social groups.
Centuries later, the style had changed, under the influence of Hellenism, and the reason for the law was long forgotten. It is a fundamental principle of how to obey Holy Laws that in any case laws are obeyed for their own sake, not for any underlying reason, which it is assumed we cannot comprehend fully with our limited human minds, in which case blind obedience is the only way. However, some rationale seems to be required by these same human minds, if we are to obey sincerely, so it was put about that the injunction meant not to use a razor. Scissors, for some reason were permitted, which led to the style of close cropping, with long side-locks. Eventually, the prohibition came to be against the blade, and it was decided that clean shaven was permitted as long as it was done with an electric razor which used the scissor principle, rather than a blade.
A Theological Argument.
To reach "Olum Abah", the "World to Come" (which might be real, if that's what you believe, or just a thought that's easy to perceive: I hear the scientists all saying . . "Um?") when added up, your good aspect should sum to more than that about which you should grieve. So when its time - from life - for each to leave, with Universal Harmony we'll humm.
We are celebrating our freedom from slavery.
The meaning of this freedom must be examined.
We were not freed to be slaves to Halachah.
Judaism is in crisis. Divisions must be ended.
Orthodox Judaism preserved our heritage and our message throughout the centuries.
But Fanatical Orthodoxy is at fault.
Orthodoxy must accept that not all Jews want or are able to live a monastic life, cut off from the rest of the world.
The ghetto walls were never as strong or as impenetrable as the fence around Jewish Law.
The great myth of the holocaust is that all those Jews who were murdered were observant, ghetto Jews. Probably no more than ten percent of them would have been Shomre Mitzvot. Nearly all the jew exterminated by the Germans were assimilated members of the community in which they lived, including about a quarter of the population of Poland.
I remember hearing of some of the German Jews that: "They were more German than the Germans". This must surely have been true of most of the Jews throughout the Galut - The Dispersion - as it has always been true of Jews in Israel now, and in ancient Israel and Judah.
A final plea: Now that the pleas of Second Temple times for the re-establishment of Israel have been realised, may we change our plea for the re-establishment of Judah. My ancestors were not of Israel: I am a Jew, descendent of the tribe of Judah.
I am lost in this paternal ancestral dilemma, of not knowing who my ancestors were. Who am I. My late Father never spoke of his Father. I guess they had a relationship like I had with my own Father. I wish I had known my Grand-Father. Perhaps best not, or impossible.
Perhaps we are descended of the tribe of Judah. My Father told me once that his name was really Julius Caesar, but that in British countries it was not cool (I forget his exact word) so he called himself Julius Clive. Perhaps it was fanciful.
If my Father's Autobiography is stunning, and why not, then how much more his father. My father was but a twelve or sixteen year old boy, with his mother and brother, and a very active imagination, though the truth of his incredible escapades has never been questioned. His Father was the one who escaped from a warrant on his head, and arranged for his wife and sons to follow. Each time two boys. How far has that gone back? I know so little of his origins.