The Long Now
San Francisco is a spectularly diverse—and just plain spectacular—place to live. Your life is touched, or at least neared, by people, places and things, the breadth and depth of which leave you with this astonished feeling. And that's a feeling that too many people are afraid to experience. Fear of the unknown is perhaps, at least the Westerner's, most enduring bugaboo. Fear of the Other, which is different to fear of the unknown, is just as insidious. Fear of change, fear of death (which in itself is just another change from here to heaven or to oblivion or to the next incarnation). Fear of upset expectation. Fear of Being Wrong.
Astonishment, to my way of thinking (and feeling!), is a blood relation to wonderment. Socrates' flavor of wonderment: “Wisdom begins in wonder.” That sort of thing.
Who bothers with wonderment anymore? The Age of Reason seems to have all but killed the Eons of Wonder. More's the pity, I say, and this is quite something coming from one who escaped intellectualism only by embracing scientism, and escaped that only by being defeated and overwhelmed by the wonders of the world as they are diverted through the prism of San Francisco.
To me, San Francisco helped make a multiplicity of spirit and of mind possible. It's a staging area, a testbed, a control (we never do escape the teachings and teachers of our youth), and most importantly it's a home base from which to believe nothing and everything, to be yourself and countless others, to choose and be chosen for, to progress and reflect, to conserve and to spend, to hurry and to tarry.
It's not so much losing one's self in the flood or one's footing when the riverbank washes away, so much as it is discovering a 3rd dimension—up!—and exploiting one's newfound freedom of movement.
And it was with this light and fearless heart that I went with my good friend Dave to an event at Fort Mason here in the City. I have known Dave since before I even moved to San Francisco. He and his wife Lisa have been splendid friends and sherpas throughout my entire time here, inspiring, cajoling and sometimes even instructing me on the Rest of the World, that which I never even dreamed existed.
Also at the event was my rediscovered friend, Steve, quite the clever monkey in his own right, and less credulous in general than either Dave or myself. In other words, a terrific and valuable presence.
The man speaking at the event was James Carse, author of Finite and Infinite Games, giving a talk on the relationship between Religion and War.
A too-simple background: finite games are those which have solid boundaries/rules, with the goal of winning. Infinite games are those whose only goal is to continue the play, and have horizons instead of boundaries (look at a horizon line and imagine going to that spot, look off in the same direction: another horizon!).
An infinite game might be hitting a balloon around at a family picnic and trying to keep it from falling. A finite game? Chess. Another infinite game: survival, as in the survival of a religion across eras, across governments and across ethnicities. Another finite game: war.
Carse described war as the application of finite game rules to an infinite game. A big, broad statement with too many degrees of freedom, to be sure, but that was his point. He described religion as an infinite game, whose followers often—almost periodically—wish to grab worldly power and play out a finite game with it.
It's all too easy to find an example in the world out there.
When talking of religion, Carse pointed out that belief is different to religion. This is something I had already figured out for myself. He pointed out that thinking ends at belief, that point at which we accept something as true or even True and stop considering the veracity of it.
Aquinas had a big old brace on his brain, in my opinion, in that he accepted the Creeds of his religion much too early in his critical thinking. I have gone even further in this, here and on other blogs, insisting that Aquinas was just a bad thinker and that his works suffered from begging his own questions. In Carse's parlance, Aquinas set out to prove that his own boundaries were correct, instead of just expanding the known horizon and humbly accepting its infinitude.
I find it odd whenever people of faith (or merely religion) attempt to use critical thinking in order to prove the correctness of their position. Arguably, proof is nothing more than a true-statement derived from the rules/boundaries of the system. And why do believers play this Finite Game?
Probably because they're more about their religion than their beliefs.
Of course, there was plenty more to Carse, and to his lecture, and to the Long Now Foundation, but we have plenty of time.
Comments
If I hear one more person say that science has drained the wonder from the world, I'm gonna have to get out my scientifically-proven-effective can o' Whoop-Ass(TM). (grin)
Why is a microscopic photograph of a butterfly's wing less wondrous than the healing femur of a dead saint? Why is a gorgeous multicolored nebula light-years wide less awe-inspiring than the astrology column in the paper?
Or, to reference a much longer (and better-written) version of this rant - what's less magical about a rainbow if you know how it's made? (Referring of course to Richard Dawkins' excellent "Unweaving the Rainbow")
I think it all comes back to our evolved, hard-wired tendencies to superstition, magical thinking, and overzealous pattern-recognition. It takes effort and will for the conscious intellect to overcome the undenaiably comforting warm and fuzzy feelings that we automatically assign to "mysterious" explanations for the unknown or the wondrous. Perhaps knowing the refractive index of a raindrop is less magical - but isn't the truth *more* astounding, as well as the marvel that a few pounds of gray mush is capable of comprehending the entire universe?
I say this as someone who enjoys good fiction and fantasy as much as the next geek - make-believe is great fun, and a lovely product of human ingenuity. The trouble starts when make-believe gets imposed on reality. That way lies dogma.
Posted by: Clever Monkey | January 17, 2005 01:40 AM
I'm pretty sure we're more or less agreeing, at least on the level that most of the mundane people out there do NOT know the difference between wonder and dogma, or between mystery and miracle.
So they interchange the two, grab their dogma by the balls, and rush to call miraculous that which is merely mysterious.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | January 17, 2005 01:52 AM
In other words, those for whom ignorance is bliss, and knowledge a burden.
Posted by: Clever Monkey | January 17, 2005 02:40 AM
Yep...and those who'd rather be righteous that right, and who'd rather be just about anything instead of wrong.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | January 17, 2005 03:02 AM
So you've passed beyond intellectualism and scientism, what about materialism?
Materialism - Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
Posted by: Clever Monkey | January 17, 2005 04:26 AM
Pattern is not physical, yet it's far more important, arguably, than the matter used to construct the pattern.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | January 17, 2005 04:30 AM
Perhaps Universism?
Not wild about the name, but all of the good brands are taken.
Posted by: Clever Monkey | January 17, 2005 04:30 AM
Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. A pattern is only a thing by definition - not the same as an atom or a mountain. (Leaving aside quibbles about first there being a mountain, then no mountain, then there is.) For example, take a spot of light on the wall, from a laser pointer. It's just the spot where the photons are hitting - it's not really a "thing" in itself. If you're shining a bright spot on something relatively far away, you can make the "spot" move faster than light - an impossibility. Of course, nothing really moved FTL, just what we call the spot.
Things like patterns, or society, or what have you, are undeniably *real* - but they're subjectively real, defined into existence.
Posted by: Clever Monkey | January 17, 2005 04:35 AM
Okay, I'm sorry. You speaking airily about what was wrong with Aquinas' thinking is just a little bit too much for me. When exactly did you spend your ENTIRE LIFE, (starting at the age of 5, studying alongside people triple your age) studying philosphy, theology, logic, rhetoric, music, advanced mathematics, geometry, and astronomy? And then writing one of the chief works of philosphy?
Oh, you never did. Sorry.
Anyhow, I think it's awfully strange in the first place to be angry about Aquinas setting out to prove what he believes. Is there no satisfying you? If we did not set out to show the logic behind our faith, we would be ignorant sheep. If we try, we are still ignorant and biased, just giving futile attempt after futile attempt to justify our dilusions.
Augh!!! Heavens, I'm sorry for ranting. I really wasn't trying to get all worked up, but Aquinas is one of my heroes, not to mention I have yet to have my coffee. If I am overly angering, just ignore me and move on.
Thanks.
Posted by: The Masked Avenger | January 18, 2005 08:16 AM
Maybe you should have spent some of YOUR time investigating why it's bad to start with a universal assumption and then set out to justify it.
Aquinas, as far as I can recall, was a human being just like you and me, and so he's just as subject to praise and criticism as the rest.
Buy Aquinas if you like; make him a hero if you like. Worship him if you like.
But don't expect everyone to hold him up on a pedestal of unassailability.
And I bet Aquinas would have used a real email address.
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | January 18, 2005 09:22 AM
Responsible & accountable? Email? I'm sorry, I don't follow. Please explain the connection.
I thought you were always good for a pot shot or two.
Is a theist ipso facto disqualified from giving a reasoned defense/explanation of his faith? Is it somehow illogical for a person to systematically explain something he already believes in, or is he only permitted to discuss things he DOESN'T believe? If so, why is that? Or what else could you mean?
Posted by: Searcher | January 19, 2005 05:25 AM
My name is Searcher and I'm a whiny martinet.
---------
actually, this is GoB..but if it were someone else, i'd have no way to verify it without an email address.
Posted by: Searcher | January 19, 2005 09:13 AM
A theist is ipso facto *incapable* of thinking critically about their own dogma.
Posted by: God of Biscuits | January 19, 2005 09:18 AM
Are you *capable* of thinking critically about your own dogma? What's the difference? You seem pretty absolute in denying absolutes. Funny.
Posted by: Searcher | January 19, 2005 09:33 AM
It's not so much an absolute as it is a definition.
As a theist, are you prepared to accept the utter absence of a god as you investigate the matter with nothing but logic, reason and refutable evidence?
Or do you just set out to find corroboration, discarding anything which runs contrary to creed?
Posted by: God of Biscuits | January 19, 2005 09:37 AM
Even with an email address, I don't see how you can verify anything. I suppose you could drop a line to that address if you wanted to, but I still don't see how that helps anything. I always thought the important thing was what was said, not who said it. But that's just me.
Posted by: Searcher | January 19, 2005 09:41 AM
Really, "Searcher"? If i wanted to contact you right now, how could I?
The only assumption here is that you don't wish to be accountable for what you say. You simply want to be heard, without having to actually own up to your words if you choose not to.
That's spineless.
I suppose I could, however, post the IP addresses (and the domains to which they are assigned) here. That would expose you some.
Posted by: God of Biscuits | January 19, 2005 09:47 AM
Would you be willing to explore philosophy with nothing but elementary grammar and mathematical theorems? You seem to be limiting your vistas by refusing to include other pertinent disciplines. You're defining yourself into a box. (Or is it a terrarium?)
But, sure, I'd be happy to explore any evidence you can drum up pointing toward the "utter absence of a god." If you can help me see why it's stupid, or even just ill-advised, to believe in "a god," I'll swear off the whole business right now.
Posted by: Searcher | January 19, 2005 10:00 AM
Now, now, GreenFlash, i'm not talking about philosophy, i'm talking about belief.
The fact that you'd *have to* "swear off the whole business" means you've invested your own identity in the outcome of your supposed rational pursuits.
It's not my job to give you evidence as to absence. The burden of proof lies with the assertion of the existence of a god.
Tsk, tsk. You should know that by now.
I have no investment in the outcome of whether one has proven the existence of a god or not. If that's decided either way, unassailably, I will incorporate the new information to myself and modify my behavior and thoughts accordingly.
Posted by: God of Biscuits | January 19, 2005 10:09 AM
Why this obsession with email addresses? Please explain what his email address has to do with the content of his comment.
Also, to what universal assumption are you referring? And how do you know that was his starting point?
Posted by: Searcher | January 19, 2005 11:07 AM
Not an obsession, a call for people to be responsible AND accountable for what they write.
What's your obsession with taking pot shots at me from the void?
the universal assumption was theism. that was also his starting point. he set out to prove that his belief in a god was somehow valid.
now, about that accountability...
Posted by: GodOfBiscuits | January 19, 2005 11:17 AM
I LOVE BISCUITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Christine | June 30, 2005 05:53 AM