On the Universe's Destiny

You know, in the past, I've always been telling myself how awful my writing is but I don't think I've ever changed my methods to do something about it. Most of what's written here amount to doodles of first drafts. If I should have learned anything from Strunk and White it would be: revising is a part of the writing process. I expected gold to come out of my mind every time I touched a keyboard. I'm also aware now that some of the poetry I've jotted in the past is actually kind of sketchy, and others are all right. Reading them back to myself is a funny task. They're so sappy and self-defeating, as if they're portrayals of some barren wasteland, a "desolatopia." The emptiness is there for the sake of being empty, as structural underpinnings of emotional deprivation. My poem "Love is not for me" befuddled me after an audible recitation. It's actually pretty weird, was I suggesting some sort of child abuse left me devoid of emotion? I've always wanted others to read and "discover" this, but damn, that poem is just weird, I doubt it'll be regarded favorably. There's no happy ending, it just stops. I guess happy endings don't always happen in the real world. If anything, I'll consider it Elliott Smith-esque, maybe somebody will like it. That's the point of art, isn't it? No it's not at all comparable to the Shakespeare's, Dryden's, Johnson's of the world, but it's unique, it has its own little flair. It has a certain flavor to it some could relate to. Some products as such are the work of genius, of those who've dedicated their lives, striving to fulfill one niche in the vastness of knowledge, and they're great for that reason. Practice makes perfect, but our constrained animal capacities leave us with so little to show for it, winning in the genetic lottery to have their life work considered "worth preserving" for future generations. I don't consider myself a winner in the genetic lottery, but that doesn't stop one from trying. People are so quick to judge things negatively by treating others' thoughts or creations with vitriolic disdain. "This shit sucks." "Are you retarded?" "This is worthless." Perhaps in terms of money-making, let's say, Hollywood won't accept every script they get, but sometimes it's not about the money; this is the work of an imagination, and as such is a contribution to humanity. Maybe it's a waste of your time, but something new and wonderful has been added to the noosphere of creativity. So what am I trying to say? We are creative beings, and ultimately our purpose here is to express ourselves in one way or another. The creative impulse shouldn't be discouraged or abandoned, especially if some cigar smoking shot-caller says you'll never make it. You're being you is all that matters. In a way, I hope this blog I've been dabbling with is viewed in this light. No, maybe it's not extraordinary, but this is what my attachment to this vast causal nexus produced. It's digital, too: as long as Google doesn't go out of business it'll be here for ... possibly, ever. This is my stamp, my contribution. I also figure it's what I've been determined to write, given the chain of causal connections leading to the determination of my intelligence, past states of mind, self-contempt, and everything else that lies herein. I'm transitioning now to a more positive, contemplative, state of mind and dissociating myself with the emotional-roller-coaster of the past. I'm happy with being me, and it's beautiful. I can now truthfully say I'm "free," although I'm still conditioned per causality. Thomas Henry Huxley put a meaningful emphasis on it in an essay regarding animal automatism, "It is quite true that, to the best of my judgment, the argumentation which applies to brutes [244] holds equally good of men; and, therefore, that all states of consciousness in us, as in them, are immediately caused by molecular changes of the brain-substance. It seems to me that in men, as in brutes, there is no proof that any state of consciousness is the cause of change in the motion of the matter of the organism. If these positions are well based, it follows that our mental conditions are simply the symbols in consciousness of the changes which takes place automatically in the organism; and that, to take an extreme illustration, the feeling we call volition is not the cause of a voluntary act, but the symbol of that state of the brain which is the immediate cause of that act. We are conscious automata, endowed with free will in the only intelligible sense of that much-abused term–inasmuch as in many respects we are able to do as we like–but none the less parts of the great series of causes and effects which, in unbroken continuity, composes that which is, and has been, and shall be–the sum of existence."

When this dawned on me in its fullness it became something of a "permanent effect" that remains with me ever after. Relating to the same feeling, Balzac shares the experience of a Cosmic Sense in a verse, "nous ne sommes que par l'ame[All we are is in the soul]" and in another instance, "Are you certain that your soul has had its full development? Do you breathe in air through every pore of it? Do your eyes see all they can see?"

I wonder how many at this same exact moment share this feeling? I wonder what their families are like, what their conversations consist of. A gentle smile? Pointing out parables to children? Discovering something new in a research facility somewhere? Whenever I drive through or walk in New York City I'm almost speechless. Look at this place. Trying to imagine all of the stories of people that have shared the experience of simply walking over the Brooklyn bridge is mind-blowing. Even at my own home, could there have been Native Americans looking at the same ponds and rivers, the same kinds of animals, and thinking to themselves "what a remarkable spectacle this great Nature is." I try to imagine them running around Sleeping Giant state park by Quinnipiac University; what a miraculous world we happen to find ourselves in. The thought itself motivates me. Due to the conscious experience I found myself growing into, I realized I'd always be dissatisfied without understanding what to make of sense-experience. Most probably have the same goals, but generally settle upon something incomplete. They're still subject to the emotional-roller-coasters, to appeasing carnal desires and what not caught up in the causal web.

The Bhagavad-Gita is a beautiful text for those who are curious, and its setting interpreted allegorically is the battlefield in the soul of every being. Gandhi was deeply influenced by it and praised it thus, "The Gita is the universal mother. She turns away nobody. Her door is wide open to anyone who knocks. A true votary of Gita does not know what disappointment is. He ever dwells in perennial joy and peace that passeth understanding. But that peace and joy come not to skeptic or to him who is proud of his intellect or learning. It is reserved only for the humble in spirit who brings to her worship a fullness of faith and an undivided singleness of mind. There never was a man who worshiped her in that spirit and went disappointed."

Followers of all stripes of religions believe in the revelatory authenticity of their sacred texts for the most part upon circular logic: "It's the Word of God and should be treated as such because it says so in the Book." Devotees of countless religions base their worldview, actions, and lifestyles, on such threadbare evidence. It basically amounts to an adherence to tradition, for the sake of tradition. I've known a few people go from atheism back to Catholicism, or from Judaism to Islam or vice versa, and it's interesting. I understand the traditional component is quite strong in influencing opinion, but out of all the sacred texts the world has produced the strains of thought coming from the East are the most profound it's hard to understand why the West continue on with their ways, besides the fact that it's a historical accident. The religious feeling is an emotional appeal to something greater than oneself, yet everybody has their own take and oftentimes it leads to competing claims about the superior validity of this or that text, followed by argumentation and eventually into wars. For this reason Edward Bellamy turned against the Christian religion since, "the church failed to put the emphasis on religion where it belonged, namely on the translation of the Golden Rule into human relations; that it sang constantly about the glories of Heaven and did not denounce or attempt to correct evil and wickedness here below." But this is, after all, human nature we're talking about: Flawed is our middle name.

Where does this leave us? It's beginning to look like the various faiths of the world have something fundamentally wrong about them. I have a friend who regards any critique of religion as "biased," for they're all somehow equally valid. In the Gita it is written, "Yet soon is withered what small fruit they reap: Those men of little minds, who worship so,Go where they worship, passing with their gods. But Mine come unto me! Blind are the eyes Which deem th' Unmanifested manifest,Not comprehending Me in my true Self! Imperishable, viewless, undeclared,Hidden behind my magic veil of shows" By this logic it might make sense, for example, if God created everything and all religions then they're all valid but think about it in various ways. There's a saying that relates to this, "All paths lead to the one Truth, but many call it by different names." But this doesn't seem to me an adequate solution to the innumerable problems they bear, notwithstanding their desire of Truth. A new paradigm is forming behind knowledge of the inner workings of the world, bearing the banner of science and in many respects reveal contradictions and inconsistencies of the sacred texts billions of people regard dearly. One recent BBC documentary hosted by a Christian on the legacy of Darwin's theory found no problem in reconciling his faith with the theory. It's possible to reconcile just about anything with faith, for one, especially if considered allegorically. Still, some of the claims held by these groups make absolutely no sense, for example, Judgment Day. The End of Times, you say? How long have you been waiting for Jesus to come back? Oh, it'll have to be in 2012 this time? So what do you say when 2013 comes around? In light of the new understanding of the inner workings of the world many of these commonly held beliefs are rightly held to be insubstantial or just plain wrong. If you understand the law of causality and nature of the 13 or so billion year old universe how can you possibly believe the chain of causes and effects will stop anytime soon? It's for reasons like this, among others, that I find traditional religion to be incomplete and incoherent to the point of doubting their validity at all. I find it hard to believe one can reconcile faith and science without some sort of cognitive dissonance between the two. But then again, that's just the way it is. 'Brahman' makes the faith of every being in their deity very steady, you can't deny that. However, these people have interests that affect the decisions another individual can make, for example, homosexuality is against God's Law in the Bible and is therefore illegal and considered "immoral" in depressingly many parts of the world. But, if God created everything then he also created homosexuals, if it really was against God's Law he wouldn't have bothered making animals gay in the first place. But here we are faced with a dilemma, the so called "value voters" show themselves to be as bigots instead. If you really loved your neighbor as yourself, sexual preference needn't matter. But, oh no, this is an ordained and "holy" institution you're going up against. Aldous Huxley's Perennial Philosophy points it out, "The moralists cease to be realistic and commit idolatry inasmuch as they worship, not God, but their own ethical ideals, inasmuch as they treat virtue as an end in itself and not as the necessary condition of the knowledge and love of God--a knowledge and love, without which that virtue will never be made perfect or socially effective... The virtue which is accompanied and perfected by the love and knowledge of God is something quite different from the "righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," which, for Christ, was among the worst of moral evils. Hardness, fanaticism, uncharitableness, and spiritual pride--these are the ordinary by-products of a course of stoical self improvement by means of personal effort, either unassisted or, if assisted, seconded only by the pseudo-graces which are given when the individual devotes himself to the achievement of an end which is not his true end, when the goal is not God, but merely a magnified projection of his own favorite ideas or moral excellences. The idolatrous worship of ethical values in and for themselves defeats its own object--and defeats it not only because, as Arnold insists, there is a lack of all-round development, but also and above all because even the highest forms of moral idolatry are God-eclipsing and therefore guarantee the idolater against the enlightening and liberating knowledge of Reality."

Is there a solution? I think there is, but it's hard to find. It lies in the Cosmic Sense, and the Sense I'm referring to is hard for anyone to find: Spinoza ended his Ethics (the work itself uses a geometrical outline as proofs but I think the value is not in the proofs and Q.E.D.s themselves but when interpreted 'allegorically' as a means to find the Cosmic Sense) writing, "all noble things are as difficult as they are rare." Einstein, as you probably figured from the rest of my posts, admired the Ethics and hinted at what lies ahead, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity."

How are we to think about religion, then? Well, for those who've comprehended the Oneness of Self know the universe to be something deeper and more meaningful than adherence to a set of religious rites. The Bhagavad-Gita teaches that one may find utmost peace of mind as the subject understands itself to be One with and not as something separate from the universe, the cycle of births and deaths along coupled with consciousness keep beings ignorant of their true nature. This ignorance is referred to as the delusion of dualities, wherein minds become tied up in sense-experience(Maya) born of likes and dislikes, so that the mind or ego of an individual rarely allows them to discover their relationship to their surroundings, a relationship transcending personal identity. It's something so close, yet so far away.

Richard Bucke's book "Cosmic Consciousness" is a collection of biographies and writings of people endowed with the so-called Cosmic Sense, and makes some bold inferences, which are yet logical extensions. For the record, I believe this inference is right, and is a valid insight regarding the future due to its logical consistency and also its support by the new understanding of mind provided by science.

I'll first begin with an account of the history of the universe as it relates to the scientific understanding of cosmic evolution (link to Chaisson's cosmic evolution website: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html). Causality has a foremost role in the playing out of the history of the universe: from the Big Bang onwards atoms have been in slowly working to bring about the life we find ourselves in today, although it's 2009 we could more accurately place the "current year" of the universe between 13.5 and 14 billion years old. In this vast causal nexus we find ourselves here today as the result of an accumulation of increasing forms of order in the universe. Atoms, the building blocks, assemble themselves into increasingly complex structures, at this point in the cell whose networks of interoperability(various systems required for living: digestion, immune, etc.) have endowed animals with the capacity for thought. In Minsky's "Society of Mind" we come to find that our ability to reason comes through the brain, whose cells can't "think" by themselves, but can by operating together in a great processing network. The causal nexus/sequence has been working since time immemorial up to where we find ourselves today, however, the journey doesn't end here. As increasing forms of order constitute more or less the "operating instructions" behind the machinery of the universe, we see that world history is itself akin to a computer simulation(if you will) playing itself out in front of our eyes, based on natural and statistical laws. I believe the causal sequence ultimately culminates into the technological Singularity, not merely because "I said so," but insofar as I am conscious and able to imagine a future: the design of our brains suggest that intelligence is a characteristic of our being that can be understood by reverse engineering, and with the help of intelligent machines it may indeed even be amplified.

Now, as pertaining to direct quotation from the book, here are a provided few,
"The view he takes is that our descendants will sooner or later, reach, as a race, the condition of cosmic consciousness, just as, long ago, our ancestors passed from simple to self consciousness. He believes that this step in evolution is even now being made, since it is clear to him that men with the faculty in question are becoming more and more common and also that as a race we are approaching nearer and nearer to that stage of the self conscious mind from which the transition to cosmic conscious is effected. He realizes that, granted the necessary heredity, any individual not already beyond the age may enter cosmic consciousness. He knows that intelligent contact with cosmic conscious minds assists self conscious individuals in the ascent to the higher plane. He therefore hopes, by bringing about, or at least facilitating this contact, to aid men and women in making the almost infinitely important step in question." ... "The immediate future of our race, the writer thinks, is indescribably hopeful. There are at the present moment impending over us three revolutions, the least of which would dwarf the ordinary historic upheaval called by that name into the absolute insignificance. They are: (1) The material, economic and social revolution which will depend upon the result from the establishment of aerial navigation. (2) The economic and social revolution which will abolish individual ownership and rid the earth at once of two immense evils--riches and poverty. And (3) The psychical revolution of which there is here question. Either of the first two would (and will) radically change the conditions of, and greatly uplift, human life; but the third will do more for humanity than both of the former, were their importance multiplied by hundreds or even thousands. The three operating(as they will) together will literally create a new heaven and a new earth. Old things will be done away and all will become new." ... "In contact with the flux of cosmic consciousness all religions known and named to-day will be melted down. The human soul will be revolutionized. Religion will absolutely dominate the race. It will not depend on tradition. It will not be believed and disbelieved. It will not be a part of life, belonging to certain hours, times, occasions. It will not be in sacred books nor in the mouths of priests. It will not dwell in churches and meetings and forms and days. Its life will not be in prayers, nor hymns nor discourses. It will not depend on special revelations, on the words of gods who came down to teach, nor on any bible or bibles. It will have no mission to save men from their sins or to secure them entrance to heaven. It will not teach a future immortality nor future glories, for immortality and all glory will exist in the here and now. The evidence of immortality will live in every heart as sight in every eye. Doubt of God and of eternal life will be as impossible as is now doubt of existence; the evidence of each will be the same. Religion will govern every minute of every day of all life. Churches, priests, forms, creeds, prayers, all agents, all intermediaries between the individual man and God will be permanently replaced by direct unmistakable intercourse. Sin will no longer exist nor will salvation be desired. Men will not worry about death or a future, about the kingdom of heaven, about what may come with and after the cessation of the life of the present body. Each soul will feel and know itself to be immortal, will feel and know that the entire universe with all its good and with all its beauty is for it and belongs to it forever." ... "The universal scheme is woven in one piece and is permeable to consciousness or (and especially) to sub-consciousness throughout and in every direction. The universe is a vast, grandiose, terrible, multiform yet uniform evolution." ... "The philosophy of the birth of cosmic consciousness in the individual is very similar to that of the birth of self consciousness. The mind becomes overcrowded (as it were) with concepts and these are constantly becoming larger, more numerous and more and more complex; some day (the conditions being all favorable) the fusion, or what might be called the chemical union, of several of them and of certain moral elements takes place; the result is an intuition and the establishment of the intuitional mind, or, in other words, cosmic consciousness. The scheme by which the mind is built up is uniform from beginning to end: a recept is made of many percepts; a concept of many or several recepts and percepts, and an intuition is made of many concepts, recepts and percepts together with other elements belonging to and drawn from the moral nature. The cosmic vision or the cosmic intuition, from which what may be called the new mind takes its name, is thus seen to be simply the complex and union of all prior thought and experience--just as self consciousness is the complex and union of all thought and experience prior to it."

The above is most likely the best description of what Einstein meant by "cosmic religion," and I believe this is our future and our destiny as human beings. If you noticed, Bucke also threw in a little shot at private property. For what it's worth I also do believe that private property sooner or later will be unnecessary. Most of the political theory I've read leading me to believe this is influenced for the most part by Noam Chomsky's seminar on "Government in the Future," furthermore by the less well-known political writings of John Dewey, Mikhail Bakunin, Bertrand Russell's Proposed Roads to Freedom, Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism, et al. Some may find this as reason for believing I'm not rational given the current social order of state-capitalism, the success of economic theory, and the influence of popular opinion, e.g. Fukuyama's "End of History". The reason for being skeptical is rational and warranted. However, in envisioning the possibilities of social ordering after the Singularity it appears as the universe heads into this next phase we'll find laws of economic theory won't hold in the future, namely that economics as, "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses," will not apply anymore. Scarcity as a fundamental economic problem will cease to be as revolutions in nanotechnology will be able to create basically anything, the only constraint being merely having the information (probably just a model of the atomic structure) required to build it. As the causal sequence unfolds in the history of the universe we see a gradually democratizing force becoming more prevalent; after hundreds of thousands of years of tribal warfare, followed by changes brought from the agricultural revolution--wars between cities, as technology keeps building upon itself we find warfare now between states and larger cultural groups like religions, and so on. Given human nature's propensity for violence, we should be careful in bringing about the changes of the Singularity. Hugo de Garis, for example, is predicting a cosmic war in the future as a result. I really hope this isn't the case, but given our track record it's worth considering and preparing for overcoming it, to keep your eyes open if anything goes out of line and make the transition peacefully as it would completely change everybody's living conditions for something unimaginably better.

In the movie Waking Life a professor of chemistry comments on the "telescopic" nature of evolution and hints regarding how the future scenario might work out: "If we're looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you're looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological — development of the cities — and cultural, which is human expression. Now, what you've seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that are involved here — two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it — you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you're looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. You're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation. The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog. The digital is artificial intelligence. The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external. And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that's only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space. And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That's the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It's sterile. It's efficient, okay? And its manifestations of those social adaptations. We're talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These will be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. And that is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice." [link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4]

"The universe doesn't care about us!" you might say. If you understood the bit on telescopic evolution and its relationship to the coldness of "old evolution" you might come to that conclusion, but I think there's more to this Substance or divine Ground of being than that. The universe as a whole acts as a brilliant creator of innumerable forms and richness in the diversity of life. Not only does it create, but it also unifies, given the nature of substance in itself. Diverse forms rich and varied all arise from a single mesh of building blocks. Teilhard de Chardin refers to in Phenomenon of Man of a future point where all is unified by such cosmic consciousness as the Omega point. I think the Oneness of substance in its diversity and unity will provide the foundation of this new cosmic religion.

I've been reading some obscure books lately and I've found what might be a great justification or grounds for everything mentioned above namely, Yale theologian Jonathan Edwards' End of Creation. In an attempt to crown this cosmic religion with a few examples from the book, I hope to illustrate why Bucke believes "Doubt of God" would be impossible in the future. My favorite line of Bucke's reasoning would be as quoted before, "Each soul will feel and know itself to be immortal, will feel and know that the entire universe with all its good and with all its beauty is for it and belongs to it forever." Why go throughout this long-winded process in the first place? Edwards has a few things to say about it, and for what it's worth, although theological arguments aren't popular in general I think this one is different owing to our soon-to-be potential immortality. Therefore, I think Edwards does a good job in arguing his case, and these ideas might even be used to support the "why?" behind cosmic consciousness,
"I now proceed to enquire, how God’s making such things as there his last end is consistent with, his making himself his last end, or, his manifesting an ultimate respect to himself in his acts and works… Therefore I would endeavour to show, with respect to reach of the forementioned things, that God, in making them his end, makes himself his end, so as in all to show a supreme and ultimate respect to himself; and how his infinite love to himself and delight in himself, will naturally cause him to value and delight in these things: or rather, how a value to these things is implied in his love to himself, or value of that infinite fullness of good that is in himself." ... "So if God both esteem, and delight in his own perfections and virtues, he cannot but value and delight in the expressions and genuine effects of them. So that in delighting in the expressions of his perfections, he manifests a delight in his own perfections themselves: or in other words, he manifests a delight in himself; and in making these expressions of his own perfects his end, he makes himself his end." ... "And with respect to the second and third particulars, the matter is no less plain. For he that loves any Being, and has a disposition highly to prize, and greatly to delight in his virtues and perfections, must, from the same disposition, be well-pleased to have his excellencies known, acknowledged, esteemed and prized by others… And this it is fit it should be, if it be fit that he should thus love himself, and prize his own valuable qualities. That is, it is fit that he should take delight in his own excellencies being seen, acknowledged, esteemed and delighted in. This is implied in a love to himself and his own perfections, and in seeking this, and making this his end, he seeks himself, and makes himself his end." ... "Besides, God’s perfections, or his glory, is the object of this knowledge, or the thing known; so that God is glorified in it; as hereby his excellency is seen. As therefore God values himself, as he delights in his own knowledge; he must delight in every thing of that nature: As he delights in his own light, he must delight in the every beam of that light: And as he highly values his own excellency, he must be well pleased in having it manifested, and so glorified." ... "And it is to be considered that the more those divine communications increase in the creature, the more it becomes one with God: For so much the more it is united to God in love, the heart is drawn nearer and nearer to God, and the union with him becomes more firm and close: and at the same time the creature becomes more and more conformed to God. The image is more and more perfect; and so the good that is in the creature comes for ever nearer and nearer to an identity with that which is in God. In the view therefore of God, who has a comprehensive prospect of the increasing union and conformity through eternity, it must be an infinitely strict and perfect nearness, conformity, and oneness. For it will for ever come nearer and nearer to that strictness and perfection of union which there is between the Father and the Son: So that in the eyes of God, who perfectly sees the whole of it, in its infinite progress and increase, it must come to an eminent fulfillment of Christ’s request in John xvii. 21, 21. “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, I in thee, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” In this view, those elect creatures which must be looked upon as the end of the rest of all the creation, considered with respect to the whole of their eternal duration, and as such made God’s end, must be viewed as being, as it were, one with God. They were respected as brought home to him, united with him, centering most perfectly in him, and as it were swallowed up in him: So that in his respect to them finally coincides and becomes one and the same with respect to himself. .. What has been said, shows that as all things are from God as their first cause and fountain; so all things tend to him, and in their progress come nearer and nearer to him through all eternity: which argues that He, who is their first Cause, is their last End." ... "In God, the love of what is fit and decent or the love of virtue, cannot be a distinct thing from the love of himself. Because the love of God is that wherein all virtue and holiness does primarily and chiefly consists, and God’s own holiness must primarily consist in the love of himself; as was before observed. And if God’s holiness consists in love to himself, then it will imply an approbation of and pleasedness with the esteem and love of him in others. For a Being that loves himself, necessarily loves love to himself. If holiness in God consists chiefly in love to himself, holiness in the creature must chiefly consist in love to him. And if God loves holiness in himself, he must love it in the creature." ... "That God in seeking his glory, therein seeks the good of his creatures. Because the emanation of his glory (which he seeks and delights in, as he delights in himself, and his own eternal glory) implies the communicated excellency and happiness of his creatures; and that in communicating his fullness for them, he does it for himself; because their good, which he seeks, is so much in union and communion with himself. God is their good. Their excellency and happiness is nothing but the emanation and expression of God’s glory: God in seeking their glory and happiness, seeks himself: and in seeking himself, i.e. himself diffused and expressed, (which he delights in, as he delights in his own beauty and fullness) he seeks their glory and happiness." ... "God’s respect to the creature’s good, and his respect to himself, is not a divided respect; but both are united in one, as the happiness of the creature aimed at, is happiness in union with himself. The creature is no further happy with this happiness which God makes his ultimate end, then as he becomes one with God. The more happiness the greater union: when the happiness is perfect, the union is perfect. And as the happiness will be increasing to eternity; the union will become more and more strict and perfect; nearer and more like to that between God the Father, and the Son; who are so united, that their interest is perfectly one. If the happiness of the creature be considered as it will be, in the whole of the creature’s eternal duration, with all the infinity of its proneness, and infinite increase of nearness and union to God; in this view, the creature must be looked upon as united to God in an infinite strictness."

Okay, that's about it. Now, I understand as a matter of principle arguments as such aren't considered to be philosophically or logically or what have you rigorous. But insofar as you consider God as the creator and unifier of all life, the immortality of cosmic consciousness will be enriched by the thought that we all share in the glory of the wisdom behind this creation we find ourselves involved in. If someone tells you God's love is unconditional you could surely deny it by pointing out, for example, then why doesn't he heal the 11 million children infected with the African eyeworm? I think the question is targeted the wrong way, although the "cold" evolution we're working ourselves up through harbors horrible facts of life, they will nevertheless be subject to de-emphasis. Through overcoming the negatives in life, and as we head towards cosmic consciousness, I think these ideas will ultimately converge and provide us with a different, yet reasonably persuasive, way of thinking about religion in the future.

:]

Don't have much to say for this post, but I'll leave you with a spliced English translation of Einstein's poem for Spinoza's Ethics. It's succinct and beautiful, and every time I read it there's this remarkable quality about it; I wander off into my imagination to see them all smiling at me.

How I love this noble man
More than I can say with words.
Still, I fear he remains alone
With his shining halo.

Such a poor small lad
Whom you'll not lead to Freedom
The amor dei leaves him cold
Life drags him around by force.

Loftiness offers him nothing but frost
Reason for him is poor fare
Property and wife and honor and house
That fills him from top to bottom

You'll kindly forgive me
If Münchhausen here comes to mind
Who alone mastered the trick
Of pulling himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail

You think his example would show us
What this doctrine can give humankind
Trust not the comforting façade:
One must be born sublime.


There's also a rarely heard song Bill Hicks wrote I've come to love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCTOQPLKsYk

You and I have got the moon on our side... :]