A New Metaphysics

At long last, we have a new metaphysical theory that appears to connect all the dots and answer all the questions Mankind has been asking for millennia.  The new theory also appears to solve the problem in physics seeking a unified field theory.

So is there a G-d and what is He like?  What is His relationship with the world of Man? If He is good and if He has infinite power and knowledge, why is there so much suffering and why is there so much evil? If all is one as so many religions claim, why does it appear to be two and then three and then many?

This new metaphysics begins with the thesis that life is and is not a paradox.  The primary paradox is that the infinite is finite. We see evidence of this in religious writings and in revelations from physics as well as human biology and in basic logic (if something is infinite, it must include all that is finite).

In physics the proof is in fractals.  Fractals are found to be the structural building blocks of all matter.  Fractals are an infinite iteration of these blocks found in all matter.  So an object, though finite has an infinite number of fractals.

In human biology the proof is found in the brain.  It is divided in two spheres - the left and right sides of the brain.  One is concerned with the finite - like numbers, facts, names and stories.  The other is universal.  It feels infinite and undifferentiated.  It is called the creative side.  (Beyond this, the brain itself is physical and finite but it produces a mind that is infinite.)

This is why we do things that reflect unity and unification. Examples are religious experience, romantic love, the study of philosophy or the sciences, art, and the use of language (soon everyone in the world will speak English making it seem more unified). The finite wants to experience the infinite which is parallel - as above, so below.

But this dichotomy leads to everything else we experience.

From our infinite, universal, unifying side, comes one of our two basic emotions - Love.  From the finite or limiting mind we feel the other - Fear.  Love is the ultimate unifying force for us because all is one (Love thy neighbor as thyself).  Fear is the resultant emotion of feeling finite, separate and alone.

From the basic emotion of love comes intrinsic motivation - doing something as an end in itself.  From the emotion of fear comes extrinsic motivation - doing because it is a means to another end.

The second thesis in this new metaphysics is that everything and everyone is and has consciousness.  Consciousness can be finite or infinite.  G-d is the ultimate consciousness containing an infinite number of infinite/finite consciousnesses. This theory even submits that places have consciousness as do cells in the body and leaves on a tree. The consciousness is different, but just as real. This means that every outside has an inside.

The third notion in this theory is that the finite is transitory because of entropy.  Entropy is the disorganization of energy which is a product of consciousness.  Entropy disorganizes the finite to produce change.  Entropy is the reason we die, grow old, lose body tone, get ill, make mistakes, have messy rooms, lose memory, wear out, get wrinkles, and do evil things like steal, kill etc.  Although energy cannot be lost in the universe, the finite must lose its form to change. It is entropy and not Adam and Eve’s original sin that created the sense of good and evil.

There you have it: the three basic qualities of our context.  They should help us answer all our questions raised in the beginning of this essay.  Let’s see if they do.

What is the relationship between G-d and Man?  It is as infinite is to finite or as inside is to outside or as above to below.

If G-d is infinite, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, why is there evil and suffering in the world? Because of entropy making all that appears to be finite to change.  Everyone born must eventually die to make room in the world for new births.  If there were no death there would be no life.

Why if all is one does it appear to be many?  Because the infinite is finite.

Is there free will?  Yes and no. To the infinite there is none because all is one and there is no real time space reality that allows for free will.  And the chooser does not choose himself with all his built-in predispositions from genetics, early experiences, hard-wired personality traits, and maybe even exact time of birth and past lives.  To the finite it appears that we are each separate and alone,  responsible for each of our choices. 

How then should we live our lives to the fullest?  Since the infinite is finite, we are both.  If we do each thing as an end in itself as well as as a means to an end we will be in balance and be able to act appropriately in the moment, the eternal now.  This will not only enable us to focus on everything we do, it will help us see that it is not really we who are doing everything and that it is being done in concert with the universe.  Every act becomes part of an ongoing meditation, a holy ritual always done for the first time.  Life is seen as a blessing in disguise - an eternal blessing in infinite disguise.


 

What’s in a Name?

I have always been fascinated by language, especially words and more specifically, names.  This interest was recently peeked by a conversation I had in the park.  I met an attractive, middle-aged, blond-haired woman who told me that she was from the Netherlands.  I asked her why the Netherlands was/were called Holland.  She told me that Holland is an important part of the country, so people call the country Holland.  She said it was like England -  there is no country named England, but people still call it that.

I told her that England is a country and that Great Britain referred to England, Scotland and Wales, what I thought were three countries on the same island - Britain.  I told her that the United Kingdom included Northern Ireland as well as the other three lands.

I checked online when I got home and found that there is some question as to whether Scotland and Wales are really countries anymore or yet.  But England is definitely a country.

Then I noticed that when reporting the news, reporters never say England to describe where London is, they say the U.K. or the United Kingdom.  Sometimes they even refer to England as the UK while then going on to mention Scotland and Wales by name as though separate.

Why can’t England be England? Why can’t Scotland and Wales be countries, again?

Then there is Europe with former countries breaking up into still previous ones.  Remember Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia?  Now they are what they were before World War 1 - Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro instead of the former and the Czech Republic and Slovenia for the latter. 

Many European countries are part of the E.U.  They share the same currency, allow free access between countries without border checks or tariffs, and are even striving for a common language, English (or should it be called British or Ukish or Euish, though it doesn’t look Euish?).  Even calling Europe E.U. is confusing since the French call America, E.U. (Etats Unis) and even more confusing when people in Latin America call themselves Americans.

In India, China and Burma, cities, states and even an entire country itself are having a name change.  What was India included what is now Pakistan and that included what is now Bangladesh.  And what was wrong with Bombay or Peiking? Whatever happened to Tibet which used to be a great independent country of monks and mystics? It is now called a part of materialistic China, but not by me. Burma isn’t always Burma, its dictators have changed its name and now we don’t know what the more P.C. name for it is.  I say stick with Burma. 

Someone once said that a rose is a rose is a rose and by any other name would smell as sweet.  I’ll call that someone Zelda since her words should be no less true if her name is changed, but they are.  A rose is a rose only because we say it is and if it were called some vulgar name, it would not be smelled at all.  It’s all perception even about perception.

So I say let’s call England, England and let’s call Tibet, Tibet.  And Burma must be Burma (too many good restaurants’ names are at stake here).  And not only do I think that the Netherlands should not be called Holland unless they officially change it and their people and language should be Netherlanders and Netherlandic, respectively or if they become Holland, the people and language should be Hollandaise.

This, I’m afraid, is my final word on the subject.