Existentialism
Existentialism
and
THE I
by
Frank W. Andres
Man must be like a traveler on a never-ending journey in which the horizon
of today is the aim for tomorrow. He never gives up in disillusionment and
despair – he is at home at each day’s destination, but his heart is filled with
the expectations of tomorrow’s horizon.
© Copyright, Frank W. Andres, 2022.
All Rights Reserved.
Please visit us at our website…http://www.CFTheater. Info
Please give us your comments and ideas at Andres.Frank @Yahoo.Com
Our blog is actually a small website inside of a large one…in which all
things are free…Everything on our larger site is either free or very inexpensive.
We all…and we mean you, too.!..We all need to work together in Creative Clusters to help build the Future!
Introduction
Why are we writing this book? The existentialists, especially Nietzsche, were the first philosophers which Mr. Andres immersed himself into in college. He was attending the University of California at Davis, and he simply acquired a carrel at the library at the University of California at Berkeley and started to read rows of shelves filled with philosophy. We have been studying the I recently, because we think it can be important to the future of humanity for reasons we have expanded upon at length elsewhere, but which will be summarized below. In brief, we are 99.99 percent certain that 99.3 percent of the atoms in the cosmos possesses consciousness. Hydrogen atoms were created with consciousness at the time of the Big Bang. Hydrogen atoms have by means of fusion created helium atoms as stars explode and give off great light and explosions. It appears that hydrogen atoms possess Black Holes wherein the consciousness resides – these Black Holes along with the ones in the helium atoms – are also the source of gravity in the cosmos. It appears that clouds, crowds of hydrogen ions have created Life. We believe that this conscousness is carried in all Life by hydrogen ions. We believe that hydrogen ions are a potential source of power for things like computer chips – carrying their own capacity to think – as well as possessing an infinite power source. We are approaching the concept of the I – from every angle – from the perspective of every scientific discipline that we can – because of the possibilities it offers. When it comes to the I, and our years of study concerning it, and Mr. Andres’ familiarization with the existentialists, we figured it might be fruitful if we explored the impulse of the I in existential thought. We mean – just consider the denomination: ‘existentialism’ – is that not closely connected to the essence of Life? – which is consciousness, and the phenomenon of minds ‘looking out’? Well, we think we were right and will waste no more time explaining why this book exists. It is time for this book to speak for itself.
The I
Well, for goodness sakes, the heavens know, we have really written about all of this before! Yet it bears summarizing here again. Well, we have new nomenclature. The most important thing about consciousness is: that there is an I in our heads ‘looking out’. This I can have different world views. The world view we are born with is what we call the ‘solipsistic’ I. At birth, we, each, seem to be the center of the cosmos. This I is never talked or written about. Yet it is the most important thing in our lives, and surprisingly, everyone except philosophers – seem to be aware of it.
When hydrogen ions created Life – we have written a minibook about this – they made certain that organisms would have two priorities. The first overruling one is: Organisms will do everything in their power to survive as an individual. This priority is inscribed into every organism’s DNA. The second priority is: Organisms will do everything in their power to reproduce – that is, survive as a species.
Well, a lot of this is sort of automatic in our physiology. So when we have a reluctance to think about our solipsistic I, there must be a reason related to our survival. When we consider that we are ‘looking out’ and seem to be the center of the universe, well, this ‘looking out’ is pretty much magic. There is no explanation for this ability. A second astounding thing is: that every other organism is ‘looking out’ as well, and whether fully conscious of it or not, each is viewing the world as if it were the center of the universe. We have all considered this Truth in our lives, for it is indeed a Truth, a physical reality, and it cannot be avoided, it cannot be denied. Well, all of this is magical. It actually is the source of all magic – that is, the real magic of the occult. Logically, it is all absurd. Also, somehow when we have thought about this phenomenon, we have seen how our minds are instantly fearful – it is as if we are on a steep, slippery slope that seems to fall into an abyss – an abyss filled with ideas that could be dangerous for us. So instead, we quickly move from such thoughts to other thoughts which seem more safe – ideas that are associated with what we might call a ‘social’ I. This social I quickly left the magic of the solipsistic I. What we realize is: If the development of a social I does not occur, the solipsistic I could be a threat to Life. It could move one’s thoughts towards an absurd, irrational point of view. Later, at the very end of this minibook, we shall see that it can actually move one towards terror. At any rate, it moves one to a very egotistic point of view – one, perhaps packed with maniacal, mentally panicked thoughts, or as a defense mechanism – towards a Napoleon conception of self which could tear one’s life, and ultimately, all of society, apart.
In this way we have seen that the social I seems to come to the rescue, just as our mothers first enveloped us with – diverting our thoughts away from the precipice. As we say, we have not ever thought of this, this way. However, it is evident that our mothers must be held liable for helping to begin the creation of such a social I. Existentialists are adamant in their dislike of indiscriminate use of such a social I. They insist that society’s claim upon the individual occurs way too much too soon, leaving people following the whims of a herd stumbling its way towards mediocrity.
But more about the solipsistic I: As we have said – have we not forgotten that 99.3 percent of atoms in the cosmos possess consciousness! Each of us possesses an I in our brain that is a hydrogen ion. We are 99.99 percent certain of these things now. We have gone into detail about these things in many of our other books. And the group of particles in each atom is cosmic by nature and possesses the cosmic aspects, attributes of Will, Love, Truth, Beauty, and Justice. Thus, when a mother holds her newly-born baby in her arms, she is not holding some sort of undeveloped animal. Is that not we all think? We must socialize this poor thing as soon as possible. No, the Truth is completely different: What we have in our arms is an I, a cosmic I, one that has not yet been contaminated by any earthly social exertions upon it. That mother is actually attempting to converse with an ion! Does she not sing, dance, apply colors and sparkling trinkets. Yes, this lady is attempting to learn the cosmic language that all particles seem to possess – a language which if physicists possessed it, would enable computer architects to fashion chips with an I in them, that would have their own energy source and would have consciousness, which would be able to do the work of countless components. Yes, an ion possesses its own energy source, perhaps an infinitely great and powerful one. Consider how electrons move at the speed of light forever, utilizing some unknown source of energy – Dark energy? In the same way the nuclei with which electrons are coupled possess their own source of energy.
But we digress – always it would seem to be the case in our books, that we are in incessant conquest of a possible infinitely powerful energy source.
So existentialists were always concerned about utilizing the Will to combat the construction of the social I, which immerses one into the liturgy of the herd, causing one to lose one’s creativity and ability to impact the world. The fight for the individual to remain with his or her Will in tact, which is a cosmic gift given to one automatically at birth as part of his or her hydrogen ion – this fight is constant, and destined for failure unless one is vigilant, constant in his or her fight against the construction of the social I.
However, as we are beginning to see, there are actually two times in one’s life when contact with the hydrogen ion I with its Will is really strong: First, when we are newly born; then second, when we are old and senile, losing the grip of our brain with its social I upon our will. In the case of an infant, we were tempted to think that the infant is moving from the prehuman animal up the evolutionary chain to the greatest brain on earth, which, of course, is True, yet contact with the Will is left behind. When one has Alzheimers or other cerebral inhibiting diseases, he or she is actually moving from the social I to be closer to the solipsistic I – back towards the hydrogen ion with its cosmic powers of Will, Love, Truth, Beauty, and Justice.. In combating these afflictions of the elderly, doctors may be able to use the fact that the Will of the elderly is now more properly engaged – now in close contact with their actions – which might assist in their rehabilitation.
So if people are in closest contact with their Will when they are newly born and then again when they are old – how about the years in between? The question of the existentialist – this question was certainly high on Nietzsche’s list of concerns – is how can one maintain contact with and maximize utilization of the Will in the years in between? The answer to this question is not automatic and is somewhat surprising. We shall address this conundrum below.
The Existentialists and the I
It was Jean-Paul Sartre who gave the name ‘existentialists’ to the group
of philosophers he was most enamored with. He obviously saw a connection among them and with himself in their emphasis upon consciousness. You would probably figure that he felt that all of existentialists at one time or the other had taken the concept of consciousness to the ultimate depth, that is, all had probably run into the solipsistic I, although this would be difficult to document since only a couple of the existentialists are on record as having spent much time wrestling with that slippery slope.
It now is apparent at this distance in time as to why these men might have emphasized a topic such as consciousness at that time. We must remember that modern philosophy started only in 1637 with René Descartes. And from the first, modern philosophy had a certain focus: The human brain, and how it creates ideas. Of course, these early people had no idea that it was the brain that they were examining, they were thinking more in terms of the ‘mind’, whatever on earth that might have meant!
So immediately at the first, a project was set out for philosophers to work on. Well, Descartes hit the button right on the head when he declared: ‘I think, therefore, I am.’ We mean, what he really was thinking was – ‘I think, therefore, I am’. Right off, he was on that slippery slope of the solipsistic I. However, he quickly uprighted himself and shifted the focus from what the I is – to what it does, Descartes was left hemispheric dominant in his brain – therefore, he said that this I – whatever it might be – is able to find Truth – if it uses its analytical ability and deduces Truth concerning the world around himself. Right there – right then – modern science was born! – with a bias toward the left side of the brain! But the right side of the brain fought back immediately: One man after the other, each with different abilities, would look at his brain from the ‘inside out’ and document what he found empirically – well, this interchange did not involve instruments but it was indeed an empirical exercise. As we have said: Descartes noticed in his brain that all thought was analytically clear and distinct, with deduction being the engine that produced new thought – well, not exactly new thought, mathematics can only establish equivalences, which can lead to different perspectives on things. Next came Bishop George Berkeley who declared that: On the contrary – not only are things not clear and distinct, but all things are relative according to each person’s perception of things. Then came Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, proclaiming that contrary to Bishop Berkeley, not only were things quite clear and distinct, but their True essences could be delineated by deduction down into a countless number of tiny modals. Finally, came David Hume who said that Truth was not possible to be attained at all, so relative are the perspectives of all persons. He believed that induction is the only ability that is capable of creating new ideas. However, he felt that even working with this magic – which was able to build powerful syntheses – one is never able to secure absolute Truth.
Well, Immanuel Kant was next. He somehow proposed that all of these men were actually right! Kant declared that each of these men was a genius and possessed a faculty in his brain that was more highly developed than the others, and consequently, each man’s philosophy reflected his particular mental strength. He maintained that if all these ideas could be placed in the proper sequence, one could understand how the human mind creates ideas. Unfortunately, Kant was analytical in his strengths and was unable to create the required synthesis. What he came up with was two boxes: space and time, in which all content of thought could be placed. What this content might be, his analytical ability could not deduce.
So finally there came Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He had the synthetic ability required to place all of these philosophies in the proper order. From today’s perspective, his accomplishment was monumental. He is known as an idealist, viewing how thought progresses though the mind – step by step how ideas are created! Actually, obviously, he was an empiricist. He actually was investigating how the human brain works. As we say, we now know that there are two hemispheres in the human brain: Each person is dominant in one hemisphere or the other. One hemisphere is inductive, creating a synthesis in the brain, from which all content of thought is derived. This inductive ability is able to create hypotheses from analogy and cause and effect relationships, which then can be tested experimentally to see if they are correct. Then the left side of the brain with its analytical ability takes over – the synthesis of ideas created by the right side of the brain is attacked analytically, determinants are deduced and succinct powerful laws are promulgated. These contributions must be made by separate people with separate abilities, one person does not have all the abilities necessary to create powerful ideas.
The right side of the brain can remember things only if they are related to ideas already in his or her mind. He or she possesses an inductive ability which creates a synthesis in his mind – when considering a new idea, this synthesis which is always present, and gigantic, in a right hemispherically dominant person – may be called a ‘thesis’. When a new object or idea is presented to the person, he or she attempts to relate it to the synthesis in his or her mind – the new thing or idea may be called an ‘antithesis’ – it is presented to the synthesis – and the decision is made as to whether this new item can be related to the synthesis or not – if not, it is discarded – if so, then the synthesis is enlarged to include the new thing or idea – incorporating this new thing may affect a large part of the synthesis – in this way, one new idea may create a new ‘synthesis’ – many ideas that were woven previously into the gigantic web of interconceptualization in the mind may be affected – this may create entirely new ocean of understanding.
The left side of the brain has a spot memory; it can remember multitudinous facts, and can then apply deductive thought to them. As we say, analytical, mathematical thought cannot create new ideas, it can only derive equivalences – it can take hypotheses, figure out new ways to test them, and then deduce which are the most powerful elements in that synthesis which become determinants, which lead to powerful equations that become laws because they are so powerful – the hypotheses made by one set of people – in this way now are fashioned by a second set of people – into powerful tools that scientists and engineers can use to impact the world.
Therefore, by the time the first existentialists appeared, the philosopher’s work of examining how the brain creates ideas, creates tools, had pretty much been done, although the entire process was a bit clouded because of Hegel’s right hemispheric dominant lack of clarity. By the time Nietzsche appeared then, the question was arising: Well, what exactly was a philosopher supposed to be working on? It was important that the philosopher’s concern, attention – well, it needed to shift somewhere else – such as – ‘Exactly what in the brain is in charge – in charge of all this creating of tools’? Well, it was not long before philosophers understood that there is an I in charge of one’s brain. In this manner, existentialists took the next obvious step in examining the human brain: They began to look at consciousness, and the I. Such a shift in focus led immediately to the discovery of the solipsistic I and its dangers, and the importance of the Will in maintaining one’s ability to remain creative throughout one’s life.
One strange thing is: Sartre talks of the same slippery slope and danger of the abyss of meaningless of life as we discovered in the context of the solipsistic I – yet Sartre talks of this in the context of World War II, the failure of science to yield the best of all possible world, and instead mostly only mammoth death and destruction. We think that Sartre missed the fact that the discovery of the solipsistic I early in one’s life is more universal – one does not need exposure to the destruction of war to question the efficacy of human consciousness. Most people can be lead quickly to that same slippery slope during normal times – inducing one to search quickly for some amenable perch close by – clothed in social distractions to save a person from falling into psychological danger. We feel that it is this solipsistic I – that truly unites the existentialists – that each had actually encountered the solipsistic I face-to-face at some time in some way – and then had attempted to keep some distance from its dangers while simultaneously trying to keep close enough contact such that he or she could maintain maximum power input from his or her Will. We feel that it is this life-long preoccupation with the solipsistic I that filled existential philosophies with angst and feelings of the absurd.
So the solipsistic I possesses one basic Truth: That each person in the world thinks that he or she is he center of the universe. How can this thought be bad? We see the problems early with Dostoevski : In his Notes from the Underground, he pretends that he is someone else – it is quite possible that he experimented with being other people quite regularly which might have led him to all those phenomenal characters in his books – what if I were that guy, and thought that I was the center of the universe? How would I act, think, talk? Well, the character he chose in the Underground seems to have learned the good news that he is the center of the cosmos and is responsible for all that occurs in it – which seems in his case to have led to all sorts of wretched thoughts! In this regard, he is like Kierkegaard who was in his monastic-type cell alone with his God. He was like Sartre in his World War II war prison. When one is in these situations – when they receive the news that the whole cosmos must, can only rely upon them – well, they become nauseous, full of anxiety and left alone and forelorn. This is because of the tremendous weight of responsibility that has been suddenly placed upon their shoulders. They each now realize that they are the center of everything – for in a way they seem to be the only ones who really exist – therefore, it seems quite probable that they each must shoulder the responsibility for all progress, for all that is good in the universe. They look around – in the underground, in the monk’s cell, in the military prison – and each sees no one else who is even close to them in intelligence, or in willingness to help other people – but worst – in terms of existence: There – literally – seems to be no one else to help! Kierkegaard found some hope and was able to remain on the slippery slope by realizing that there was help in a God supposedly somewhere nearby – yet he was always in danger of feeling that he himself would have to become almost a God himself if he were to meet the responsibilities that seemed to be given to him – at least he is was able to feel that he was worthy to do this – talk to this God himself – face to face – in facing these hefty responsibilities. Sartre just plain out said that he felt that there was only he – and that a man had to accept the fact that he was the only hope for the world – the only possible source for creativity and progress in humankind – well, as we have said, empirically, there just didn’t seem to be any one else!
Heidegger knew that he wasn’t a true existentialist. To be so, one would have to earn an Eagle Scout badge in the solipsistic I – and he had not the courage to do this – so he spent all his time with Da-sein – which is the social I.
It should have been obvious to all of these poor people – that they were not actually alone. There are millions, billions of people – each thinks he or she is the center of the universe. They are as responsible for the future of mankind as anyone else. It all comes down to the one non-existentialist idea that Kierkegaard came up – and that is faith – faith that all of this solipsistic Truth is baloney – in Truth we are not alone – unfortunately, in actuality, most people are of little assistance. What is True is: An intelligent person, if he or she remains closely attached to the solipsistic I – does possess Will – and if he or she works diligently with others – as Herman Hesse’s Sinclair found out – work with the right people – great things can happen. Once a person acquires such faith – then true existentialism is gone. One is left not with angst and absurdity – but instead with the capacity to create – tools, ideas, a future – this creativity in turn somehow physiologically gives a person the cosmic rewards of joy and happiness – in fact having babies, creating ideas, and creating tools which can impact and change the world – are the only ways one can experience joy and happiness in their lives – and this demands that one remains fixed – face-to-face with – in the embrace of – well, at least in close contact with – the solipsistic I!
Kierkegaard
Søren Kierkegaard is supposedly the first ‘real’ existentialist. He began as a writer of aesthetic prose – his concerns at that time were with the pleasure of the senses. His hero was Don Juan, ‘the conqueror of a thousand maidens’. Thus, from the beginning, his attention was upon his own self and its physical needs. The son of a Jewish merchant in Copenhagen, he abruptly canceled a planned wedding and consecrated his life to Christianity. Disagreeing with the German dialectical, synthesis-building philosopher, Hegel, he argued that no system of thought could explain the unique experience of the individual. He defended Christianity, suggesting that God cannot be known through reason, but only through a ‘leap of faith.’ He believed that God and exceptional individuals were above moral laws.
It seems probable that Kierkegaard was the first philosopher to be influenced by the solipsistic I – and as we have said, we think that existentialists after him began at the same place, although such an encounter was never documented. It was that slippery slope that readily subjected the individual to the danger of falling into the abyss of despair and angst – into the absurdity and loss of meaning in life caused by realizing that each individual in the cosmos considers him or herself to be the center of everything. We mean, if I – am truly the center of the universe – all importance of it devolving from my existence – then truly – all power in the universe falls to nothing – there can be no meaning or importance to it at all! Instead of moving immediately from this slippery slope to the safety of a nearby amenable perch offered by the social I, Kierkegaard instead steadfastedly adhered to that slope – although it appears that he may have moved far into the abyss below – where meglomania could spring forth. Into a place of that Don Juan, his hero par excellence, could dwell – Kierkegaard moved first to great admiration of Napoleon, then to being a sort of God himself. Here, having fallen into the pit – it appears that it was the Church that saved him from destruction and allowed him a satisfactory life with such an affliction. He felt that because of the piece of God within himself, he was able to communicate with God himself – a type of meglomania – yet the Church structure, and conception of religion, although not entirely suitable for his purposes, nevertheless, extended to him enough mental and social structure to help him maintain a leash on his egotism to the point that he was able to navigate about the world and accomplish important things.
It is with Kierkegaard that we are able to consider certain ideas – ideas that will be important in creating a cosmic theology – in minibooks, elsewhere.
First, there is the idea of God, itself. Our cosmos, it would seem, actually possesses no God as such. Instead it appears that whatever entity created this universe instantly broke into pieces – countless in number – each with its own personality and place of centrality in the universe. That does not mean there is no God hidden somewhere in the dark crevasses of the vast space of this universe. Also, it is possible that other multiverses exist or have existed in an eternity in both directions – well, time is eternal in both directions! – an eternity of time has passed, there has been ample time for the heavens to be depleted of any activity whatsoever – instead there is matter! If one universe spread until all of it was cold and dead, then a God must have appeared from somewhere, to start another. Thus, the fact that matter exists today yields a high probability that a God exists somewhere that is able at any time to create a new universe.
Second, it is true that we at times feel that the cosmos has spoken to us, or at least has had some influence upon our lives. This may or may not have been the influence of a God. But to feel as Kierkegaard did that one is at the level of a God and is in a position to equal in a conversation with such a God seems to be the work of a solipsistic I.
When one is in the presence of the solipsistic I and its attendant closeness to the Will that is a cosmic aspect of the hydrogen ion in charge of our lives, then an individual such as Kierkegaard might be able to remain steadfast in the face of social pressures that might rage about him, even in the face of a Lutheran Church with which one might have disagreements with.
One might as well state the obvious now: A philosopher such as Kierkegaard seems to have less and less to tell us in this modern age – in which the actual existence of Jesus is in question, and rise of the Darwinian revolution and subsequent DNA discoveries and manipulations have rendered all that is human to be strictly animal. Religion is still important. But now we look to a new cosmic theology that might be created to give guidance and meaning in this modern life we live today.
Nietzsche
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche holds a special place in the heart of Mr. Andres. When he was at the University of California at Davis, during his third year there, he obtained a carrel at the University of California at Berkeley library, ninety miles away, and immediately read one long shelf filled entirely with books by Nietzsche. That Mr. Andres possessed the same abilities as Hegel and Goethe was established when he received a 230 score on the only I.Q. test that measures the abilities of the right side of the brain, the Wechsler- Belevue Block Test, on which Hegel and Goethe received scores of 160 and 170 respectively. As he read Nietzsche’s work, Mr. Andres realized that here was another of the right hemispheric dominant club – Herr Nietzsche’s focus seemed to be on the young right hemispheric dominant person – with tips on how to begin one’s career – and Boy! did he help Mr. Andres!
From our other books regarding right hemispheric dominance in the brain, you might remember that the most salient characteristic of that ability is the formation of a synthesis of thought in one’s mind. People who are left hemispheric dominance have no idea what we are talking about. The entire right hemispheric dominance thing seems to have been swept under the rug,
with few people even understanding what we are talking about – yet all content in intellectual thought, in science, in all knowledge, in general, comes from the right side of the brain. One third of the population is right hemispheric dominant – such people are never identified, and never trained in school how to use and develop their abilities, or how to work with left hemispheric dominant people in creating ideas. Our entire school system needs to be revamped – as we have been advocating now for decades!
From this perspective, Herr Nietzsche’s main goal in life, it would seem, was to take a young person like Mr. Andres with his abilities and give him or her tips on how to develop these abilities. With no background in philosophy at all – Mr. Andres understood immediately what Nietzsche was saying – and what he had to do.
First, God is Dead! What the hell was that!? Mr. Andres knew instantly what he was saying was: do what Herr Hegel has done – yet don’t! That is, Herr Hegel has come up with a tremendous synthesis of all thought – one in which the ideas of all the most important philosophers are integrated such that one can see how ideas are created by the mind. This was a great work and it should always be by one’s side. Yet – when one builds his or her own synthesis, he or she must begin from scratch; there is no one god of a philosopher one must imitate – or an Absolute, that is, there is no one elaborate already developed synthesis one must follow. No – one must start from scratch and build his or her own synthesis – and Mr. Andres did! He began to build one – right then – right now!
So Nietzsche was an existentialist because he obviously had encountered the solipsistic I and knew its importance: He knew that when one was building that great synthesis of his or her own – he or she must keep the Will – in tack. One must be creative every moment of the day, and allowing a social I to erupt and dominant one’s mind will erode all of one’s ability if he or she just gives up and follows the herd.
In mid 19th century, Germans were being left behind Great Britain and the United States economically – and Nietzsche’s entire focus was upon trying to develop the abilities of the next generation of young Germans who were under the tyranny of Prussia – he was trying to get them to prepare themselves somehow to develop their country and follow the example of Great Britain which had first experienced Industrial Revolution and helped blast humanity out of the Darkness of the past. After all, Germany had already had had its moment back in the sixteenth century when it ruled the world with its Hanseatic ports whose ships reached from the Baltic Sea to China – and its early first form of manufacturing in which raw materials and intermediate products were ‘put out’ – that is, moved from house to house in a system of consecutive assemblage. It was now time for Germany to rise again with its country filled with right hemispheric dominant people – whose abilities were either being ignored – or ideas were just outright stolen by others without credit. He was attempting to call forth a generation of ‘uebermenchen’ – right hemispheric dominant Germans who with their powerful syntheses developed – could participate in a multi-national world-wide economic expansion. Nietzsche pretty much dedicated his life – to this effort. He certainly got Mr. Andres off to a flying start!
Heidegger
Martin Heidegger wrote a book about Dasein, he was hoping to write another about Being – but that was not to be.
When it comes to the topic of consciousness, Heidegger was the man. He never felt he was a good enough existentialist – to claim that he was one.
It probably had something to do with that book that was not written.
Okay, so when it came to Being, Heidegger was talking about what we call the solipsistic I. As we have said, every human brain has a hydrogen ion – ‘looking out’. This ion is composed of particles which come from the cosmos. Because of this, they are able to convey to a person cosmic virtues, attributes, powers – the powers of Will, Love, Truth, Beauty, and Justice. However, as we have seen, the vicinity of this hydrogen ion is a dangerous place. As an infant we could see plainly that we are the center of the universe [This whole infant thing gained for us a whole new dimension upon the reading of Herman Hesse and his emphasis upon fear as an impetus for seeking refuge in the social I – as we have said, we consider all of this at the very end of this minibook] an infant is practically all solipsistic I – which can lead to bad places psychologically – megomania, as happened to Kierkgaard, although he had his Christianity to help save him from its worst aspects; realization that the world is absurd; we are alone; and later that there is no meaning to Life. Because of these things, our mothers very quickly divert our attention from the Napoleonic sort of I, to a world of ‘others’ in which the I might become more of a social I.
As an infant we saw a world of nothingness – all was nothing compared to the blazing radiance of our consciousness. Then our mothers were the first to point out that we are not alone – well, there was she! And then Dad. Then others. And that world of social connections possessed so many concerns, pressures, and rules of decorum, that our attention was quickly diverted from our solipsistic I. This social I is the Dasein that Heidegger was talking about. He never felt really up to taking on Being, and the solipsistic I. As we say, it probably is because of this deficiency in his works that he never felt himself worthy to be called an existentialist. I guess he did not realize that no existentialist had talked about the solipsistic I either. It was just too slippery a slope to take on.
Heidegger was very concerned about authenticity. One must be very close to the solipsistic I, to the hydrogen ion with its Will, if a person is to be creative – and one must be creative to make his or her own world and not just follow social conventions. The trick is: How does one remain close enough to the solipsistic I to be able to employ the Will at a very potent strength – and still be free from the formidable dangers proximity to the solipsistic I entails.
We shall consider this problem below.
Sartre
It was probably because of/or through Jean– Paul Sartre that most people first heard of existentialism. He became sort of a publicist for the movement. Because of him, philosophy began to move into pubs and cafes, first in Paris and then New York City in a big way. By the time we get to Paul-Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard, twenty years later – if your name was not on the lips of those in New York bars, then one probably knew that he or she had better work longer and harder. Because of Sartre, philosophy has become as much a social or fashion movement as an intellectual one.
Kierkegaard described angst as ‘the dizziness of freedom’, it is what happens when the familiar is removed and one is confronted with one’s own freedom. Angst is a general sense of being anxious, a feeling not-at-home in the world, a feeling of things generally not being right. Angst is a result of remaining too long face-to-face with the solipsistic I – and as we have discussed above – one result can be the falling into the abyss of the ‘me’ as being all important – which can lead to the meaningless of life. Sartre’s philosophy is filled with such despondency – well, as he would say, his life was filled with nausea, absurdity, boredom, anxiety, and forlornness. He felt that this was the price one had to pay if one was to avoid being inauthentic – or as he said – avoid living in modes of ‘bad faith’. Bad faith is deliberately denying something we know to be True of ourselves; it is an attempt to escape from our own anxiety about the ambiguity of our lives. As we have seen, one needs to remain close to the solipsistic I for one’s Will to remain empowered. However, as we have seen, such positioning of the self on such a slippery slope is a dangerous spot to be, so one may opt to move a bit a way from our creative center to a more ‘social’ position that will allow one to be swayed by the herd a bit which allows stress to be relieved. Sartre sees adopting an established role, or mask such as this, as the easy way out. To be authentic, to be in the ‘for-itself’ mode, requires courage and an attitude which accepts one’s own situation facing the prospect of death and the meaningless of life. As a prisoner- of- war during World War II, Sartre learned to acquire the courage to face the solipsistic I.
Sartre could not go to others to help brave closeness with the solipsistic I. When he was face-to-face with another person, he suddenly realized that he himself was being observed. In his case, his being center of the universe led to a lonely vigil through life. In his case, face-to-face with other people just goaded him to be better, so people would think well of him – in this way, the fact that other person were staring back at him just took him back to the core of the solipsistic I – with its nausea, anxiety, absurdity, meaningless – and all the rest.
Maintaining freedom of ‘for-itself’ is possible only if the I remains in close proximity to the Will and does not drift away into a social I – becoming no longer special and creative but instead becoming another thing ‘in-itself”.
According to Sartre we are condemned to be free and abandoned, alone in the world. We are free to be authentic and creative, but this requires constant vigilance – we must avoid living phony, socially constructed lives.
As we have said, Sartre did recognize that there are other people in the world, and that they also are ‘looking out’ – which should have allowed him to think for a moment that maybe he is not the only ‘center’ in the cosmos. However, for some reason, even though when viewing other humans face to face he realized that another human is not a non-conscious object that merely exists ‘in-itself’ – still instead of allowing that idea to take himself to a better place somehow – he simply would not allow other people to help him – instead, as we have said, he saw people’s staring back at him and judging him. He was concerned what others thought of him which left him in a lonely place – ‘abandoned’ as he would say – later we shall see that this is a key word in infancy – all of this left him alone in his nausea, anxiety, and all the rest.
One of the few ideas Sartre has given us has to do with ‘nothingness’. As we have said, the goal of every existentialist is to relate to the world as a human being, to be conscious and engaged, to exist as ‘for-itself’ – in a word, to remain ‘creative’, come up with new ideas, with new tools to impact the world around us. Sartre asserted that nothingness is involved every time one makes a choice or uses his or her imagination to create new things, he maintained that he was working with things that do not exist! Well, we have written books about humans and creativity, and we can assure you that when you are creating something, you are utilizing memory, which has captured ideas developed in the past. Such ideas are tools that we can use to impact the world and build the future. In no way are these tools – nothingness!
So it is that reading books by Sartre is always depressing. He asserted that man is the giver of meaning to a supposedly meaningless universe. This supposedly reassuring statement probably means that he believed that man and woman’s only ability to comfort themselves is by simply making things up – in effect: telling themselves bedtime stories.
Karl Jaspers
Like many others, Karl Jaspers refused to accept the label ‘existentialist’. He said that his emphasis was on the ongoing human quest for transcendence, which he saw as a philosophical form of religion. Actually it was part of the joy and happiness one receives when one is able to do creative work. Nevertheless, his interests were clearly existentialist in the broad sense of being concerned with the human Existenz. He like the others accepted Kierkegaard’s demand: To live authentically, individuals must reject popular opinion and take control of their destiny by a blind leap beyond reason. From Jaspers’ existential viewpoint – the task of philosophy should be to concentrate on the individual in his or her situation. For Jaspers Love is the key to, and perhaps the embodiment of, transcendence – it may be part of the reward for doing creative work – along with joy and happiness.
As a whole, Jaspers’ concern was with the problem of man’s life in a mass culture, and with the means by which man in such a culture can again become a genuine self. He diagnoses man’s ‘sickness’ of submission to seemingly inescapable conformity, and offers the first indication of a possible remedy. Jaspers said, ‘Existential philosophy is that mode of thinking which utilizes but goes beyond science – in which man longs to become himself.’ This mode of thinking does not merely focus on objects but illuminates and brings to bear the thinker’s own being. Man must be like a traveler on a never-ending journey in which the horizon of today is the aim for tomorrow. He never gives up in disillusionment and despair – he is at home at each day’s destination, but his heart is filled with the expectations of tomorrow’s horizon.
Jaspers begins with man a stranger to himself and to his world.
The strangeness of the world becomes for Jaspers a coded message which man receives. Obviously a message must come from somewhere. Therefore, ultimately Jaspers’ philosophy is a search for this center or better this last horizon encompassing all others, which makes itself known through its ciphered messages. Man throughout the centuries has gone various ways in his search for this horizon. Attempts to find this ‘being in itself ‘ that is that being which makes all beings an entity, is their common ground and out of which all beings come. What these words mean is: Jaspers was looking for the secret to creativity, which allows new ideas to be. Without realizing
it, he was following a path that had been blazed before by Hegel.
Jaspers wrote a book, Subjeckt – Objekt Spaltung. Above, we have gone through the iterations between one side of the brain and the other – from Descartes, to Berkeley, to Leibnitz, to Hume, to Kant and finally to Hegel.
Jaspers believed that there were two schools devoted to different sides of the ‘subject – objective’ question. There was the ‘objective’ school that stressed investigating objects in the world with analysis and mathematics. Then there was the ‘subjective’ school that stressed the importance of the mind in learning about the world – in the end the latter school felt that everything was relative to the perceiver, with no absolute Truth, it was also filled with the skepticism of David Hume with his belief that inductive reasoning could never establish absolute Truth.
Okay, but the reality is that Jaspers did not realize that there are actually two sides of the brain working here in two different individuals. Jaspers felt that if ideas were to be created efficiently, somehow subject (a person) and object (the world) would have to be brought together somehow in their ‘roots’. Well, what we know now is that we are really talking about how two sides of the brain in two different individuals can work together to create new ideas – to create powerful tools that can impact the world. It is when the two sides of the brain work together that the ‘roots’ of subject and object – become one.
Instead of just sitting around thinking, Jaspers would attempt to be an existentialist – he decided that he would stop thinking and instead would simply live life. So he begins this life with a journey. His whole philosophy then becomes one constant reassessment, gaining a standpoint and overcoming it, never ceasing to project oneself beyond what fills one’s life at the moment.
Jaspers begins as a stranger -.he is a stranger to himself – he has no idea what inside of him is: ‘looking out’. He is a a stranger to his world – he thinks he is the only entity with consciousness – little does he know! Little does he dream that there is in actuality a cosmos of consciousness around him as 99.3 percent of the atoms in the cosmos possess consciousness! The I, the actual man of flesh and blood asking the all-important question: ‘Who am I?’ – is suspended between his past and his future, neither of which is clear in its totality and in its implications. The past, though already lived through, is nevertheless not wholly known to man. Much of it remains obscure.
Let us take a moment here and state what we know now:
When it comes to the past, if a man is right hemispheric dominant (rhd),} then he remembers only that which is relevant to the synthesis in his head – if it is relevant, then through the process of thesis, antithesis, synthsis..the synthesis grows – all of the rest of the data is lost. The left hemisphere of brain possesses a spot memory and remembers a lot, but none of this possesses context or relevance to anything – it just stays there like in Joyce’s Ulysses hoping to be used someday. In both cases, most of the past is lost.
When it comes to the future, it is impenetrable: It cannot yet reveal itself since man’s own future actions partially mold it. The only thing certain is: All one experiences – is in a state of flux – and he is in the midst of it. So how is Truth to be created?
What was Jaspers answer to all of these things? When it comes to Truth – Jaspers searched as he journeyed – his vision scoured the horizon. This scouring of the horizon was actually a first step – we would call this first step ‘perception’. But then comes a second ‘first’ horizon: Jaspers saw this horizon as being the widest – all encompassing. We would say that this is where the right hemispheric dominant mind works, making hypotheses, predicting cause and effect, relating many things together into one web of thought. Then for Jaspers a second horizon came – it was ‘Being, as such’ or ‘consciousness, as such’. Since Jaspers was left hemispheric dominant, he thought that this is where all the thinking action is focused. As we know: It takes both side of the brain – collecting and separating; induction, deduction; synthesis and analysis – to create a new idea – to create a powerful new tool which can be used to impact the world.
Albert Camus
Well, this section promises to be short. We have recognized the dangers of staying too close to the solipsistic I, even though there are so many good reasons to be able to do it. Well, the life of Camus is a lesson – a cautionary tale – in which the woes that can happen if one lingers on that slippery slope too long without taking precautions are amply displayed.
Simply put, Albert Camus met that slippery slope early in his life, and accepted the challenge of residing on that slippery slope without any help from anywhere. He just simply fell into the abyss – he accepted the fact that Life is meaningless, absurd. As we have done before – let us think this through: We are certain of only one thing: We are ‘looking out’. The I is the only Truth and reality. If this is True then we can tell you for a fact that Life can seem to be stupid and meaningless. We mean, if everything devolves to just ‘me’ – and the rest of things are nothing – then of course, that means that we are left – with ‘me’, which in the face of a gigantic comos – is nothing – and thus there is no point of continuing this chirade. – therefore, suicide is the only rational solution to the questions: Who am I?; Why am I here?; Why should I go on? Well, instead of just grabbing a rope and hanging himself, Camus decided to play Russian roulette with his automobile until his luck ran out and he died in an accident at a very young age.
If this just involved him, the tragedy would have been great enough – given the talents he had displayed. Yet he wrote books advocating accepting his point of view: The fact that we are all alone, strangers in a world warped by the solipsistic I; and one should be indifferent to death – perhaps should even welcome, accelerate one’s demise. This is what happens when one accepts the easy solutions and does not think things through. One must accept responsibility for one’s actions – through writings, and example – millions of lives can be affected.
Buber / Conclusion
Martin Buber offers a fitting conclusion to this minibook.
As we have said, we undertook this study of existentialists because we felt that they more than any other philosophers, more than any other people, were undoubtedly students of the I, and that we might learn more about the I from their work, if we looked closely. We were looking for breakthroughs in our thinking about the I, that might bring us closer to our relating with these hydrogen ions, who have accomplished so much in building Life and probably are influencing our lives every day in ways we have little knowledge of.
Well, breakthroughs have come as a result of this investigation. But if we were looking for one really big breakthrough, one breakthrough that might really help us in this archaeological dig of the brain; well, we had almost lost hope. Then there was Martin Buber. A man with a strange name. And with a strange sort of philosophy for a man who devoted his life to thought: I and Thou. Whenever we picked up a book about him, we instantly felt something religious about him – which is strange; one would think Kierkgaard would be the most religious of the bunch. Yet in the face of Buber, Kierkgaard is just an egotisitcal ascetic who just thought he was – God. Buber on the other hand, believed he was something else.
Martin Buber believed that he was a piece of God. Yes, what happened is: Mr. Buber was able to infix himself upon that slippery slope of the solipsistic I. And the method he utilized to do this was: he looked into a mirror, of sorts. He looked into the eyes of another human being. He was not ranting and raving like Kierkgaard that he was superior to another because he, himself, was a face of God, thus, worthy of interacting with God himself, as an individual. No, Buber was completely different: in the eyes of another he saw his equal, his brother, his sister, another who is lost in this magical, absurd world – an inch from being swept down the abyss, into the void of meaningless and perhaps insanity.
The long and short of it is: Buber found why we are here. We are here to find another, with whom we may be able to bind absolutely tightly to, with. We have forgotten that the Will is indeed an important attribute given to us by a cosmic entity: The solipsistic I. However, there is Love, also. The existentialists, being mostly male, understandably in most cases concentrated on Will, not Love. But closeness to the solipsistic I is important for both Will – and Love. Our distancing from Love has left the modern world in a land of surrogate organizations – of fractured communities and politics – with males preoccupied with sex, looking to big trucks for feelings of being valued – too often in marriages void of intense Loving relationships. A bond of Love with another, such as Buber talks about – will not fail – even in the face of death – as it promises to be an eternal bond that will help shape our future as we traverse the celestial cosmos. Once we are paired with another in this way, we are always ensured of a cosmic bond, a chemical bond, a atomic bond with another which promises to keep us – empowered by Will – able to Love – in the Light – forever!
Meanwhile on earth, the impact of such a bond is equally as impressive, equally as important. We were looking for some way for our Is to remain engaged with our brains and not be flooded and smothered by the movement of the herd and the building of a social I. With another clasped as One to us, we are able to stay in the vicinity of the solipsistic I, keep our creative Will attached to our thinking. In this way, all on earth is possible. Yes, Martin Buber has found the way to progress here on earth and into the cosmic eternities.
Oh, one might object: ‘But Buber was not really an existentialist!’ Yes, sadly that is True – sad not for Buber – but for the existentialist. The existentialist looked at the solipsistic I for a second – and ran for his, for her life. Or they surrendered to it – and fell into the abyss. That is why existentialism is such a depressed, useless point of view. The I is left naked – powerless – left alone – in the Blackness of space. Buber was always able – to remain – in the Light.
So as we build our new cosmic theology – we must not forget – to bring another. – that special other – hand in hand – as we build a future here on earth – and as we prepare to sweep through the eternities as flaming Light and not an extinguished vacuum.
In this search for that special other, we are not alone – as we have said, there is help: There is an attribute of Love attached to our I. And there is help in our DNA – as the development of the sexes occurs, as Buber may have instinctively realized. There is the concept of the sacred male and sacred female. That is, there are proclivities in the male and female DNA which may also exacerbate or mitigate the influence of the solipsistic I upon a person. As we have said, the I, because it is a hydrogen ion, automatically possesses the cosmic attributes of Will, Love, Truth, Beauty, and Justice. However, the manner in which male and female DNA is constructed, may influence as to which of the powers of these attributes one may be more able to gain access to. According to the conception of the sacred male and female – the male by biology is more able to access the power of the Will – plant the seeds of ideas, take leadership roles in obtaining objectives – however, also according to this conception – the male tends to act more individually and thus may be susceptible to the dangers of the solipsistic I – and as a result may in the end actually lose creative powers which can come only from a will that is properly attached to the actions of the I.
The sacred female, on the other hand, is attached by DNA to the attribute of Love in the I, which leads to connection, relationships, feelings, and mutual empowerment. We saw how a mother with these inclinations can actually inhibit creativity in a person starting in infancy – as she with her powers of connection intentionally helps a person build a social I – which can lead a person to the buying of big trucks and SUV’s, following the herd and losing the ability to be creative. In the longer run, however, it is woman who is the secret to progress of humankind. In the primitive band, following the herd may be beneficial for most in their fight survival. However, even then and there, it is woman who provides Love and community, and allows progress to occur. In a modern world of stress and striving for advantages over others – it is the possibility of a relationship of a man with a woman that brings the possibility of bringing the powers of both the sacred male and female together. Working together as a cosmic duo – man and woman, are able to work together to move their world.
On the world level – the sacred female looms more and more in importance – if humanity is to survive. At a time when any nation can suddenly pounce on its neighbor and savagely slaughter people and grab precious resources – it is the power of the sacred female which must prevail. In the words of Mirabai Starr, in her book, Wild Mercy – Living the Fierce and Tender Wisdom of the Women Mystics: ‘When the [feminine mystic] hears the cries of the world, she reaches out and grasps the hands of her sisters, gathers up her children and asks the blessings of her elders, kisses her lover and turns the kettle to simmer, and rides straight into the arms of the Mystery, where she will wait until it is clear what needs to be done. Then, together with her companions, she will do it.’
At this time of excruciating horror in Ukraine, we remember the valiant cries of Pussy Riot and other heroes of the past two decadeswho have challenged intransigence and brutality directed towards their country. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and all other victims of atrocities – in a world that just cannot seem to understand – that we are all on a big blue ball in Black space. We must! – all work! – in peace! – together!
THE END
Notes
Creative Clusters
This is actually the end of this minibook – however, ideas keep occurring to us – and we feel that there can be benefit in getting new ideas out as soon as possible. So just like we used to go to the movies to see a feature film – but there was usually a bonus moment, like a cartoon, which had nothing to do with the movie we wanted to see – but which added spice to the night – in this spirit – we submit this.
In the major religions, choruses singing seem to be so important – and important to our conception of what heaven might be like – with angels singing together and all that. Perhaps there is a physical basis – a physical reality to all of that.
A crowd, a cloud of hydrogen ions seems to be more and more important to our conception of how the cosmos works – and also how and why life on earth arose! We have written minibooks on these things. Yet there is a visual – aural – concept that arises naturally when one considers how such particles and amalgams of particles – that is, atoms – might work together.
When a cloud of ions was creating life – they would have had to communicate with each other. Their language would be waves – waves like music. Fifty ions working together could be a noisy, raucous affair with fifty voices each singing a different song – I mean, in creating something, at first different ideas and points of view are encouraged – in order to come up with the ultimate great idea. However, once an objective is obtained, it is important that all ions be singing the same song. This is like our conception of a star, or nebula, wherein ions might be flashing back and forth from individual entities, to One great mind – back and forth. As we have said, humans can be distracted, even to the point of diminishing productivity if they stop and consider that every person seems to be the center of the universe. Ions may have a corrective for this – they have the experience of flashing back and forth from the One – to the many – back and forth – so they realize that they are not alone – they are not It – there is always something larger, all inclusive. And so the conception of the celestial chorus – a moment when all particles in a group – are on the same page – possess the same sheet music – are singing the same song together – this may be an example of the same thing.
Of course, this is ultimately not about singing. This is a communication phase of a productive, constructive, creative, building moment. First, ions sing together – then they act, work – together – to build tools – build the new. – build the future! Clusters of creative ions worked over billions of years of effort. These invisible clouds, crowds of creativity – created Life!
Hemispheric Dominance in the Brain
Sorry – one more thing came to mind.
This idea pertains to the development and creativity of the right and left sides of the brains. The left side can be like a fireworks – a great burst – and then quickly it is over. Twenty-six years of age seems to be a decisive time: occasioned by the reduction of mental powers for the ledt side of the brain. Whereas the right side seems to remain being creative – at a very high level – throughout life. Actually, the right side of the brain spends a life-time creating a synthesis of connected ideas. Mental powers associated with the right side of the brain thus are increasing constantly – as one’s synthesis keeps growing – the longer a person lives.
We all are acquainted with the television show, The Big Bang – with its hero, well, almost a nemesis – it is difficult to watch him sometimes – the protagonist, such as he may be – is Sheldon Cooper – an arrogant, obnoxious supergenius – who attempts to live in the real world with real people. Mr. Andres has had genius friends throughout his life. He knew he was sort of smart, but that never became an important part of his personalty. For one thing, he was right hemispheric dominant and he always felt stupid around his analytical friends – this even though he and they always had a great time together and with one he actually won an award at a science fair. But he always thought he was sort of dumb. This was because his abilities were not identified when he was in school and no one helped him develop them. It wasn’t until college that he realized what the situation was and he took off!
In this space we would like to point out a few things about genius. Yes, people like Sheldon Cooper exist – still our experience is that the guy with a 200 analytical I.Q. is not standing around impressing people. He simply has too much going on in his mind to even think about others. What is going on in his mind is always a type of mathematics or something. And he has a spot memory so he remembers everything – which is really in the end quite a nuisance – we would imagine – think of James Joyce and Ulysses – all that garbage Joyce had in his mind which he was stuck with forever.
The thing is – the left side of the brain peaks early – Mr. Andres’ daughter was doing astounding things at two years of age. Yet Einstein was done – basically – by the age of 26. All that relativity stuff was wrong. The left side brilliance is gone early. The right side of the brain grows in strength as the synthesis in one’s mind grows great and powerful. The tragedy here too often is that all genius does a stupid thing – he or she eventually thinks it is over. Many are dead by the magic year 37. The reality is this – there may be 50 steps in solving a problem brilliantly. Around the year 25 the left hemisphere begins to lose the ability to negotiate two or three of these steps him or herself. The rest of his or her mind is just as brilliant. The key here is the same as we found in the section on Martin Buber – two working together – is the key to it all. Find a person with the complementary abilities – a McCartney finds his Lennon, Crick finds his Watson, Laurel finds his Hardy – the complementary person not only can do what the other cannot, he or she is one of the strongest in the world at doing those things – exactly those three things that the left hemisphere has lost. Together, creative couples explode! – together, there is no expiration date – creativity goes on until death.
In all of this genius-working-with-genius stuff: Well, first of all, one does not have to be a genius to be creative, especially if one finds a friend with the complementary abilities – then we all can be creative. But when we start to work – remember biorhythms – that are like the tides – highs and lows during the day. Tides in real life move constantly – but the one in your mind is primordial or something and is fixed 5am – 11am, 11am – 5pm, 5pm – 11pm, 11pm – 5am. Observe how your brain works. Which periods are you at peak performance and when are you not so great. The times always alternate.
Good luck!
Nietzsche and Eternal Reoccurrence
And then there is another idea:
Okay – we cannot have discussed Nietzsche properly and not dismissed his idea of Eternal Reoccurrence. So here we go!
Nietzsche asserted this proposition – and for most people, we surmise, his thinking seems persuasive. It all boils down to the five dimensions – space, time, and energy. And we defy any one to place before us the name of anyone who has properly discussed these. We, on the other hand, have discussed these things in detail in other books – but let us revisit this issue, once and for all.
Oh, I know, Einstein must be the expert on space and time – after all, he relies upon the concept of the space-time continuum for his conception for how gravity is generated. However, if one examines Dr. Einstein’s works, nowhere is there an analysis of what time is.
So we shall review what we have found.
But first what did Nietzsche believe? – so we will know what we are supposed to be talking about here. Nietzsche asserted that space and time are infinite. Matter on the other hand, is finite – therefore, everything that has happened in the past in the cosmos – is fated to occur again. There seemed to be a glint of hope for eternal life of some sort here. But Nietzsche did not seem to have grasped on to that idea.
In a nutshell, the question is: Is matter infinite? This can be answered only if we know if space and time are indeed infinite. Why is this? Well, one will soon know. So are space and time infinite? Well, of course, they are. Well, hold on there – no one really seems to know what they are – how can one be certain as to what there characteristics might be?
First, what is space? That seems easy. It is a place that can be filled with something. But there’s a catch here. It is like the idea of nothing – there can not be nothing, unless there is something. It is the something that Heidegger constantly missed. It seems as if Heidegger was always writing about – nothing! But for us: There is no nothing – if you are not looking for something. There is nothing in that meadow over there. What! – there are flowers and trees! Well, I was looking for cows. Space, like nothing, lacks a concept – if there is nothing. When we seriously examine the five – yes, five – dimensions – we can ascertain exactly what they are – well, when we do that – finally, we shall know exactly what space is. As it turns out – it is not – nothing.
The major idea to be considered here is this – all five dimensions are comparisons that our minds make between something we know – and something we don’t know.
For example, with space. Space measures, describes the extension of matter. You take a ruler with known extension – and use it to describe a rock – an item whose extensions are unknown.
What is time? Time describes movement. You take a motion you know – the motion of the earth – which a clock duplicates – and compare it with the movement of a sprinter. So stop right there – please, Dr. Einstein – please pay attention. What a clock is doing – is – duplicating the rotation of the earth! – which is a constant – and never changes. One must never forget this fact! A clock is has nothing to do with time – if its mechanism is not duplicating the revolution of the earth. A clock goes slower – time slows down. No! Has the earth changed speed. No!
Sorry about that!
So these are four dimensions – is there a fifth?
Look around the room – You see things – that’s three dimensions. These things move – there is the fourth dimension. What is missing – what is not being described by the four dimensions we have found?
The Light! Yes, the Light – energy is the fifth dimension – and again you take something that emits energy at a known rate and compare all other energy with it.
Yes! – all five dimensions are comparisons! They exist only in a mind. They are tools our mind uses to help describe the world around us. So, sorry there is no space-time continuum – ‘out there.’
As you quickly might have noticed – all five dimensions are in Einstein’s equation E = mc^2. All fundamental physical equations such as F – ma embody all five dimensions.
So back to Nietzsche.
Are space and time infinite? As we have seen both are related intimately to matter. One describes the extension of matter. The other the movement of matter. So whatever matter is – then space and time are related to it – and cannot exist without it.
So is matter infinite? Well, it is – and it isn’t.
Matter is composed of energy. Matter is not infinite – because it changes form constantly over countless years. However, energy is another matter. In an eternity – there must have been starts and stops. Only God can create things. Only God can create a cosmos. So at least God – is infinite. Doesn’t it seem that when things get really difficult to explain we attribute it all in the end to God? Well, in this case, it seems appropriate. God is energy. Energy possesses consciousness – with Will, Love, Truth, Beauty, and Justice. And all of this seems to be eternal.
So, matter is finite. Mass is energy – wrapped up in a package. Energy is infinite the number of packages energy may take can change, change, and change over an infinity of time. Thus matter is made of energy – and the forms energy might take – are many – and can change many times over an infinite amount of time.
So Nietzsche was wrong.
Yet –
Come on now, Nietzsche, there is something here that you are missing – and it seems obvious.
Energy is infinite. Therefore, the parade of the forms of matter are infinite. Life as we know it, is one of these forms. The I in these life-forms are consciousness – like a small God. What is the probability that your I is existing right now! – in the face of eternal energy? The probability that you have an I exist that is ‘looking out’ right now, right here – in the face of infinity – is 100 – 99.99 percent with an infinite number of 9’s after it. What this says is – there is no probability that you exist now – unless! – Unless your I has existed all along! Then there is a 100 percent probability that you should exist right now! What we think is: It is safe to assume that the most important part of you – your I – is eternal! This idea is so much more exciting than mere eternal reoccurrence – an eternal groundhog Life.
More Ideas Concerning the Solipsistic I
Well, this minibook was in approximately this state when we looked over it one more time to see if there was something more we might add. That is when we read Herman Hesse’s Demian again. Well, our translation from the German – is 171 pages long – and we had read it once before, twenty years ago – well, way long ago when we thought it was some inconsequential yarn about a boy who was ‘possessed’, or something. Well, this time after 25 pages, we knew that Herr Hesse was actually talking about the solipsistic I ! But don’t you see, when we are talking about things such as the I – philosophy and psychology become biology! For when we are talking about the I – we are talking about a thing – which is physiologically a part of the brain. We understand now that humans are animals and that the social sciences must be placed upon a biological basis for these disciplines to become powerful and be able to contribute in a sweeping manner to scientific thought.
Well, when we were thinking about the solipsistic I, we couldn’t understand why so many bad things seem to be related to it. We mean, the crux of the matter is: I am the center of the cosmos – I, am ‘looking out’ –we suppose – we can conjecture – that other people, and other living things may be experiencing the same phenomenon in sort of the same way – yet it can not be denied – I – am ‘looking out’ – and that I is the most important thing in the cosmos – it is magic!
That is: This phenomenon probably is the source of all magic! And regardless of what others might think – we know, we really know one thing, for sure: This I – is important! We mean: There is an I – ‘looking out’ – and that I – is the center – of everything! It is the center of the – entire cosmos! What is there not to like?
Yet there is so much bad that seems to be associated with the solipsistic I – all this trouble about being on a slippery slope – about being on the edge of a precipice – ready to fall into an abyss. And then there is the fact that all our ideas concerning the Devil and bad things seem to come from this source – even though the solipsistic I is absolutely essential for one to become highly creative.
Let us see what Herr Hesse can tell us about these things – along with other things that we know:
Well, about twenty years ago a lady psychologist told Mr. Andres that many feelings and ideas are stored, are hidden in our unconscious that are related to one’s birth. After nine months of heaven in Mommy’s tummy – where there was warmth and all needs were met – suddenly one is caught for a time, trapped, one’s movement severely limited in Mommy’s pelvis. All sorts of phobias including extreme claustrophobia can probably be traced to this one moment in our earthy existence.
There is a comparable time to this in the moments, hours, days, months for an infant – after childbirth. This is a time when for the infant the solipsistic I is at full blaze in his or her consciousness – he or she is absolutely alone – there is no one else. After nine months of heaven – this is hell. This is terror! We mean, an infant after nine months of constant care – well, all of this – yet with not much thought from the mother carrying him or her – it is True – now the infant is essentially, well, almost abandoned! Well, it is a relative, comparative thing – a mother never wants to neglect her child – but compared to the nine months before – what she is doing – is not even in the ball park. And when an infant cries it seems to be more screams than just tears – I mean, the infant is in a strange, alien world, cold, wet, alone – the fact is: For most animals this is a time with the most dangerous exposure to predators – still, compared to other mammals, human beings are born too soon, they are unfinished, unready as yet – to meet the world.
Mommy immediately attempts to bring this new being to the feeling of being more safe – with this frightening, alien world ever threatening around him or her – first, at the breast, held to the warmth of the chest – then there is father, siblings, and most of all Christmas – with its lights, warmth of fire places, and extending family. As quickly as possible, Mommy attempts to build a social I in the new life – to eliminate this terror. Yet Mommy’s work may sometimes remain unfinished – Daddy may never be fully separated from that alien, cold beginning. The Oedipus complex may not be the sexual phenomenon that Freud envisioned. Daddy may ever represent the edge of a cliff – one step from a fall – into terror.
In addition, this is where the Devil and witches – come from. When we encounter anything that might erode the effect of the social I and move us back to the slippery slope which falls away to the terror of the infant – well, we rebel – we have religion! – we have ways! No! We will not tolerate such things! That certain idea that that that lady has – is bad! That person is threatening to me, to us, to society – burn her!
Yet the solipsistic I is where all creativity comes from.
We think things are easy – then we think a bit. There is so much Truth that is hidden from us – in the depths of our unconscious.
Bibliography
Breisach, Ernst, Introduction to Modern Existentialism (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1962), 246pp.
Kaufmann, Walter, Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (New York: Penguin Books, 1975), 384pp.
Kaufmann, Walter, Religion from Tolstoy to Camus (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1969), 450pp.
Rogers, Nigel and Mel Thompson, Understand Existentialism (Ontario, Canada: McGraw Hill, 2010), 210pp.
Solomon, Robert C., Existentialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 377pp.