We are a little more than a month into the Trump sequel. So how is it going? Cringeworthy, huh? If you think this performance is good, then you might really delight in seeing functional systems and institutions destroyed. This rampage is not reform. It is demolition. It is safe to say that this is the worst launch of a presidential administration ever.

Let’s look at some highlights. There are the inferior cabinet picks, where expertise is shunned in favor of partisan bootlicking. There is the white supremacist nationalist Defense secretary with demonstrated ethical lapses. We have a conspiracy-addled anti-vaxer leading HHS. The nation now has an authoritarian-loving flatterer as Director of National Intelligence. And then there is the paranoid revenge-fueled FBI Director who also feeds off conspiracies and is ready to suppress free speech. What a rouge’s gallery!

In another despicable display by our leader is the latest embrace of Putin and its accompanying distancing of democracy as is evident in his throwing Ukraine under the bus. So the only way the US is now ready to aid an invaded democracy is if they agree to hand over 50% of their most valued minerals and agree to having their invader keep a third of their country? And listen to Vance in Munich giving his Yale-educated polished justification to why the post-war international order that has sustained democracies for eighty years is no longer worth keeping. What a slap in the face of the Greatest Generation!

And what to make of the shenanigans of our unelected co-president Elon Musk? Is this what Republicans want, a South African oligarch making decisions about what US governmental programs stay or go and what benefits his businesses? And as a tax payer and Social Security recipient, I know I’m not alone in being incensed that Musk has given access to a bunch of his twenty-something employees to handle the records of US citizens.

I see three levels of support for Trump, firstly the hardliner MAGA cultists, secondly the lifelong Republicans who have convinced themselves that Trump is better than the satanic Democrats, and thirdly those who were angry that grocery prices were too high in the aftermath of the pandemic. It is this third group that make up the president’s softer support. And they will be the first to bail on him if inflation does not come down.

This third group is starting to waver. Consumer sentiment is increasingly pessimistic and Wall Street is beginning to show some reservations. Trump and Vance themselves are now distancing themselves from talk of lower consumer prices. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval ratings are dropping.

Should we be surprised? No! This is what the USA voted for. There will be pain to feel in this country and it is hard to not shout, “So, what did you expect when you voted for this guy America?!”

Truth is such a sonorous word. It resounds with a command and a power reserved for only supreme ideas, the beliefs which are immutable and not to be doubted. We are raised in a world governed by indisputable premises such as traditional ideas of what is right and wrong. Who are we to question the values and edicts laid down by our elders, time-honored institutions, and conventions as old as civilization?

Truth carries the weight of the sacred. It provides certainty, a bedrock of assuredness, a shelter from the storm of chaos and entropy buffeting our lives. All ambiguity, indecision, and insecurity can be soothed by pinning one’s life to that which is undeniably real, Truth.

Human endeavors are based on a foundation of what we believe to be true. Whether it is the legal system, organized religion, the art guild, or any of the other grand institutional structures of custom that coordinate and guide society. The throughline is that all such human entities are operated upon principles widely accepted to be true. Indeed, expressing and acting on statements of truth is the core essence of human motivation.

Despite the zeal associated with living by what is truth, skepticism nevertheless sneaks in and brings forth hesitancy. Is there really a truth from on high or is truth nothing more than a ploy to direct one’s thoughts and behaviors? In short, it is worth pondering whether there really is a Truth with a capital “T” or should truth be relegated to a collection of common mortal concepts, including value, justification, belief, inquiry, etc.?

There are two schools of thought pertaining to the veracity of truth. (For the sake of consistency, I will now refrain from spelling truth with a capital “T”. Note, no value judgment is to be inferred by this decision.) On the one hand is the belief truth is intrinsic — unshakably steadfast and independent from outside perceptions. On the other hand is the view truth is instrumental — a malleable concept that has at most practical utility for achieving certain ends.

Intrinsic truth is woven into the fabric of the universe. Truth in this context is an expression of the essence of existence. It is divine in its radiance. It is reliably resolute. Instrumental truth is patently human. Handled like a tool, truth is wielded in service to a mission of achieving usefulness, practicality, and attainment of a desired goal. If truth is not advantageous, then it loses significance.

Examples may help to clarify the distinction between these two renditions.

Intrinsic truth, which philosophers would place as a subset of Realism, is first and foremost mind-independent. Truths in the real world are valid whether there is a thinker or perceiver or not. For example, science is replete with laws and facts describing the world and universe as it is naturally or inherently. Newton’s First Law of Motion declares that an object at rest stays at rest while an object in motion remains in motion unless impacted by an outside force. Further, water boils at 100º centigrade and freezes at 0° centigrade. These events are everywhere considered true whether or not there is an observer to see these actions.

Beyond science there are agreed upon moral truths such as not killing a defenseless person, not enslaving another, and that honesty is better than lying or deception. Indeed, our entire legal system is premised on a belief that justice and fairness is a fundamental truth applicable in all cultures and transcending all time.

An instrumental or pragmatist position of truth discounts or flatly rejects an emphasis on linking truth to metaphysical reality. The value of truth is in its expediency and the benefit it provides to people. Returning to Newtonian science, truth is determined by how scientific laws and facts can be used to foretell future materialist conduct. This predictive capability leads to innovations and novel implementations. Because scientific laws assist people in solving problems, then they are true. Truth does not derive from a manifestation of the universe.

Occasionally intrinsic and instrumental appeals for truth commingle in a sense. To illustrate, let’s take religious belief. Many people of a religious persuasion may fully accept that God is the source of all truth. If God wants something, then it must be indubitably true. However, it is possible there could be church members who embrace religious truths simply because doing so results in more purposeful and satisfying lives regardless of any divine origins or attachments.

Given the duality of truth telling, if you will, what then it the version of truth that is the most authentic? Is truth a fundamental aspect of reality or is truth more of a serviceable construct for people to utilize as they see fit?

I take an all-of-the-above position on truth. Yes, I accept the Platonic notion of a primary and primitive essence to nature in which universal truths are to be found. And I acknowledge that truth is not always as absolutist as commonly proclaimed, but rather is adaptable and compliant as human needs arise.

Philosophers refer to a Platonic conception of the universe. This invention is rooted in the claim Plato made which is that reality consists of two domains, one a fixed and pure realm of perfect forms, the other a fluid and imperfect, but sensible and tangible physical world, influenced by, but not directly mirrored by the purity and perfection of the realm of forms. Plato went further to describe the cosmos as possessing an active soul, the purpose of which is to continually model the ideal when bringing order to earthly reality as we know it.

Admittedly, to accept Plato’s vision is to buy into a reality that is determined and transcendental. Religion would call it divine or heavenly. Within this specter lies what is at heart. It is the core of all substance and experience. It is here that intrinsic truth lies. And I agree it is real. To be clear, I am far from being sufficiently aware or at all mystical to characterize in detail a complete construct of the realm of pure forms. That said, I am comfortable in believing that a monistic and aboriginal oversoul is at play in manifesting reality.

The early Greek Stoics spoke of a generative spirit, a sacred principle that governs the universe. This energy puts order to the cosmos, nature, and indeed reality itself. It is in this Stoic term logos that I look for intrinsic truth.

As much as many of us would like to reserve truth for intrinsic purposes only, we must appreciate truth is often used as a cudgel for reaching an objective. When someone speaks of the need to adhere to the truth it is reasonable for any critical thinker to question the aims of any issuer of truth’s fidelity. For the word truth can be bantered about casually, if not carelessly.

Truth, as it turns out, lies singularly in the eyes of the beholder. This use of instrumentalism is nowhere more evident than in the practice of politics. This brings me to the comedian Stephen Colbert who in 2005 coined the term “truthiness”, a clever parody of instrumental truth. Colbert recognized and mocked a disingenuous tendency practiced by politicians, political parties, and their supporters. There is a predilection to disconnect truth from evidence, facts, logic, and instead align truth with emotions, gut feelings, and idiosyncratic notions. Truth becomes what feels good, not what can be rationally confirmed. Truth becomes what one wishes truth to be, not what can be factually demonstrated.

Here in America we see truthiness on full display with the rise of right-wing populism. Donald Trump has built a brand and a rise to power by being fast and loose with the veritable truth. I for one never know when to believe him, so it is sensible to just not take him for his word at all. And I am not alone. At least half of this country knows he is a liar, but he gets elected president, twice.

This brings us to a serious fault with instrumental truth. If a society cannot agree on what is real and true, then we are a house divided indeed. The rise of misinformation, disinformation, psychological manipulation, gaslighting, fear mongering, and all the rest fractures institutions, social trust, and civility. America is deep into this dark place right now.

American Pragmatism was a philosophical movement that began in the 1870s with the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce and it continued to be intellectually influential with thinkers and writers such as William James and John Dewey well into the twentieth century until the 1940s. A hallmark of the pragmatism movement journey was in placing credence into human practicality as the grounds for meaning and truth. Philosophy among the pragmatists held value in how well it solved day to day problems encountered by ordinary people. The Platonic ideal was rejected because it was seen as too abstract and removed from commonplace life. Pragmatism underscored the utility of thought through empiricism and experience. It greatly influenced American institutions in law, education, political theory, religion, and social progress.

The pragmatist movement judged truth by how well it solved problems over time. Claims of what is true were subjected to stringent inquiry and testing to determine how well their usefulness held up long term. Examples of this include William James’s “cash value” idea, which promoted labeling a concept true if it helps to bring success. When using a map for instance one would want to know if the map shows an accurate way to a desired destination. If it does, then the information on the map is true.

John Dewey introduced the theory of “warranted assertibility”. A scientific hypothesis could be considered true if the hypothesis withstood continual experimentation and inquiry and was always shown to deliver necessary and predictable results. C.S. Peirce also emphasized rigorous analysis of truth claims and was satisfied that assertions were true if a collective consensus emerged.

The level of instrumentalism essentially applied to truth by American Pragmatism is in the American blood, so to speak. Since intrinsic truth is not empirically verifiable, even for the faithful, then a collective harmony is desired for a society to best function. We are stuck with an instrumental view of the truth whether we like it or not.

Like many things in life, truth is a paradox. It is both rock solid, but also pliable. It can point us to the marrow of existence, but also to which product we should reserve consumer loyalty to. We can try clinging to truth for stability, but find the support has too much play in it. This I know, when anyone tells me something is true I will retain a healthy dose of skepticism. Although truth is a subjective interpretation, if we can largely agree on what is true we can work and live together. If not, then we are at odds.

Most of us grew up and were educated in a world in which classical physics ruled as the basis for understanding reality. Of course this does not mean we all took high school physics class, but the scientific cornerstone for how we think of reality has been established in traditional classical physics.

Sure, we knew quantum mechanics was a thing out there among the brainiac set, but it was too esoteric for us normal everyday people to seriously consider. After all, quantum mechanics has a well deserved reputation for being hard to understand. It is beyond rocket science. It is really far out there.

Newtonian classical physics on the other hand was relatively accessible. Attainable that is to the extent that any disciplined science like physics is approachable to average folks. Classical physics has had a way of seeping from the halls of academia to the general population in that it has formed our conventionally accepted mindset respecting the nature of reality.

And what is this outlook? It can best be described by what western philosophy calls realism. In short, realism is the view that substance or material and the things made of materials belong distinctly to a world and universe external from ourselves. Objectivity is the guiding principle. Reality is objective. It is detached from our subjective perspectives. We are merely observers to a reality that was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Or so we are led to believe.

Underpinning this objective and mind-independent notion of reality is a belief in immutable laws of nature as posited by Isaac Newton and his followers. Indeed, this is science at work. We are unquestioningly convinced by the scientific elite that a deterministic set of motions and rules sprang forth from the Big Bang which has continued to shape the universe ever since. And then to be told by them that something is a law, as in Newton’s laws of motion, says in a stern voice, “This is how IT IS, period!”

When a cause and effect interplay occurs predictably resulting in a well defined materialist or energetic action, such as a drought lowering the water level of a pond, we see it as evidence of reality demonstrating what it does naturally. To us it is common sense. However, strongly implied in this observation is that reality has a fixed and steady quality to it. Change, when it happens, is just part of the interaction of basic elements, but underneath it all exists a permanent and enduring lay of the land.

Quantum mechanics is now trickling into the common way of thinking about what is real, albeit slowly, after one hundred years of its being on the scene. The influence of quantum mechanics is becoming profound, especially regarding the way it calls into question the permanence of realism. Quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty where before there was consistency and reliability. We have come to learn that reality is probabilistic rather than assured. The universe may be unfolding as it should, but it is doing so in way that is not so easily discerned.

Indeed, it is in the area of quantum measurement where we run into ambiguity. In quantum mechanics there is a principle known as superposition, which states that the subatomic wave-particle (the basic quantum entity) abides in many different states concurrently until a measurement is attempted. Upon calculation, one of the multifarious conditions of the wave-particle is recorded. Had time or space or the means of measuring been different, then another computation could have been yielded.

In short, there is no single and invariable assessment that can be made about a wave-particle. The measurement could have been any one of many possibilities.

Superposition therefore suggests that the very practice of measuring reality at the quantum level actually creates the reality seen by the observer. Measurement no longer computes a primeval or pre-existing state of affairs. Instead measurement reveals one out of many possible views of reality. Materials it seems do not have well defined and fixed traits. Rather reality requires that an observer be present to register that reality exists, or at least one perspective of reality.

Quantum mechanics raises the possibility that how we have thought about reality may be defective. Philosophical realism has not yet reconciled itself with the superposition principle of quantum mechanics. It is hard to see how these two schools of thought will ever harmonize. What we thought was a clockwork universe governed by physical laws is now called into question.

The implications of randomness and uncertainty being fundamental aspects of reality are far-reaching. What else does this call into question? Is Truth now also erratic? Are values fickle and unstable? Will anything last in perpetuity any longer? When the very essence of reality is called into question, then so also is the world we thought we knew.

In an act of fear, malice, and desperation and with a desire to anesthetize themselves against a changing world Americans chose Donald Trump as the 47th president. Our nation’s march toward normalization of zealotry, bigotry, vileness, and deceit is now more entrenched. We are no longer Reagan’s “Shining City on a Hill”. We traded that imagery for one that is now no more than a blemish on a pillaged landscape.

Elections are usually about forging a more hopeful future. We are accustomed to expect optimism and promise following a national plebiscite. However, in the electoral debacle which just occurred it is challenging to see from where the benefits may arise. A view of the horizon now does not reveal encouragement and confidence about social enhancements to come, but rather base level confrontations, hate, anger, and retributions designed to concentrate power among an insular privileged class.

As the refashioned Republican Party has clearly taught us the rules of the game have now changed. By electing a criminal, serial liar, rapist, fraudster, and insurrectionist we essentially have given ourselves permission to believe these faults are really not so bad. Indeed, if that is what it takes to return America to a land where white, heterosexual, Christian, corporate, patriarchy is in charge, then so be it. This appears to be the consensus. Good luck America with that one! Trump is merely the means to a fanciful and illusory end of “greatness” as the nation will soon come to realize.

The opposition to this now dominant MAGA mindset will have to become more creative. The strategies, tactics, and coalitions opposing leaders will need to employ must adjust to the unethical approaches the Trump acolytes effectively exploit for their self-righteous gains. A transformed center-left/center-right partnership that imagines practical and potent counterpoints and recognizes opportunities to effectively confront the MAGA nonsense will need to emerge.

Above all, the resistance to Trump must be rooted in the principles of equality and freedom set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Trumpism has already begun to erode both of these tenets and reestablishing and reinvigorating them must be a priority of any moral and virtuous dissent. In addition, defiance against Trump and his followers must be muscular when Constitutional protections are threatened.

Also of note, exit polls show that many Trump voters held their noses as they voted for him. Reuters and CNN exit polling both had the disapproval of Trump by his own voters at 53%. Presumably they were either lifelong Republicans who just couldn’t make themselves join other Republican defectors to vote for a Democrat or they were trying to make an economic statement, due to inflation. These may be among the first to bail on Trump once they see his expected abuses of power. It is sad that they did not step up for the health of their country when they had the chance on November 5.

Speaking of inflation, Biden received the blame of course for higher consumer prices since 2021 because they occurred on his watch. This overly simplistic view did not take into account how the Covid pandemic with its supply chain disruptions, surge in demand for consumer goods, labor shortages, the Feds expansionary monetary policy, and disruptions in energy and commodity markets were instead the prime culprits. Now we have Trump promising to introduce a slew of new tariffs which are anticipated to drive up the costs of imported goods. Stay tuned.

Time will tell, but chances are quite good that the election of an illiberal and corrupt leader empowered recently by the Supreme Court and by the American electorate will prove to be disastrous for the nation in multiple ways. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. We shall see. In the meantime, let’s treat each other as good neighbors and join in protecting the defenseless and the powerless against those who would bully their way to dominance during these unprincipled times.

At present it looks as if we are in for a tough few years. If so, we asked for it and we deserve it. Just don’t blame me, I proudly voted for Kamala!

With five weeks to go until election day in the U.S. I am compiling some short opinion essays I prepared over the past several months challenging the legitimacy and merit of the Make America Great Again or MAGA populist movement of Donald Trump’s. This collection is dynamic and I expect more pieces to be added to this group between now and election day. I will let the individual pieces speak for themselves without any preparatory explanation.

The Key Fault of Trumpism

I begin with a premise. It is that freedom and equality are the two pillars of what our country was founded upon and which has for the past 247 years sustained the United States of America. I contend these two are similarly weighted fundamental values.

We hear much of the significance of freedom. We are the “Sweet Land of Liberty” and here in New Hampshire we proudly proclaim “Live Free or Die”. But what of equality?

Jefferson wrote in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”. And Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, after proclaiming that we as a nation, “were conceived in liberty”, stressed that we were, “dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal”.

It is clear to students of history that the spacious expansion of human development wrought by the Enlightenment first found a pragmatic foothold here in America. It came in the form of asserting universal freedom and equality for all Americans.

Yet here we are. The Right hugs freedom tightly and the Left declares equality matters. Trumpism, the aberration of conservatism, does not mention equality. In fact, it sees equality as a threat. This deluded movement seeks to retain the privileged position of those who historically have held wealth and power. And they have absorbed the working class to do their bidding with cynical cultural fears.

Trumpism is a grave peril to America. It seeks to rescind the democratic tradition of the United States in favor of a continued supremacy of the privileged. It does not want to share the fruits of America with those who they consider to be others. In their minds, others threaten their status, power, and wealth.

The Constitution continues to articulate and to promote the way forward for all Americans. Let us not allow a misguided and fearful faction of our population to diminish what makes America great. Trumpism must be defeated!

A Trump Role Model

Supporters of Trumpism in America point to Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010, as an example of the kind of illiberal leader they want to see in the United States. Before rightwing conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News, he relocated his show twice to Budapest. The U.S. Political Conservative Action Conference (CPAC) held a special event in Budapest that was opened by Orban, and he was again present at the group’s 2022 national conference in Texas. Among the MAGA crowd, Orban is a rockstar.

So, what is it like in Hungary under Orban’s rule? Most notably is the concentration of power within Orban’s government due to emergencies known as “states of danger”. Orban identifies and “manages” crises to justify ruling by decree and nullifying acts of parliament and the judiciary he doesn’t like.

For example, one group of Hungarian professionals to feel the brunt of Orban’s iron fist have been teachers. They are seeking better working conditions and salaries. He not only restricted their right to strike, but passed what is called a “revenge law”, which expands teachers’ working hours and workloads and allows the government to relocate or dismiss teachers as they see fit. Last year a protest by high school students in support of their teachers was met by police using tear gas.

In another instance, women’s reproductive rights have been increasingly limited under Orban. There is now language in the Hungarian constitution by Orban’s government “protecting the fetus from conception”. There must be only serious risk to a woman’s life or a badly damaged fetus for abortion to be allowed. In a related move, Hungary has also outlawed adoption by same sex couples.

There are many other examples of freedom restrictions and offenses against journalists, media outlets, civil society organizations, LGBT people, asylum seekers, and the Roma people.

Seems odd that a group of Americans who claim to embrace freedom would admire this kind of ruler. But they do. It makes one skeptical about what they really value. Is it power at any price, some version of cultural or religious purity, anger at growing American multiculturism, or simply the joy of sticking it to people they don’t like?

Support for Orban-styled governance is not promoting freedom. Believing an autocrat will keep their people free is completely illogical. Quite the opposite is the likely outcome. A political movement that wants to emulate Viktor Orban is not one true American patriots should accept.

Trumpism and Autocracy

Democracy, as we know it in the modern western world and now across the globe, is a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking. Sure, we all grew up in what has become a traditional form of American democracy, but let’s not forgot that we are but a small number of generations to have experienced this form of governance.

More typical throughout human history have been governments that adhere to a principle of centralized control over the population. Decision making concerning the rights and welfare of the people was concentrated on a single ruler or among a small set of overlords. Wielding absolute power is justified by a selective belief that autocrats know more than the collective beliefs and wishes of the populace.

Whether we call them a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, a theocracy, a tribe, a clan, an autocracy, or despotism there are some common attributes present when absolute power is exercised. Chief among them is a lack of accountability. Rule can be arbitrary or malicious and the people must accept it. Corruption and nepotism become common. Political opposition is suppressed. Institutions are weakened. This is how governments around the world functioned for millennia.

Until the eighteenth century that is. In the British colonies of America, a novel concept emerged among thinkers and the common people alike influenced by European Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant, among others. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people became the core value and message. A grand democratic experiment was underway. In time it led to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

And now that splendid standard of rule by the people is being seriously questioned by a segment of Americans. One does not have to look far to see seemingly normal everyday Americans on camera or in writing doubting the legitimacy and continuance of democracy. More than that, they express acceptance of the notion that our country is so threatened by a host of evil forces that despotic rule is the only recourse to return America to a greatness which they feel has been lost.

The MAGA movement gives voice to those who threaten our democracy. They are willing to risk snapping us back to the discredited past of despotism. This ideology does not want to go through the messy sausage making of reconciliation and a democratic rules-based government that accepts a multitude of viewpoints. Their level of self-righteousness, insularity, and unwillingness to compromise is a shock to a system that demands we all work together in a spirit of give and take for the common good.

The degree of fear, anger, and mistrust being expressed by Trumpism is beyond reason. It is driven by raw and destructive emotion. Autocracy is a threat to our country and needs to be defeated at the ballot box before it’s too late.

Trumpism and Christianity

What is going on with American Christianity? I accept that the Christian church throughout American history has never been a monolithic entity or uniform congregation and it should not be viewed that way. However, the schism now occurring in the dominant faith of America is of a different nature with the ascent of Christian Nationalism.

The term Christian Nationalism has gained political currency ever since Donald Trump blundered into all our lives eight years ago. From my observation of the phenomenon, I would identify Christian Nationalism as a movement of extreme religious and cultural moralism that envisions America as a fundamentally Christian nation. In this world, the nation’s culture and institutions should reflect the principles, practices, and policies consistent with a narrow and traditional interpretation of Christian values.

Many of Trump’s supporters subscribe to Christian Nationalism. Indeed, they are a significant segment of his base. Nevertheless, I contend that fundamentalist Christianity runs a risk to its future and viability as a cultural force by aligning itself so closely to the MAGA movement. I’ll explain.

As an institution, Christianity is in decline in America, particularly among younger Americans. The Pew Research Center surveyed the number of Americans who self-identified as Christians. In 2009 the number was 77%. In 2019 the number was 65%. Additionally, the number of Americans declaring themselves as religiously unaffiliated is growing. Of the top five most secular states in the nation, New Hampshire is listed along with Vermont and Maine.

Trumpism appears to appeal more to an older demographic who yearn for what they perceive as the good old days. By associating Christian Nationalism with Trumpism one wonders, does doing so grow the ranks of Christians among the young or hasten its decline?

Furthermore, Trumpism is opposed to pluralism and promoting diversity in the country. Christian Nationalists appear to be older and whiter. When conducting an AI search (ChatGPT), which scans nearly the entirety of the internet, regarding generations and attitudes toward pluralism the results reveal that Millennials and Generation Z, “tend to hold more favorable views towards pluralism than older generations”.

I realize Trump supporters will most likely not be dissuaded from supporting their candidate. But their support may come at a heavy price. After all, aren’t there some things more valuable and worth preserving than an ethically flawed and irreligious candidate — even one who sells Bibles at $60 each.

Trumpism’s Lack of Decency

We have become a courser and less kind country since the rise of Trump. Like him or despise him we can all agree that we have become a divided people with signs of internal hatred much more explicit than was the case in past years. Sure, there has always been a vile underside of our society motivated to gush malice at fellow Americans deemed unworthy. But Trump and his cult of angry devotees now give permission and approval to debase our social discourse to a degree not seen for a century and a half.

The term American exceptionalism is fraught with a range of interpretations from ones exalted to ones that are xenophobic. Personally, what I see as setting America apart from most countries is our history of pluralism. We have not been a nation born from racial, tribal, or cultural homogeneity as many around the world have been. Rather, the American nation was founded upon ideas of liberty and equality that to this day offer the greatest hope for humankind.

The great challenge for maintaining a pluralistic state, a country composed of citizens from a variety of cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds, is of course learning how to get along and respect all others who share the nation with us. At a minimum, citizens of a pluralistic state practice debate, persuasion, and compromise to forge laws and standards which we agree to live by. What results is a dynamic churn of norms that changes with the times, but which are based on principles of fairness and civility.

Trumpism is a movement that sees pluralism and the traditions required to maintain a diverse populace as antithetical to their worldview. They want to fundamentally change America into a version of cultural purity that places some segments of the society above others. In such a civilization there is a privileged class and there are those who are not. What Trump and his followers are communicating through their mean-spirited pronouncements is that unity is not valued, only division and separateness.

Once that line has been crossed it becomes acceptable to spew whatever filth comes to mind because their cause of superiority is greater than previously revered values of mutual respect and deference. Given that a depraved and flawed man is serving as the role model for the those who want to tear down America’s bedrock principles we have ended up in this uncivil place.

Our politics in 2024 has come down to a battle between those who are willing to fight for preserving a pluralism guaranteeing freedom and equality for all and those who want to radically change our nation into one of detachment and disunity. It is a hard time to be an American. We are called upon to remain good neighbors with one another despite this intrinsic confrontation we face. Some will take the high road, and some will take the low road. Which road are you on?

MAGA’s Misinformation Concerning Higher Education

A common rant of the MAGA crowd is the disdain they have for higher education. In particular, they see colleges and universities as cauldrons of liberal indoctrination and brainwashing leading our young astray and contributing to the degradation of our country. (That they see Trump as a force for American restoration is ludicrous, but I digress).

Here are two comments by MAGA writers in the May 7, 2024 issue of the InterTown Record (a local rural paper from where I live in New Hampshire) that illustrate my point: “I am afraid our entire education process has been manipulated out of sight…” writes one and “Could it be that the divisive CRT (Critical Race Theory) ideology which permeates many of these organizations…” writes another. They sound very confident that they know what they are talking about. But do they?

As pointed out by John Horgan, a professor at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, in his recent newsletter, this alleged “wokeness” in higher education is more of a MAGA talking point than an actuality. Horgan cites Open Syllabus, a non-profit group that collects and analyzes millions of syllabi from thousands of institutions of higher education. For example, Open Syllabus analyzed 5.5 million syllabi from over 4,000 American higher education institutions. This represents the most comprehensive collection of data available to signify what topics are taught in this country’s colleges and universities.

In 2023 Open Syllabus disclosed that expressions like “critical race theory”, “structural racism”, or “transgender” showed up in a whopping 0.08% of five and a half million syllabi! That is under one usage for every 1000 syllabi. The word “race” alone appeared in 2.8% of the syllabi and “gender” in 4.7%. The rate of usage of these words has been largely stable over the past fifteen years. Alright, “climate change” has gone from appearing 0.6% in 2008 to 1.3% in 2023. Not exactly a wokeness tsunami however, is it?

What these data tell us is that this so-called woke ideology is not being as widely disseminated in college classrooms as the MAGA crowd would have us believe. It if was it would show up in this analysis of syllabi. So why is the MAGA base so convinced something that is not supported to be happening nevertheless is happening in their partisan imaginations?

One doesn’t have to look far to see that right-wing media will take an issue, true or not, and just keep hammering it to their loyal viewers repeatedly. Fox has built a brand and identity on this tactic. One would hope the $787 million settlement they had to pay for continuously broadcasting a lie about Dominion voting machines would give them pause, but perhaps not. As for the other Fox wannabees like Newsmax and OAN News, well their so deep into being propaganda outlets rather than news organizations that repeating whatever riles the Base is fair game in their non-journalistic view.

So, I guess we will just sadly keep shaking our heads when we hear our MAGA neighbors bluster about the moral corruption of American higher education but know that despite the venom behind their claims it is really just a lot of hot air.

Trump’s Misguided Strength

Donald Trump has successfully branded himself as a strong leader. Indeed, a common refrain from his supporters is that he projects forcefulness and toughness, characteristics necessary in confronting a nation that in the opinion of MAGA world is degenerating.

I agree strength is a key trait we should want in a leader. The question is what kind of strength? Let’s take a moment to unpack this term and see if what Trump is selling is the strength this nation needs.

Strength is not a solitary attribute with only one definition. There are different types of strengths. Examples include physical strength, mental or psychological strength, strength of character, interpersonal or social strength, intellectual strength, and spiritual strength. So, how many of these does Trump possess?

Physical strength? Other than swinging a golf club does he demonstrate any other type of physical prowess? It is hard to say he looks fit.

Mental or psychological strength? Now we are getting into comedy. In my 71 years I have never seen a presidential candidate more devoid of psychic stability. He makes Richard Nixon look ethical.

Strength of character? Uhh, no. The man demonstrates amorality on a regular basis.

Interpersonal or social strength? OK, I’ll give him this one. Even though he totally turns off at least half the country, he clearly rallies most of the other half to his side.

Intellectual strength? Ever listen to one of his 90-minute campaign rally rants? One only hears three things: insults, wild exaggerations, and lies. No, he does not show intellectual strength.

Spiritual strength? You have got to be kidding me!

Let’s contrast Trump’s brand of strength with a more comprehensive and respectable version of strength known as gallantry. To be gallant one displays qualities such as chivalry, nobility, and valor. A gallant leader is courteous and respectful to the people they serve. They are stately in appearance and are revered for their selflessness in tending to the needs of their constituency. A gallant leader does not wallow in debased behavior and rhetoric trying to prove their worth. Clearly, I am not describing Donald Trump. He is not gallant leader.

Trump plays a cartoonish version of strength that is much more bellicose bombast than credible courage. He has never been about America’s people first. He has always been about Trump first. His brand of strength leaves us weaker on the world stage and morally and economically fragile at home.

We have a choice before us this November that could not be clearer. Yes, let’s elect a strong president and let’s reject false bravado. Donald Trump’s brand of strength is not what we should settle for, and it is certainly not what we need.

MAGA’s Assault on Freedom

We have all seen the Revolutionary-era yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flags being flown proudly in recent years, first by followers of the Tea Party movement and now by MAGA/Trump adherents. The presumed message being sent by these flag wavers is an impassioned belief in individual rights and limited government and a reaction against their perceived threat of socialism and centralized power in America.

What we are also seeing among these self-proclaimed patriots is a striking tendency to embrace and to promote the methods of their scorned opposition, the feared anti-libertarian communists allegedly among us who live to take away our freedoms. It is not the mythical Marxist boogeyman we need to be dreading right now, rather it is the MAGA movement’s plan to restructure America into a less free nation.

Despite all of MAGA’s pronouncements of their being a freedom movement this social and political aberration centered on their Dear Leader Trump is anything but. I could begin by mentioning how the Right’s overly liberal gun policies, which encourage placing weapons into all hands, including deranged people, takes away our right of freedom to live in a safe community. Or I could start by talking about how MAGA supports restricting women’s freedom to choose how to protect their own bodies. Or perhaps I could expound on how the Right delights in manipulating voting practices to limit the freedoms of Americans from casting ballots.

Instead, I will focus on the freedom-constraining Project 2025 manifesto prepared by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank which has advised Republican leadership since Reagan. Project 2025 is a game plan for how to reduce American freedoms in favor of reshaping American government and consolidating even more power into a Trump presidency.

The limits on our freedoms described in Project 2025 are numerous. Some highlights include:

The freedom of government worker protections is diminished due to civil service “reforms”, which make it easier for the executive branch of government to fire career employees and replace them with MAGA sycophants.

The freedom to educate our children within a pluralistic society is curtailed when educational access and content is dictated by a narrow and intolerant political perspective.

The freedom to live on the healthiest planet possible declines when environmental regulations are abated by climate change deniers.

The freedom of LGBTQ+ citizens, who are just as American as the rest of us, is belittled in healthcare, employment, and education by a constricted viewpoint of who is worthy and who is not.

The freedom of speech is threatened by policy efforts to alter Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and other media policies.

I could go on. It is safe to say that Project 2025 limits the tradition of American governance to a perspective adhered to by a minority segment of the country’s populace. Giving this much leeway to minority opinion is unreasonable, excessive, and outrageous. We lose freedoms under this MAGA scheme. We do not gain freedoms.

Extreme socialism would also limit our individual freedoms, because such governments are run by a small band of “experts”. MAGA replicates this flaw through their my-way-or-the-highway approach to governance.

MAGA has become what it resists. It is a threat and a danger worthy of defiance. Like the flag says, “Don’t Tread on Me”.

American Fascism

The term fascism has entered the lexicon of American politics since the rise of Trump and with good reason. Trump’s rhetoric, especially in the last weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, is not just hinting at fascism, he is full-on embracing it.

Perhaps a definition of fascism is in order. It is a political, social, and cultural expression of ultranationalism on the far right of the political spectrum. Its features include totalitarian power, forceful restraint of opposition, and a vigorous reordering of society and the economy. What is being described here is antithetical not only to American tradition but also to individual freedom, an alleged value of the MAGA movement.

A hallmark of fascism is its anti-immigration stance. Being xenophobic, fascists view immigrants as a risk to national identity and cultural purity justifying suppressive policies and rhetorical and sometimes violent persecution of immigrants. In a nation of immigrants, such as America, extreme nationalism can become anathema to our self-image and foundation as a people.

The MAGA crowd falls into two camps when they respond to charges that they have become a fascist movement. One reaction is to own the label by vehemently accepting it as a necessary kick in the pants that America needs. The other is an eye-rolling rebuttal that the left is overreacting and that Trump should not be taken so seriously.

The first group can be written off as hopelessly anti-democratic. However, the second cohort, which I think is the much larger of the two, deserves to be confronted for their indifferent or unconcerned attitude regarding their candidate. Let’s do so by taking a look at some of Trump’s recent statements (from among many) concerning immigration during the presidential debate, an interview, and from one of his ponderous rallies.

In September there were the claims that Haitian immigrants, who lived legally in Springfield, OH, were eating residents’ pets. This led to closed schools, bomb threats, and a plea from Republican mayor Rob Rue in response to Trump’s stated desire to visit Springfield, “should he choose to change his plans, it would convey a significant message of peace to the city of Springfield.”

On October 11 at a MAGA rally in Aurora, CO referring to Venezuelan immigrants Trump said, “We have to live with these animals, but we won’t live with them for long,” Incidentally, a person in the crowd shouted in response: “Kill them!”

At that same rally Trump pledged to “invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.” This Act authorizes the US government to capture and deport foreign nationals who are associated with countries with which the US is at war. Trump went on to refer to immigrants as, “very very very sick with highly contagious disease, and they’re let into our country to infect our country.”

On October 13 with Fox News, while speaking with the ever-fawning Maria Bartiromo, Trump warned about “the enemy from within…we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics…. And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”

To cap it off are comments from former Joint Chief of Staff General Mark Milley as recorded by Bob Woodward in his latest book. Milley, who worked directly with Trump when he was president, says Trump is “fascist to the core” and “Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country.”

Fascism reared its ugly head in the United States during the 1930s and is now back for a repeat engagement. True American patriots should fully resist it unlike the faux patriots who either adopt fascism or are complicit with it occurring. The most immediate action patriotic Americans can take is to not vote for Trump on November 5. Let’s join in sending a message to Trump and the fascists among us that America will remain a democracy and that authoritarianism has no place in our country.

A fascinating philosophical school of thought posits that reality can only be determined by a mind. An observer with enough sentience to at the very least sense, and in more sophisticated instances perceive its environment, is required for any reality to exist at all according to this view. Idealism stands in stark contrast to realism, the notion that a reality prevails “out there” and does not require an observer exercising some degree of mentality in order to substantiate the existence of this reality.

This tug-of-war between idealism and realism has been among the dominant debates in philosophy for centuries. One big reason it persists is because realism seems to be consistent with common sense, at least how the western world defines reasonableness. We seem to grow up with a feeling that the world we inhabit was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Our lives may impact the world to greater or lesser degrees, but any influence we may have will pale in significance to the universe “as it is”.

When I gaze upon Mount Kearsarge, a three-thousand-foot peak near my home in New Hampshire, I am quite sure it looks similar to how other people now see it. I also believe it looked pretty much the same in the nineteenth century and will look the same after I die when my mind ceases to be a fundamental feature of what was my life. Mount Kearsarge appears to be a very concrete example of an element of objective external reality. To think otherwise stretches imagination too far.

Idealism, on the other hand, challenges the conventional wisdom of realism by telling us that there is no observer-independent reality. Without our minds how can we claim there is a universe rich in detail that has always been there, at least since the Big Bang? All of reality from salamanders to stars necessitates mental observation to behold their being. It is hard to argue against the idea that mind is core to any understanding of reality.

However, the big problem I and many others see idealism running into is the charge of solipsism. The history of philosophy does not look kindly upon solipsism. Viewed objectively, solipsism refers to the claim that our individual mind or consciousness is all we can be certain of as real. Anything outside of our own personal perceptions cannot be proven to actually exist. Note how solipsism sounds similar to if not analogous to idealism as I’ve described it. Where solipsism provokes consternation is when it is seen as justifying extreme egocentricity and self-absorption. There is a point among us humans in which self-preoccupation to the exclusion of all others is considered unhealthy.

Therefore, proponents of idealism who insist full reliance on the mind is the way to best understand reality must confront the charge that their viewpoint ignores or even rejects the legitimacy of mentality within the collective of other individuals. If it is impossible to prove that others outside of oneself exist, then social cooperation and moral behavior become unnecessary. In a solipsistic world objective reality can be disregarded and individuals can give themselves permission to indulge in pure subjectivity only. It is easy to see how such a belief can lead to many social ills.

For idealism to become more mainstream and less arcane it needs to account for the fact that a prevalent and customary reality is shared among many individuals. There is much that we individuals detect in common and simultaneously which leads us to believe there is an external world. Now if the world is truly just a cerebral phenomenon or illusion how can it be that so many recognize similar worldly features and events?

Realism does not struggle with this fundamental problem. To realists there is us and there is the external world which we grasp through our senses. But is it really that simple? Are we nothing more than stimuli prone organisms limited by our sensorial capacities, but also thankfully enhanced by an ability to reason? Perhaps.

That said, idealism suggests that we are more than augmented amoebas with brains. It hints at a grander potential we have to reveal and act within a multifaceted universe that is much more than sensual. Our minds are certainly breathtaking. Our minds, more than our eyes, are the gateways to the soul and to the essence of the universe. To still be answered though is why does my mind appear to be similar to your mind and if that is indeed the case, then what is it that binds our consciousnesses?

It is like something to be me.

It is like something to be you.

But I will never know you as you know you.

And you can never know me as I know me.

We share with our fellow humans limited access and a narrow degree of understanding of our own private and unique realities. As best as we can determine, we each carry our own singular sense of self — our own subjective existences. In fact, I can only speak for myself in making such a declaration. I can only assume you exist within your own subjective self, one which is largely similar to my own. Still, I can never know for sure. I am unable to peer into, never mind climb into, your experience, your feelings, your manner of thinking. We are like members of an archipelago, separate but united communally.

Consciousness is that mysterious and miraculous continuance, that profound set of impressions we encounter as a consequence of being alive. It is as fundamental to our experience of reality as is the awareness of our own body. One could think that something so elemental to our identity must be generally well understood given the amount of investigation so many have done simply by living various levels of examined lives over so many millennia.

However, consciousness is not thoroughly understood within a widely accepted theory. There is no universally agreed upon principle or law which fully explains its generation and sustenance. No highly esteemed philosopher or scientist has revealed the immutably true and comprehensive nature of consciousness. Conventional wisdom suggests we all experience consciousness, but beyond that, those who ponder and speculate about the etiology of such an esoteric yet personal topic like consciousness are not in agreement about its causation, meaning, or purpose.

For many of us, there comes a time in our lives in which find ourselves motivated to consider how it is we have the mind we have — to think about how we think. This involves a meta-cognition or self-analysis of how we think, and by extension, how we also feel and behave. We realize that the reach and complexity of our minds is vast leaving us each with enormous potential to live rich lives. When we stop to think about it, I believe most of us conclude that it is truly remarkable that we can perceive such resplendence and fullness through our minds.

I have wondered if I should think about consciousness and mind as synonymous. When listening to and reading the philosophers and scientists discuss consciousness the topic appears twofold. Some do consider mind and consciousness as one in the same, albeit with some nuanced connotational differences at times. Others view consciousness as a realm in and of itself detached from the rational and sensorial mind we use to cope environmentally.

I see consciousness and mind as inseparably linked. Does consciousness beget mind or does mind beget consciousness? Neither. They are one and the same phenomenon, a marvel of the universe. The Logos, or generative spirit, is saying that to be complete All-There-Is must have an observer. We have minds illuminated by consciousness to be this observer.

At least that is what I think. But who am I?

What I am is an observer, a beholder of what is.

Self-discovery motivates.

Let’s look to see what is behind the next door.

This matters because to exist matters. And a big part of existing is to pay attention. We have a mind that allows us to be aware of reality. (Whatever reality is.) For now, I choose to be amazed at what I have spent the better part of lifetime taking for granted. That I can think rationally, feel sensations, have memory, speculate about the future, and notice the present moment is spectacular enough. But to take the position, as I am, that our consciousness, our mindfulness, our self-awareness is a direct bond to the core of universality, spiritualism, and the Logos is audacious but also comforting.

As humans, I believe we have to have faith in something. I say this as someone who has been skeptical, even suspicious, of faith. Faith has connoted dogma, rigidity, and closed mindedness to me. Age has softened this stance. I now see faith as a form of value adoption. Values give us purpose, a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Faith does something similar, perhaps even grander. It can give us a reason to live.

To have faith says we put our heart, mind, and soul into a belief. To be sure, how steadfast we are in our faith depends on incoming data. We have to allow for degrees of malleability regarding our faith. (Something a religious person would probably disagree with.) Nevertheless, resting our convictions on a bed of probability, even believability, is grounding and worth the attachment to certainty — however fleeting it may be.

I have faith in mindfulness, or consciousness as I will refer to it from this point on, as an expression of the sacred. We are born with this capacity to know of ourselves and others. Consciousness presents us with senses and mental ability to comprehend and to interpret. Some say this aptitude is nothing more than an evolutionary result of learning to grapple with survival in a hostile environment since life on this planet began. Or that consciousness is an illusory outcome of neural operations with little more biological significance than walking or digesting. I think consciousness is too majestic an occurrence to be lightly dismissed or rendered mundane. Its place in the universe could be every bit as imposing as material substance, space, time, and electromagnetism.

I seek to know what lessons can be learned concerning consciousness from history. I begin as I have by stating my premise or my belief that consciousness is not accidental or ancillary, but rather exists as a result of a necessary cosmic design born of the Logos, the generative spirit, the spark propagating all that there is. Some may call this originating energy God. And if it were not for the distracting and unsettling anthropomorphizing imagery of religion I would be fine with the label.

Regardless, I pursue an investigation of consciousness from my vantage point as stated for two reasons. One, I want to reveal why I have come to see consciousness as more than a happenstance of biology, but rather as a gateway to the One, the Logos. Secondly, I realize that this topic is voluminous and will occupy much of my remaining years. So, in the the spirit of learning I want to see what more there is to ascertain at this point in time.

Self-awareness, the most individual of perceptions

My mind, my viewpoint, my existence

Universal consciousness, the most inclusive of conceptions

Our minds, our viewpoints, our existences

Speculation on the origins of self-awareness and the nature of consciousness is at least thousands of years old as evidenced by recorded history across a variety of cultures. Undoubtedly, people have pondered the roots of their being and existence for far longer. Whether through the application of knowledge to better cope and thrive within a challenging environment or through deep contemplation and penetrating self-examination during moments of relative peace, humans have considered the existential meaning of life. It is by way of a review of the milestones of philosophic history that we can trace the development of phenomenological or subjective human thought.

I begin this investigation with ancient Indian philosophy. The Upanishads is a scriptural authority comprised of ancient Sanskrit texts composed collectively between circa 800 BCE to circa 200 BCE. The anthology focuses on philosophical and spiritual teachings and guidance. The Upanishads, along with the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, constitute the Vedanta philosophy, one of the principal schools of Hinduism.

Credit must be given to the Indo-Aryans, an early branch of today’s populations of the Asian sub-continent and the speakers of ancient Sanskrit. They burst forth with a bold and intrepid recognition of and interpretation of consciousness. The Upanishads, a product of the Indo-Aryans, delves extensively into everything philosophical and spiritual from metaphysics to practical guidance for daily living. But one topic it explores keenly is the nature of consciousness.

The Upanishads distinguishes between the universal consciousness, known as Brahman, and the consciousness of the individual or soul, known as Atman. In this tradition, Brahman is true reality and is present everywhere and in everything throughout the universe. Atman is a manifestation of Brahman. The individual consciousness is an expression of the supreme reality. This unity suggests that each person, indeed each particle of the universe, carries within it the divine — the everlasting, pervasive, immutable, and sublime essence of reality.

Establishment of Hinduism relied significantly on The Upanishads. And in turn, Buddhism evolved from Hinduism. However, Buddhism does not identify consciousness as an immutable construct of the self. Indeed, Buddhism does not even recognize the existence of a self as is conventionally done in most other traditions. Rather, Buddhism views consciousness as a churn of internal psychological states of mind and sensory reactions to experiences that lacks permanence or innate substance.

Buddhism tells individuals that consciousness is a quality to be overcome. Meditation teaches us to confront the capriciousness of consciousness head on by not letting its seductive illusion of permanence or its unstable push and pull of impressions occupy our mental states. Since consciousness appears and abates constantly, Buddhism teaches us to let it pass and to not let it define us. Indeed, to transcend consciousness is to become enlightened.

Ancient Chinese philosophy, particularly Daoism, approaches consciousness similarly to the Upanishads in that self-realization is believed to be inextricably linked to the Dao, known as The Way or the foundation of nature. Dao is a similar concept to the universal consciousness of the Indo-Aryans, Brahman. It forms the basis of all individuals’ consciousness. The task in this life for each of us is to be in harmony with the natural rhythm and current of Dao. This is accomplished through a life of dedication, meditation, contemplation, and ethical practice.

The other grand philosophical tradition of ancient China, Confucianism, is less metaphysical or ontological about consciousness. Rather it sees self-awareness and mindfulness as an integral aspect of being human and one that is enhanced through moral practices that encourage strong relationships, sound personal behavior, and social solidarity. Personal growth and development, moral refinement, and social concord are best achieved by devoted individuals each acting on improving the quality of their respective consciousnesses.

The ancient Greek philosophers saw the importance of consciousness emerging as part of their engrossment in metaphysics and ontology (the branch of philosophy concerned with existence and being). As they attempted to understand the nature of the universe and reality, consciousness was seen as integral to the notion of soul, a necessary component of comprehending reality. Plato and Aristotle presented the individual soul as multifaceted with consciousness playing a critical part in the mind’s ability to reason. Reason, perception, and thought were believed to be essential functions to being human and not possible without consciousness.

More recently, the Islamic world also pontificated on the importance of consciousness. The notable hallmark of the Islamic position was to emphasize a linkage between consciousness and the divine. All pervasive reality is equivalent to Allah and consciousness is an expression of Allah. Furthermore, consciousness provides humans with an intellect to better unite with and to celebrate the wonder of Allah or reality. Intellect is seen as a most prominent part of the soul, because through it we can comprehend and appreciate how unified are the ontological truths about the existence of Allah.

I see my dog across the room.

How did the dog come to exist?

What is the story of the dog’s past?

What is the purpose of the dog?

Should I take an action because of the dog?

These questions do not need answers.

These questions do not matter.

All that matters is my experience of seeing my dog across the room.

Plotinus (circa 204-270) was born in Egypt. When he was forty years old Plotinus moved to Rome and there founded a school of philosophy. The philosophy he spawned would become a principal philosophical ideology from the third century to the middle of the seventh century, roughly the time spanning the fall of Rome to the Muslim invasion of Europe at Andalucía. What gave power to this system of thought was that it was an amalgamation or fusion of centuries of pre-Socratic through Aristotelian inquiry that was heavily influenced by Platonism and Stoicism. Today we call this school of the western philosophical tradition Neoplatonism.

The Neoplatonists helped to seal monism as the preferred way to perceive deity or the divine. The One, The First, The Being, The Good, or as the Neoplatonists said, Nous, was paid homage to as the single point of creation, the sole source of all reality. Among the attributes of Nous is the desire to create consciousness. This allows Nous to observe itself, to look both out and in. Out to its emerging reality. Then back in so as to continuously reconnect with its virtuous self. Consciousness is nous insistently and incessantly understanding itself. And a piece of consciousness is carried to each emergent entity within reality, such as ourselves.

Consciousness became a serious rumination of several philosophers in the continental western tradition beginning with Rene Descartes (1596-1650) in the seventeenth century. Descartes legitimized a philosophy of mind, which included consciousness, self-awareness, and soul as a critical non-material “substance” and which is separate in nature from the physical form or body. Underpinning the Cartesian approach to philosophy was his renowned proclamation “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). This assertion placed the mind at the essential core of his philosophical inquiry.

However, it was philosophy’s German Idealism movement during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that elevated and developed consciousness as fundamental in modern philosophy. German Idealism also set up consciousness as worthy of scientific investigation during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This chapter in western philosophy was dominated by two individuals primarily, Kant and Hegel.

During the years between Descartes and the advent of German Idealism, which began with Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), western philosophy had become an intellectual conflict between a reliance on rationalism, based geographically on the European continent, and empiricism, centered in Britain. Rationalism stressed the notion that the innate human capacity to think and to reason was the key to unlocking a comprehension of reality. Precise deductive and mathematical methods rigorously applied would reveal God’s design. In Britain, an alternative to the dependency on reason developed. Empiricism insisted that the knowledge humans needed to understand reality derived primarily from sensory experience. We can only know what the senses detect and to speculate beyond what sensory input displays lacks verification and credibility.

Kant, a native of Prussia, set out to discover a third way, a reconciliation between rationalism and empiricism. This mediation began with Kant’s revelation of the transcendental self. Also known as transcendental idealism, it is a concept placing consciousness at the nexus of the mind’s ability to both reason logically and to detect and to unify sensory experiences. Consciousness is an underlying subjectivity that makes possible all human cognition. It is an inborn and active instrument allowing us to perceive, systematize, and produce knowledge. Yes, we are limited by our mind’s power and potential, but regardless consciousness permits us to be both rationale and empirical in assessing reality. The mind started to stand on center stage across western philosophy more than it ever had before.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), originally from Stuttgart, continued the philosophical work of Kant by again placing consciousness at the nucleus of his idealistic project. Hegel viewed consciousness developmentally beginning with a primary stage that involved raw sense perception. As an individual matures their consciousness expands in sophistication such that thought is more capable of observing ever more keenly, of organizing and categorizing observable content, and of gaining more self-identification. In time, the mind progresses to think abstractly and realize global premises and fundamentals. Hegel claims that the ultimate stage of consciousness is when it accepts unity with what he called the absolute spirit, a concept akin to understanding universal principles.

Hegel’s absolute spirit is the peak of the consciousness pyramid, in which the consciousness of each person becomes conjoined and all-pervasive reaching a level of fundamentalism and universality that explains reality inclusively such that history, culture, and the collective energy of all individuals’ consciousnesses is engaged. There is a strong resemblance of the Indo-Aryan’s Brahman or universal consciousness in Hegel’s absolute spirit. This culmination of consciousness according to Hegel results in each person having a clearer self-understanding, an awareness of their place within their culture and the world, and a firmer knowledge about universal truth and reality.

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), an Austrian-German, brought structure to a philosophy of consciousness, which had actually been practiced for centuries, but which did not have a distinct name. Phenomenology is the label Husserl chose. He defined this philosophy as “the science of the essence of consciousness”. By this, Husserl concentrated on first-person and subjective experiences as of fundamental importance. And crucial to this view is that consciousness necessarily functions with intentionality. What we see, hear, imagine, think, feel, wish, desire, will, or act upon involves external objects of our attention. Consciousness does not exist in isolation. It is a consciousness of something. It is how we make meaning of our world.

Phenomenology motivated a multitude of philosophical and psychological writers to explore the notion of first-person experience well into the twentieth century. Examples include the pragmatic approach of American William James (1842-1910), who saw consciousness as a continuous and shifting stream of perceptions designed to allow us to adjust to our environments; the British mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), noted for theorizing that consciousness or subjectivity exists in all entities of the cosmos; and the French existentialists Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986), who emphasized the ultimate conscious freedom inherent in each person to authentically and meaningfully exist as they choose in the face of the outpouring of perils life throws at us.

“The brain is locked in total darkness, of course children”, says the voice. “It floats in a clear liquid inside the skull, never in the light. And yet the world it constructs in the mind is full of light. It brims with color and movement. So how, children, does the brain, which lives without a spark of light, build for us a world full of light?“

Anthony Doerr from All the Light We Cannot See

In 1994 at the University if Arizona a conference was convened entitled, “Toward a Science of Consciousness”. Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and psychologist, and Dr. David Chalmers, a philosopher and cognitive scientist, invited a multidisciplinary group of researchers and scholars to share knowledge regarding the constitution of consciousness. Intellectuals and academics from fields as diverse as neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, computer science, physics, and anthropology met for five days to unpack five consciousness related themes:

• Neural Correlates of Consciousness
• Philosophical Perspectives
• Consciousness and Quantum Physics
• Altered States of Consciousness
• Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness

No such conference had ever been held before. “Toward a Science of Consciousness” ushered in the contemporary study of consciousness that is continuing to this day. The Science of Consciousness conference, as it is now called, is an annual event at The Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. As the title of the conference suggests, science and philosophy are now conjoined in the modern approach to consciousness studies. This fusion could be seen as an advancement of sorts. Up until then science, with possibly a few exceptions, had a mostly hands-off approach to consciousness. Science seemed content to leave the topic in the hands of philosophy and religion.

The historic gap between science and philosophy regarding consciousness was best encapsulated by David Chalmers at the 1994 conference when he distinguished between the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the “easy problems” of consciousness. By easy problems he was referring to the successes of neurology and psychology in discovering how neural networks and cognitive functions had been identified to explain mental operations such as perception, focus, and memory. But what science and philosophy had not yet done was to explain how physical mechanisms of the brain could yield subjective experiences and sensations, in other words what it is like to be me and you. That is the Hard Problem. Solving the easy problems has not yielded the intrinsic nature of consciousness.

What Chalmers is describing is the latest in a long line of versions of what is known as the mind-body problem. Since at least Plato and Aristotle philosophers and other thinkers have pondered and theorized about consciousness/mind/soul and its relationship to the physical or material body. Conjecture ranges across a span from consciousness being a by-product of physical processes in the brain to mind and body being comprised of different qualities able to exist side by side. In short, this is a physicalism-dualism spectrum. There remains no consensus as to a solution of the mind-body problem.

There is, however, one approach that may offer hope to resolving the issue of whether consciousness emanates from physical activity such as brain functions or if it co-exists separately but in tandem with the body. Panpsychism is a theory which may mediate between physicalism and its inability to precisely explain the emergence of consciousness from bodily material and dualism which does not satisfy our need to know how mind and matter truly interact. Panpsychism proposes that consciousness or mentality is intrinsic to and a basic characteristic of the universe. Each entity or being in the universe possesses within its core a degree of sentience, an element of subjectivity. If this were true, dualism as a concept would become inoperative and physicalism would lose its catalytic power to generate consciousness.

“There ain’t any answer, there ain’t going to be any answer, there never has been any answer, that’s the answer.”

Gertrude Stein from Brewsie and Willie 

I expressed earlier on in this piece an inclination toward having faith in the sacredness of consciousness. This belief is reinforced as I review my historic summary of subjective awareness. In particular, certain episodes of this consciousness analysis over the ages resonate with me more acutely than others. Intellect and emotion are sparked by some of these descriptions to such a degree that I am left to feel, “That sounds right. This makes sense. I think this could be true.” I accept that my truth may be at odds with your truth. Absolute truths, assuming they exist, are surprisingly elusive. We may have to agree to disagree. If so, that is fine.

When I read in The Upanishads about the account of Brahman, the universal consciousness, and Atman, the individual’s consciousness, then I nod my head in agreement. Contemplating the Dao as the cornerstone of nature and of all consciousness resonates with me. I accept the notion put forth and explored by Plato and Aristotle, and later picked up by the Christians, that we have a soul, which may very well be consciousness, mentality, mind, and spiritual awareness all rolled into one. Yes, the Neoplatonists were onto something when declaring consciousness as a means for The One to reflect upon itself. And the German idealists were shrewd to recognize the total necessity of mind or awareness as a means to understanding reality.

At present, I am left asking myself, what is it that really grabs my attention and imagination from the times we are now living? What will occupy the consciousness branch of my philosophical studies for the foreseeable future? At this point in my learning I see the following schools of thought as warranting the greatest attention and consideration — the ongoing speculative influences of phenomenology, idealism, and panpsychism. My interest in contemporary philosophy is centered on phenomenology, idealism, and panpsychism because they all bring what I see to be different, but related and valuable perspectives on the origins, impact, and reach of consciousness.

Phenomenology is immensely rewarding in accepting as substantial the ephemeral but precious conception of sentient experience. Phenomenology provides a permission structure for modern people to not be so tightly wedded to science as consciousness is examined, but to instead accept that the first person viewpoint carries significant weight, even if the origins of subjectivity cannot be definitively explained by science or by any other empirical method. The effect of phenomenology remains profound as we consider the connection between the self and reality. By exploring the foundations of lived experience we are able to get a more full picture of what human existence and reality are.

Idealism is philosophy’s way of saying the mind is preeminent in perceiving reality and all physicalism or materialist interpretations of reality are at least subordinate to mentality, if not otherwise hopelessly misguided. Idealism is a radical, but largely plausible attempt to challenge realism. Realism states that there exists a reality out there which is independent of our minds. According to idealism, our Cartesian brainwashing leaves most of us convinced that realism is true. But idealism, with its emphasis on the supremacy of mentality, and by extension consciousness, leads us to think otherwise. Philosopher Thelma Lavine puts it this way, “Idealism holds that ultimate reality is mental and that seemingly monumental things such as material objects are reducible to the ideas of consciousness or mind.”

In short, panpsychism represents a sea change in how the contemplation of consciousness is now taking place. Thanks to the panpsychist view, gone are the days of a wholly revered physicalism which at best could say that consciousness was the result of material processes not involving consciousness, as in neural activity. Instead, it is becoming more accepted among philosophers to think of human and animal consciousness as comprised of, or at least influenced by, more fundamental iterations of consciousness — a form of reductionism, if you will. The mind-body distinction has taken the study of consciousness to an impasse. Panpsychism may be a way for us to escape the cul-de-sac.

This summation of consciousness as viewed philosophically is a developing venture on my part. I will not be surprised to have shifted my way of thinking about it sooner rather than later. That said, my core interest in this topic and my reverence for the miracle of consciousness will not abate. Indeed, I will cling to and try to comprehend my consciousness as I do my life itself — as if they were one in the same.

Sometimes in life we find that what initially appear to be separate and discreet interests can converge to form a compelling composite which begs to be explored. When this occurs in the context of trying to live an examined life, then a stimulating and energizing endeavor is launched. For me lately, by which I mean the past three years or so, that is occurring at the intersection of philosophy and physics. Let me explain.

As anyone who may have taken any time over the last couple of years to read my essay posts, it is likely obvious that I have been enamored with philosophy of late. There are several reasons for this attraction. For one, as a retiree I have the good fortune of having the mental health and available time to engage in an academic exercise, such as studying philosophy and to the extent I can comprehend it, its companion and contemporary discipline, quantum mechanics. These topics have held my interest for many years, but while living the working life I never could devote the necessary time and concentration required to make any lasting sense of these subjects.

Beyond simply having time and casual interest in philosophy and physics I am drawn to these areas of study for several other reasons. I believe I am not yet too old to use this knowledge as a possible guide to living a more eudemonic or flourishing life with the years I have left. Additionally, as I conduct a life review and reflect on all I have lived and experienced, this study helps me to better understand why things are as they been and why I have engaged with this life as I have.

Finally, I want to prepare myself for what is next after this life. Unlike devout religious people, I have not relied on a prescriptive belief of a hereafter. However, now knowing more concretely that death is more impending than ever before I want to have some comfort in knowing what to expect. In short, I want to have faith in a likely scenario for what will happen to me after I take my final breath.

My informal examination of philosophy and physics began and continued for some while on separate tracks. However over time, I began to see that the two disciplines overlapped in ways I had not expected. Philosophy, while not a social science, is certainly not a hard quantifiable science either. It is too broad, too deep, and too subjective to be considered a science. It is a field of study uniquely its own.

Physics, or more specifically quantum physics or quantum mechanics as it is more popularly known, is indeed a hard science, characterized by objectivity, procedural rigor, and preciseness. So, where is the connection between philosophy and quantum mechanics? It is in a purview of fundamentalism or foundationalism, which I will attempt to explain.

To better understand this conjunction of philosophy and quantum mechanics it can be helpful to know that philosophy and science grew in tandem, emerging jointly from the original pontifications of ancient Greeks who were attempting to explain the core nature of the world in which they lived. Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE) can be credited with giving science an early and consequential springboard. He differed from his teacher Plato (c.429 BCE-347 BCE) in some key ways. According to Aristotle, Plato was too steeped in logically determined metaphysical underpinnings that were rooted in abstractness. His philosophical constructs were too perfectly defined and objectively certain for Aristotle.

Rather, Aristotle found it more desirable and necessary to focus on the full range of tangible worldly materials and the way they changed, developed, decayed, and behaved. He thought knowledge should spring from a deep scrutiny of the explicit substances available to us. Hence, what became a western-styled science was given permission to exist.

Science as we know it today did not have a single founder. Neither did philosophy. But when we look back through history to determine the origins of the eventual merger of philosophy and science we inevitably come again to Aristotle. In the fourth century BCE he was philosophically influenced and inculcated by two of the most prominent thinkers of the ancient world, Socrates (c.470 BCE-300 BCE) and his tutor Plato. With that philosophical grounding he went on to expand his understanding of the natural world through the practice of what became essentials of scientific inquiry.

To begin with, Aristotle was intensely curious. This mattered, because curiosity is the launch pad for examination, creativity, problem solving, social progress, and personal development. Aristotle directed his curiosity in the establishment of a systematization of two very human capabilities, observation and reasoning. Focused empiricism and self-guided reasoning together determined the foundation for scientific investigation still in practice to this day.

Among the areas in which Aristotle applied his empirical and reasoning method was to better understand what we call today biology, ecology, and physics. It was in these sciences, including physics which for centuries was known as natural philosophy, that he formalized the practice of disaggregating and classifying the natural world into discreet categories, principally causation, the elements, motion, and teleology (purpose-drive goals). Although many of his specific predictions did not stand up to the scrutiny of time, Aristotle’s three-way utilization of careful examination, logical reasoning, and classification nevertheless set the stage for the development of today’s scientific method.

Notice that Aristotle was drawn to a process which tried to base conclusions about the nature of reality by identifying and examining what he believed to be the constituent parts of reality. To better comprehend the totality of all there is, Aristotle determined it necessary to first apprehend the parts of all there is.

Aristotle was not the first of the ancient Greek philosophers to reach for a method we now call reductionism. A reductionist approach attempts to describe grand and intricate events and occurrences by minimizing, analyzing, and viewing them through their elemental segments. Key pre-Socratic philosophers also employed a similar technique.

Thales of Miletus (c.626 BCE-548 BCE) is another historic figure credited with early scientific thought. He proposed that everything in the known universe could be reduced to a single ingredient — water. Anaximenes (c.586 BCE-526 BCE) suggested that the fundamental element was air. And Heraclitus (c.535 BCE-475 BCE) offered that fire was what everything was derived from. The tendency to reduce the universe to its most basic workings has set the tone for how westerners contemplate and envisage all that there is from the beginning of recorded history.

As we see, the ancient Greeks set western science on a course of reductionism, which again can be simply explained as reducing complex circumstances or phenomena to basic and underlying components. To be sure, reductionism has driven science to comprehend a view of reality which has resulted in many remarkable discoveries. Through reductionism we have refined our ability to study phenomena, make predictions, and determine primal laws of nature.

As science, and in particular physics, matured the individual whose approach and legacy keenly exemplifies reductionism was the English scientist Isaac Newton (1643-1727). Whether it was in his works related to the laws of motion and gravity, optics, fluid dynamics, or in mathematics Newton applied reductionist thinking so as to better understand the nature of reality and predict natural processes. His procedures and methods have led to what has become the conventional manner of perceiving the known universe.

Newton’s influence on science and western thinking has been huge. Many of the services and products to emerge from applied science, which have had an immensely positive impact on humankind, can be credited to the profound influence of Newtonian schema and methodology. Historians claim that Newton’s contributions revolutionized science in disciplines ranging from astronomy to engineering and that modern physics and mathematics are attributed to his reductionist guidance. His analytic thinking that viewed natural phenomena through essential principles and equations remains extensive.

However, for all of the gains reductionism has brought to our world there has been a myopic and restrictive perception of the universe that has developed and hardened since the seventeenth century, such that conventional wisdom and commonplace thinking about the nature of reality is exceptionally mechanistic and based very heavily on rationalism.

Thanks to Rene Descartes (1596-1650) western thought took a sharp turn into the advancement of reason, which allowed for a skepticism to emerge about the reliance on Plato’s and Aristotle’s influence on scholastic thought, but also to question the power of the Church to dictate enforced beliefs. Among the great consequences of Descartes’ life work was to extensively influence a novel and rational pattern of western philosophical thought and by extension induce a metaphysical and scientific view regarding the nature of reality that exists to this day. Descartes can be credited with establishing a revolutionary intellectual environment in which Newton could pursue his creation of the new physics.

Descartes was committed to discovering the most basic truths of reality and did so by attempting to determine the most foundational aspects of knowledge or epistemology. In essence, Rene Descartes applied reductionism in an attempt to unveil how we as humans could understand the fundamentals of reality. He skeptically stripped away all of his preconceptions and premises about the world to search for that one incontrovertible truth marking the starting point for the thoughtful and aware self. “Cogito, ergo sum” became that target. “I think, therefore I am.”

The reductionist epistemological method used by Descartes contributed greatly to validating reductionism as a technique applicable to comprehending all that there is. As science developed into a set of disciplines in the years following Descartes, we see reductionism widely used as a process for peering into the nature of complex systems. Indeed, it is the approach of perceiving complex systems through reductionism that both helps and hinders our understanding of natural occurrences, especially when it comes to science.

As mentioned earlier, there can be setbacks to relying on reductionism to reveal answers to the mysteries of existence. To better understand I will begin by noting that there is no more complicated and elaborate structure than the universe. Reductionism attempts to simplify this vast complexity by identifying individual elements, which the thinking goes, combine to make the whole. As we are learning over time, intricate systems such as the universe involve more than parts. They also manifest qualities and processes that cannot be captured through an inventory of components alone.

For example, let’s look at consciousness, the phenomenon expressing our subjectivity and our sense of self. Is consciousness really just a result of brain action as in synapses among neurons or is there a more holistic, non-quantifiable, and universally fundamental process at play resulting in our experiential mindfulness? I would say, yes, that is very possible. Consciousness manifests as too miraculous and too illuminating to just be an outcome of the conduct of matter. Reductionism is too austere a method for explaining the richness of consciousness.

Synergy is a term referencing a type of alchemy. A force or efficiency is achieved within a complex system when its constituent parts interact such that the system’s overall effectiveness is measurably greater than the sum of the individual parts. How does this happen? It is counterintuitive and contrary to what basic arithmetic tells us. Synergy is a way of say two plus two equals five. Something magical appears to happen when components interact cooperatively resulting in the whole being more than all of the portions added together.

Reductionism misses synergy in its calculation. There are existing and emerging properties not easily discerned by mathematics and science. Properties that have their origin in a generative spirit the ancient Stoics referred to as Logos (more on Logos later). Systems, no matter how complex they may be, are part of larger systems. Sequestering easily identifiable components can miss the valuable interactions in force. Interconnectedness and constant exchanges inject dynamism and vitality to systems. Reductionism does not always do a good job of accounting for such interoperability.

Reductionism can be seen as a practice stemming from a belief in materialism or physicalism. Materialism asserts that all of reality is composed of physical materials. This view rejects any notion of a separate spiritual reality or of a distinct existence related solely to mental states or consciousness. All that there is can be explained by physical substances and the laws governing their actions. In this type of reality reductionism makes sense. Just keep slicing and dicing until you get to the most essential particles of existence.

So why you might ask, is there this criticism of reductionism and by extension materialism, a methodology that has been practiced for centuries and which has led immeasurably to the betterment of humankind? Credit for this mental approach of discovery deserves to be given to reductionism as mentioned in reference to Isaac Newton above. However, the past hundred years has begun a grand and paradigm changing revelation highlighting the limits of reductionism. This relatively newly learned lesson comes in the form of quantum mechanics.

As science has continued to dig deeper and peer ever further into the material universe it has run into a roadblock of sorts. Strange things are occurring at the quantum level of reality — so strange that what we have thought for centuries about materialism and its character is now being reassessed. The behaviors and processes of matter and energy at this level upends our understanding of the known universe.

Quantum mechanics is the most recent approach to the study of modern physics, which began in the 1920s. It is a study of the most fundamental conduct of matter and energy occurring at atomic and subatomic stages. Physicists appear to have largely run out of runway when it comes to discovering the next smallest particle. But of special note is the fact that we enter a bizarro world at the quantum level that seems to question the linear and sequential order of things we have been accustomed to.

Let us take a look at some key examples of the conditions goading the quantum game changing reality.

Our journey into counterintuition best begins with a look at wave-particle duality. As best physicists can tell, the most quantum materialist entities discernable are particles, the most commonly known of which are photons (light) and electrons and protons (both subatomic). What is noticeable is that these particles along with other quantum particles exhibit both particle-like traits and wave-like traits. For example, a key particle-like property is discreteness, in which a quantized energy level or value is detectable. In the case of wave-like properties an example is wavefunction, a mathematical statement providing probability magnitude of a particle’s location in space. One is left questioning, is the most basic constituent a particle or a wave or are they somehow unified?

Wave-particle duality leaves a novice student such as myself thinking that everything, including matter, is energy. I see no reason to date to think otherwise. The other consideration of note is that wave-particle duality is a good starting point for learning about the other unique and odd discoveries of quantum mechanics and of the most fundamental particle entities (also known as quanta). It is safe to say that classical physics, such as Newtonian mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and optics, ceases to be applicable at the quantum level of physics.

Superposition really rocks the world of how we thought things were. This term is used to describe particles being ubiquitous or in multiple states at the same time. It is only during an attempt by an observer to measure the state or position of a particle that the “wavefunction collapses” into only one state or position from among the many states or positions it could have been in. It is like Jim being in Moscow and New York at the same time, but until an observer intentionally spots Jim in Moscow can we say that there is where Jim is located at that moment.

Entanglement is just as irrational. In this phenomena we can have two particles entangled or influenced by one another, sometimes at great distances, i.e. nonlocality. The condition of one of the particles can be instantaneously affected by the other one even at distances where there should be a time lag due to the immense separation of space between them. Einstein remarked incredulously that such an occurrence was “spooky action at a distance” since an information exchange appeared to be occurring between the two particles quicker than the speed of light.

As you can see quantum measurement is a tough thing to nail down. How to measure key features of quantum entities remains a controversial and debated issue. When the very act of attempting measurement appears to affect the nature of the entity being measured how can one know its state in unobserved reality? In fact, one can wonder, is there such a thing as an unobserved reality?

As we are seeing, it makes sense that a central standard of quantum mechanics is known as the Uncertainty Principle. At the beginning of the quantum age in the 1920s, German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) concluded that measuring the speed and location of a particle could not be accomplished accurately. In the nearly one hundred years since Heisenberg proclaimed the Uncertainty Principle it remains a valid concept. Once we dive deep enough into the quantum realm reality takes on a whole new meaning — one that is hard to wrap our minds around.

So what am I to apprehend from this convergence of philosophy and physics? What are my takeaways at this point in my understanding of this information and why should they matter? Does any of this change my perceptions to the degree that I think of the world differently than I did before? To begin answering these questions I will note what conclusions or beliefs I have from the above descriptions.

At heart, nature is my guide. I believe there is a natural process to the universe, an unfolding always occurring. Science and philosophy are lenses through which to view nature and from which to infer the basics of reality. Learning from nature is not as easy as just observation, however. Our six senses give us direct experience with reality, but they are also limiting in the amount of insights we can derive from nature. Something more than sensorial experience is needed. We humans are capable of integrating a non-sensorial dominion into our imaginations that can complement our rational comprehension of all that there is.

I have faith in Logos, the generative spirit introduced to us by the ancient Stoics, as my gateway to the non-sensorial realm. It is what produced the Big Bang and establishes the entire order/disorder of the universe. Logos is ubiquitous and present from the grandest structures in the universe to the quantum level. The expression of all physical and mental states have at their essence Logos. I believe this spirit is what is meant by a belief in God.

Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) advocated for a notion of pantheism, the idea that God is in everything. He taught there does not exist a transcendent God separated from the creation or nature. Pantheism, and its modern secular counterpart panpsychism, captures what feels right to me. Logos is my starting point and the place to which I frequently return for apprehending reality.

Beyond a faith in Logos I face a significant challenge. It appears I am searching for certainty in an uncertain universe. Quantum mechanics tells me that we cannot be sure about much, if anything, at the core of reality. Nature is not boundlessly dissoluble. We can only slice and dice or reduce just so far. A point in reductionism arrives when we enter a province that is unpredictable, random, contradictory, and contingent.

Christopher Bader, principal investigator for the annual Chapman Survey of American Fears, notes that the many fears Americans share can be traced back to uncertainty. There is a self-help expression encouraging us to embrace uncertainty. Yes, accepting chance as more likely than conviction is a key upshot for me and perhaps it should be for others as well. This encourages me to be more agile in my thinking and less definite in the conclusions I draw.

The brain, of course, can do many things. Among them is a capacity to ensnare chance and possibility. It is also stochastic in how it operates, meaning the brain can be inherently random in how it processes inputs. Many of the results the brain yields are not predictable and based in certitude, but rather are presented as probabilities and statistical distributions. This may explain our ability to be creative and to have novel ideas.

As Dartmouth College neuroscientist Peter Tse suggests, because the brain functions such that new configurations of thought and conception are possible, this is likely an indication that the universe performs this way also. A reasonable hypothesis is that quantum processes with all of their stochasticity are manifesting in our brains and reflecting the workings of the universe at large.

One of the great controversies and mysteries of both philosophy and science historically concerns the question of whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. If deterministic, then all that has occurred since the Big Bang is preordained and destined to happen like the sequence of events in a movie. There are no interventions which can change destiny. All has already been programmed.

On the other hand, indeterminacy allows for capriciousness and irregularity, in other words the very randomness quantum mechanics indicates is commonplace. Change, process, and uncertainty are innate and part of the fabric of our reality. Learning to not resist this primary aspect of our universe seems wise.

I will finish with this observation. Of course our lives have a lot of predictability despite all of the evidence suggesting otherwise. The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Spring still follows winter every year. Death ends lifetimes. The past has occurred. The future is yet to be experienced. And the present is ever fleeting. Life is not easily understood and the more we try to make sense of it the more questions are generated. That said, the intersection of philosophy and physics is a fascinating place to be. There is much more to learn. I imagine I will continue to visit this place often.

The morning dawned cold and rainy. I fastened the buttons of my coat, pulled my green wool cap over my head, and tightened my red plaid scarf around my neck. Did I wish the weather on that Belgian morning had been more agreeable? Sure, I did. But I was heading to Flanders Fields and the site of what was once known as the northern part of the Western Front during World War I. During the years of 1914 until the end of 1918 this was a place of unspeakable horror for hundreds of thousands of young men.

So, no. I was not going to complain about the weather on that morning of March 14, 2023, the day I turned seventy years old. I was still alive and about to pay my respects to youth who no longer were. The weather could be endured.

Sometimes the primacy of nature and nurture are hard to separate. I was born seventy years ago as a male and as a male I was raised. Strongly embedded within the experience of growing up male is the meaning of manhood. We are nurtured with unmistakable messages as boys that to be a man involves the adoption of very specific traits. High among them is to display a selfless bravery to squarely face danger without hesitation. To battle when needed. To overcome one’s foes. And if vanquished, to go down fighting, which will at least preserve honor, even if life is extinguished.

Beyond this manner of masculine upbringing, I also have speculated about the role of nature in shaping men to be men. The expectation for boys to grow into men who are virile, strapping, and courageous is a presumption that is as old as history. At some point in this long and patterned progression of raising boys to be warriors it could be that the widely associated behaviors of manhood became finely integrated into the souls of men. An a priori masculinity may accompany the birth of each and every baby boy born into this world. This axiomatic essence of dutiful manliness then simply needs to be massaged during rearing to result in a fighter, a defender, a soldier.

Whether or not a boy grows to become a crusader, a crucial part of being a man is in reconciling or harmonizing the man one has become with the type of man one is supposed to be. Sometimes this urge toward manly expression goes awry, leading to overly aggressive males. However, for most of us men we need to find causes to sustain, people to protect, and missions to fulfill. These proclivities may not be played out on a literal battlefield, but they must find expression somehow, even in passivity. Like it or not, we men are preordained to live out as best we can the manifest calling inherent in our gender. Exploring this notion was in large part the motivation and need for reflection I was drawn to pursue on that birthday at Flanders Fields.

Young men from Germany, the British Commonwealth countries, France, the Low Countries, and eventually the United States and Italy converged at the Western Front, which stretched from Flanders Fields to the Swiss frontier with France. They were there to engage in a slaughter of one another. Their precious manhood was both exploited, abused, and celebrated during this horrific enterprise. The soldiers of the First World War were robbed of their innocence, their zest for life, and in far too many cases, their very existence.

The confrontation known as the Great War or World War I was among the greatest tragedies of humankind. It did not need to happen. But it did. Most of those who fought and died during the conflict were born during the last decade of the nineteenth century. As young boys they had every right to expect a high standard of guidance from their elders. They should have been shown by their parents’ generation how to love all people and how to try to make the world a better place than they found it.

Instead, this generation of young men were let down by their elders. They were squandered, misused, and harmed. Their lives were deemed expendable and not of precious value. Those poor souls who came into this world only to leave it too soon were robbed of their manhood and of their lives. Shame befalls those who encouraged this cataclysm to happen. The decisions, values, and hubris of the elders driven by their xenophobic mindsets starkly displayed a stunning lack of morality.

Some backstory will bring clarity to what happened. However clear history may be, the justifications for this debacle will never make sense of what happened. Historians categorize the causes of World War I into four domains: mutual defense alliances, imperialism, expanded and modernized militarism, and nationalism. I tend to group all these causes under the rubric of one foremost cause, that of domination.

The world of 1914 was a powder keg of outdated and maniacal monarchies committed to a ruthless competition for control over as many people and resources from around the world as could be made possible. Command, control, authority, and supremacy were the overriding principles of the world’s leaders, particularly in Europe. European empires, along with their colonies and spheres of influence, jostled for advantage. This led to a tangled network of alliances allegedly designed to ensure domestic stability and security while providing a nationalistic influential edge in world affairs.

By 1914 the stage was set for a ruinous chain reaction. European empires had been in existence for hundreds of years led by Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, and France. However, nationalism as we know it today has been a relatively recent phenomenon. Nationalism is based on the idea of group identity with common beliefs, values, languages, stories, and cultural traditions. The practice of forming nation states had been exercised all over the continent throughout the nineteenth century. At least this was true of those parts not already under the thumb of an empire.

The motivation to nationalize was strong by the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. For example, by 1871 smaller kingdoms were culturally compelled to unify into the nation states of Italy and Germany. One downside of nationalism is that it can leave people of different nations distrustful of one another. Borders can help to protect and to preserve, but they also can confine and cause cultural atrophy.  Unhealthy rivalries can result based on resource distributions and perceived threats to cultural integrity. Such mistrust took hold in Europe.

The inspiration to nationalize swept across the Balkan region of southeast Europe in the years leading up to 1914. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania are among the many countries that make up this region today. At the time, the people of the Balkans were squeezed between two prevailing and powerful empires, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. These empires exerted influence and pressure in the Balkans, which only encouraged nationalistic tendencies.

Meanwhile, a complicated assortment of defense alliances was established across much of Europe. Key alliances which led to World War I were that Russia was allied with Serbia in the Balkans and also with France, Germany was allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Great Britain was allied with France and Belgium. Such was the international stage when a Bosnian acting on behalf of Serbia assassinated the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife while they were visiting the Balkan city of Sarajevo on the 28th of July 1914. The consequent string of war declarations became the First World War.

The brutality of this war was made worse by the steady militarization of the European powers in the preceding years, which included the development of weapons marking the advent of modern warfare. Much more massive artillery guns and shells, machine guns, tanks, poison gases, and military aircraft were strategically introduced creating exorbitantly high death counts.

For those armies reliant on outdated battlefield strategies and tactics these weapons proved to be especially lethal. Along the Western Front in Belgium at Flanders Fields, infantry charged on foot from deeply dug trenches into machine gun fire, exploding shells, and even chlorine gas, which choked its victims, and mustard gas, which caused skin burns. The absurdity of asking young men to rush into such an onslaught is unthinkable.

A significant part of my wanting to visit Flanders Fields on that rainy and chilly day was to not only reflect on and feel sorry for the inhumanity inflicted on those unfortunate men, but to wonder what it would have been like for me to face the horrible challenges they did. My seventy years have never come close to war or any conflict that carried with it the risk of death or bodily injury. The stresses and strains of life that we all experience, which in my case were nearly all the result of my own flawed decision making, pale in comparison to the tensions of war.

Looking back to my younger years, I remember the confusion and uncertainty tinged with fear of the possibility of having to fight in the Vietnam War. I was on the young side of the age when unseasoned men were being drafted to fight in that conflict on behalf of the United States. My thinking was quite resolute in that I did not want to participate. The thought of moving to Canada was a serious notion I considered for a while.

My father, a World War II veteran who lost his only brother during that war and who was a proud American, said to me when I was sixteen or seventeen years old that he did not want me to fight in Vietnam. Even he could see the clear pattern of one generation after the next of young men fighting and dying in what seemed like an endless succession of foreign wars. My father’s realization of wanting to resist having his son go to war led to his distancing from the veteran’s organization, The American Legion. This memory is one of the very few where to this day I am grateful for my dad’s love.

So, had I been born in 1898 instead of 1953, and had I been born in Germany, Russia, Britain, France, or Belgium or in the United States at that time, I could very well have been confronted with the imperative that I must viciously fight for my country. I do not doubt I would have felt fear. What I do not know is if the nationalistic propaganda I would have been steadily fed would have trumped my fear.

Would I have felt that my life really amounted to a calling to “defend” my country even if it meant making the ultimate sacrifice? Would I have charged across fields of mud with a bayoneted rifle screaming a battle cry as bullets whizzed by striking down my comrades? Or would I have cowered in the trenches wide-eyed and gulping air as if each gasp were to be my last? Or would I have clung to my last shred of self-determination and committed suicide? I will never know. This deliberation will forever remain open-ended.

During that day at Flanders Fields, I paused at different cemeteries to place my hand on random gravestones. I tried to remain unrestricted and free to notice if I felt any kind of sensation or had any kind of inkling resulting from gently but intentionally touching those stones. At the German cemetery I crouched to place my left hand on a ground-level dark gray stone with the words, “Vier Unbekannte Deutsche Soldaten” etched upon it (translation, “Four Unknown German Soldiers”). I felt only pity. At a British cemetery, I placed my hand on the clean white standing gravestone of R. Porter, of the West Yorkshire Regiment, who died on the 28th of October in 1915 at the age of twenty-two. I was witness to a tragedy.

Toward the end of that day, I was at another British cemetery. The rain had stopped. Sun was breaking through the still thick clouds. A stiff breeze rendered the air from cool to cold. I was starting to feel fatigue from the long day. This time, while standing amidst the rows of white stones, I reached over to rest a hand upon the top of one from behind. I deliberately did not look to see whose stone it was. On this occasion, I felt something else. A ripple of energy coursed gently through my body. I experienced a slight disequilibrium. Was this a quantum or supernatural sensation of sentience, I wondered. Maybe it was just a symptom of not having had much water that day. I still wonder.

The flat green fields of West Flanders.

Now moist and quiet and peaceful.

Near Ypres the land rises. 

Once Germans held the high ground.

The British held the city.

Evil descended upon the area.

A half million souls lost

In a steady ugly stalemate.

Numbing.

A waste.

To be human can be severe.