On the interconnectedness of things

Posted by Etan on Monday, November 29, 2004 at 11:15 PM. Read 3498 times. Tags:
{name} pic

Throughout the past year interconnectedness has been a recurring concept in many pieces of film and literature which I have come across. In its simplest form interconnectedness breaks down into the idea that everything is connected together.

Why God Won’t Go Away states that every religion relies on a form of interconnectedness. Andrew Newberg, et al, claims that there are two forms of interconnectedness found in different religions. There is either a union of mankind with the rest of the world or a union of the individual with a greater individual.

The former is found in religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism explains the interconnectedness of self or Atman with others through Brahman. The latter form of interconnectedness is more complicated. This form is found in religions such as Christianity. Through intense prayer individuals feel a profound connection with Christ. Through this connection with Christ individuals realize a connection with all of humanity.

In I ♥ Huckabees we find a form of existential interconnectedness which is very similar to that of Buddhism. Bernard Jaffe presents us with a blanket which he says represents the universe.

Say this blanket represents all the matter and energy in the universe, okay? This is me, this is you, and over here, this is the Eiffel Tower, right, it’s Paris!

Bernard’s blanket is eerily familiar to the Buddhist analogy of Indra’s Net. Indra’s Net is an infinitely long net. Within each knot of the net is a multifaceted jewel which reflects each other jewel. This analogy is made in order to show that everything in the universe exists in a complex relationship with all other beings. Like Jaffe’s blanket, we are all connected to each other and while we may feel like individuals in reality we can’t tell where my nose stops and space begins.

Interconnectedness is not only found in religions. Atheists also believe in the interconnectedness of everything, this time it comes in the form of energy. One of the foundations of modern physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system.

When I cease to exist, whether I go to Heaven or Hell or back to Earth in the form of another being, my energy must go somewhere. Like the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, my actions as a living being will have an effect on the future. Whether my karma results in a reincarnation or I have a reincarnation through scientific means (i.e. my carcass turns to soil from which a tree sprouts), my energy will have an effect on future life.

The atheistic concept of interconnectedness is summed up well through a scene in Waking Life. A purely scientific outlook upon the world leaves us with a problem of free will. If we are all physical systems then we all rely on the rules which govern these systems. We are all part of a system of cause and effect. This system of cause and effect leaves us with the question of how we make decisions, how we can truly choose to do anything.

This is a problem which has faced humanity since we have been philosophizing. Freedom of will versus determinism first took shape in the form of God making decisions for us, but even without an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being deciding our fate, we have this casual relationship between all beings which can remove our true freedom.

This causal relationship is the basis for human interconnectedness. An atheist may not believe that there is a soul or Atman at the root of our essence. Even without this belief we run into the concept of energy which has always existed and cannot be destroyed, we also are presented with a form of Buddhist conditioned genesis through causal relationships between all beings.

Interconnectedness is a concept which seems to reoccur in all social sciences. Sociology, archeology, religions, (and anti-religions) all come back to this concept of cause and effect. This link between all of us may not be psychic but it definitely seems to exist, whether through energy or some greater being.

Comments:

Page 2 of 8 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 11/30/2004 at 11:29 PM

Socialist Swine pic

DS,

It seems that you forgot to close the boldness It also seems that I can’t use smileys properly, the wink should be a wink

deadscot United States Posted on 11/30/2004 at 11:35 PM

deadscot pic

Thanks for closing that for me Stink...er...Swine wink I believe [lowercase b] that the conversion for wink smileys on this site is ; - )

Are far onmimax is concerned, I’m just going to start calling her Max.  Kinda sexy, an all powerful woman.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 11/30/2004 at 11:46 PM

elwedriddsche pic

How can you make yourself feel truly appreciated without anything to show appreciation?

Why would an omnimax being need to feel appreciated?

Can you define obsolence?

Typo: s/obsolence/obsolescence/

To repeat my question to you: Can a perfect machine chose to destroy itself?

If self-destruction is considered an imperfection, then it would appear that the machine was not perfect to begin with.

If a perfect machine’s design allows for self-destruction, then the self-destruction cannot be considered as an expression of imperfection (hence planned obsolescence).

If a perfect machine was led to self-destruction by a change of its operating environment that the design didn’t anticipate, then it would appear that the machine was not perfect to begin with.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 11/30/2004 at 11:55 PM

Socialist Swine pic

DS,

Hmmm....  Max....  I kind of like that, Max is a sexy name for a she....  Grrr....  Max....  How you doin’....

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 12:58 AM

THEOCRAT pic

Originally posted by elwedriddsche:
Why would an omnimax being need to feel appreciated?

Honestly I don’t know.  Gimme some time and I’ll ask some friends that might.  I am certain I’ve heard that question asked before and have probably asked it myself at some point in time, but I can’t remember the answer if there was one.  For now I’ll offer a cop out and say he certainly wouldn’t be an omnimax being if my finite mind could fully understand him.

Originally posted by elwedriddsche:
Can a perfect machine chose to destroy itself?

I would say the free will of the machine to do as it pleases is not an inherent imperfection.  I’m not sure what I would categorize it as actually.  I also know I’ve had this conversation before on other bulletin boards.  I’ll try and dig up the old conversation if possible to see where it went but I think it ended up being a circular argument where both sides arguments seemed to simultaneously prove their view while disproving the other persons’ if that makes any sense.

Originally posted by elwedriddsche:
If a perfect machine was led to self-destruction by a change of its operating environment that the design didn’t anticipate, then it would appear that the machine was not perfect to begin with.

What if the design did anticipate the change?  God being omniscient knew they would sin, which might suggest as James pointed out that maybe it wasn’t a test so much as the catalyst.

zilch Austria Posted on 12/01/2004 at 02:36 AM

zilch pic

theo- there are a few teensy problems with the conception of a Creator who is omniscent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, at least for those who also believe in free will and certain kinds of goodness.

Suppose the Creator to be omniscent and omnipotent.  Being omniscent, He thus knew that Adam and Eve would choose to sin; and being omnipotent, He thus created the world deliberately so this would happen.  Thus, free will is an illusion- what kind of choice is it, if you are created in such a way that your choice is already decided?  Moreover, God created sin (and death of babies, torture, etc.) and deliberately consigned most of us to hellfire, our “choice” in the matter being illusory.  This of course is the doctrine of predestination, and it’s truly a bitter pill to swallow. The silver lining: it makes proselytizing useless, and we hellbound ones can relax and do whatever we want.

You can’t logically have it both ways- either God is not both omniscent and omnipotent, or we have no free will.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

zilch Austria Posted on 12/01/2004 at 06:28 AM

zilch pic

Hanging Chads!  Talk about serious lack of omniscience! I just noticed that “omniscent” needs another i!  I surely didn’t mean to imply that God’s all-knowingness is restricted to odors, or that He smells like anything, or anything…

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

zilch Austria Posted on 12/01/2004 at 06:42 AM

zilch pic

Oh no! Not the scorpions again! Can’t you take a joke, Big Guy?  I guess you had it in for me- from the Beginning!  Darwin save me!  AAAAAAAA.....

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Les United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 07:23 AM

Les pic

OK, this thread is getting into areas that I like to cover on a regular basis and so far Elwed and DeadScot are largely asking the same questions I would. I don’t have time at the moment to phrase my own, but I’ll be back.

Zilch, is that you in that photo and what the hell kind of bong are you’re trying to smoke if it is you?

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 07:35 AM

elwedriddsche pic

(theocrat) I would say the free will of the machine to do as it pleases is not an inherent imperfection.

That would imply that eating the apple was not a bad thing.

God being omniscient knew they would sin

Where does that leave original sin? An omnimax creator must have both known about the apple and had the powers to prevent it… In other words, if the world has an omnimax creator, absolutely nothing can happen without the advance knowledge and toleration by said creator.

It is as zilch said. I have always felt that Christian theology painted itself in a corner by holding to an impossibly powerful god.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 07:36 AM

elwedriddsche pic

What Les said. Zilch, are these the toys you actually build?

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

zilch Austria Posted on 12/01/2004 at 09:59 AM

zilch pic

Les and elwed- yup, that’s me, last summer visiting my uncle in Crescent City, far in the north of California.  I have a ritual at the Pacific of making a horn of bull kelp (Nereocystis leutkeana).  Never tried using one as a bong- the problem I forsee is that the first couple of puffs would just be air, and you’d likely hyperventilate before getting your hit.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

GeekMom United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 10:29 AM

GeekMom pic

Hubba, hubba!  zilch, the only problem with that photo is it’s too damn blurry and tiny ...

zilch Austria Posted on 12/01/2004 at 10:39 AM

zilch pic

GM- I could upload the original for you, but it’s 1.4 MB, which goes pretty slowly through my weensy modem… You look great in your pic!

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 12:30 PM

THEOCRAT pic

Predstination vs. Free Will is definitely a hard subject to tackle.  There are many places in the Bible where God has “chosen” things to happen and there are also many places where men were given the “choice.” THis is typically a debate fought between the Armenians and Calvinists.  My personal belief is that truth does not lay entirely with one side but is somewhere in the middle.

I am not entirely sure I can present an argument in such a way so that you all may be able to understand my beliefs on this topic.  I will leave my argument to an illustration that generally works with those that believe similar to me.  Picture yourself as a donkey.  God is riding on the saddle on your back with the best looking and likely the best tasting carrot you will ever see hanging in front of your nose on a string.  Being a donkey you want to get the carrot so you walk towards it and keep walkign because it is always just a little out of you reach.  The carrot always points in the same direction, toward donkey heaven.  Often though we get tired of chasing the carrot and the thorny bushes at the side of the rode catch our eye.  The thorny bushes provide an immediate satisfaction to our hunger, but it is also damaging us internally.  While we have given up chasing the carrot, God is still in the saddle and the carrot is still there pointing in the same direction.  We have chosen to go eat something else that isn’t in accordance to God’s will.  Because it is in accordance to God’s will does not mean he did not see it coming because all things are accounted for in his plan.  Notice God’s will and plan are to very different things.  God’s will is rarely accomplished, but his plan is always accomplished.  If we get tired of the thorny bushes we may regain site of the carrot and decide to give it another try.  This time we make it to our destination.  When we make it to our destination we say God chose to lead us there.

Les United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 03:17 PM

Les pic

Picture yourself as a donkey.

So, in other words, believer’s view themselves as dumb asses that have to be bribed to do the right thing. Metaphorically speaking, that is.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 07:46 PM

elwedriddsche pic

(theocrat) Predstination vs. Free Will is definitely a hard subject to tackle.

Actually, it’s perfect foreknowledge vs. free will.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Etan United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 07:53 PM

Etan pic

I find it interesting that the original topic of interconectedness has been glossed over in favor of predetermination and free will.

 Signature 

“An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.” - Gandhi

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/01/2004 at 08:25 PM

elwedriddsche pic

Thread drift comes as a surprise? wink

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 12/02/2004 at 12:22 AM

Socialist Swine pic

You know what I think is the best resolution to the foreknowledge/freewill problem?  It’s Ockham’s answer.  When Ockham recognizes the problem he just obfusticates for a while and acts like the problem is resolved.  I think that’s the best that one who endorses an omnimax being and believes in freewill can do. 

Duns Scotus makes an attempt at it as well talking about natural priority versus temporal priority (though his notion of natural priority is undefined).  He argues something like: that while God’s foreknowledge is temporally prior to our actions, it isn’t naturally (perhaps one can read it as causally) prior to our actions.  This is because as Scotus sees it at the temporal moment of our choice there are multiple “natural” moments in which all of our possible choices are instantiated (as such preserving contingency).  In his view it isn’t until we have in fact acted that the natural moments collapse into the single temporal moment which becomes fixed. 

The only problem with that solution is that it makes no sense.

ellie United States Posted on 12/02/2004 at 01:04 AM

ellie pic

Indeed, appeal to those kinds of miracles led me to doubt the existence of God.  If some deity needed to break its own laws of nature, then it seems to me that it isn’t all that perfect.  If that deity did have to in fact bend its own rules then it seems that it didn’t design the universe correctly initially and was forced to make later amendments.

I know this is really late, but I like that, & I agree with it.  An old testament class I had used a textbook that was in conjunction with scientists who explained how certain miracles could have occured not if you bend the laws of nature, but extend them...I guess.  I know, I know, it only goes back to me REALLY REALLY wanting it to be true, but I suppose I just want to explain how I agree.  That’s why I commented earlier about natural consequences.  I have trouble not seeing hypocracy where people claim there is no God or He isn’t good, because if there was & He is, He would have bent the laws of nature in *their* favor.

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 12/02/2004 at 01:07 AM

Socialist Swine pic

ellie,

I’m neutral about whether a deity should do the things I want (mostly because I don’t think much about it).  However, I do think that a being that doesn’t follow its own rules isn’t all that perfect.  As for the miracles being compatible with natural laws, well if there were miracles and they were compatible with natural laws then I don’t have much to say.

ellie United States Posted on 12/02/2004 at 01:09 AM

ellie pic

If God has to play by the natural laws he set forth on Earth.  Then he is not allowed to do miracles to prove he is God.  Everything He would do would be things we could replicate under our own power.

But I agree with Theocrat too...I just like to wonder why we don’t *see* God doing the same anymore…

ellie United States Posted on 12/02/2004 at 01:12 AM

ellie pic

God may have intended to create a machine in such a way that his interaction with it was required

Aha, Adam pegged it! (for me)

ellie United States Posted on 12/02/2004 at 01:36 AM

ellie pic

Umm, I’d have to agree with Les, I don’t particularly feel inclined to become a donkey....

I’ve understood God’s motivations for interaction w/ a perfect creation that has been granted free will lie in the nature/understanding of the Trinity.  Presumably God existed before, had everything s/he needs, & was Love, not needy or “lonely.” So in some way, we are created as a love gift of the Trinity for each other…

(sniffle, sniffle, stick out lower lip...) where’s DOF?

Page 2 of 8 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main