DELUSIONS — Pragmatic Realism

by Stanislaw Kapuscinski (aka Stan I. S. Law)

  I AM.

  Chapter 20

  Why We Shall Be: Phase Three

  I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

  William Frank Buckley, Jr. (1925—2008) American author and commentator.

  THE UNIVERSITY

  (Incl. excerpts from Beyond Religion 1, Essay #52)

  The biological answer is simple: we shall continue to be because our genes are immortal. As my friend said the other day, morons marry morons and produce more morons. But that is not really what I want to talk about. I wish to discuss reasons why we shall be what we shall be due to the evolution of our consciousness.

  It may have escaped notice of some of my readers that the word university comes from Latin universitas, meaning the whole (world), or the universe. Hence, part three of our evolution, at least the evolution of some of us, and hopefully, ultimately, all of us. Let us never forget that we alone decide if we wish to be the chosen ones. Natural selection is concerned with physical survival and thus with quantity. The rest is up to us. Those of us who do decide to continue will have an effect on, and be affected by, the whole universe. This may include any number of universes the scientists discover, as they go along. Perhaps as many universes as there are individualized states of consciousness.

  I suggest that it should be made clear, that while in School the teacher has been, if often unsuccessfully, responsible for our learning process, in the University the onus lies squarely on our shoulders. We alone can decide if we wish to evolve, to continue evolving, and Darwin has very little to do with our progress. We are no longer relying on nature equipping us with the necessary appurtenances to get down from trees, to hunt for our prey (dinner), or even to combat the bacteria, viruses and a host of other bugs, which might threaten or enhance our wellbeing. To give credit where credit is due, most of us arrive at the university with a superb immune system. Nevertheless, by now we are intended to rely on our brain, mind if you prefer, to take care of our needs.

  Regrettably, not every member of our species appears to know that, and they will pay the price for their ignorance. There is an old adage stating: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.” This law applied throughout our evolution, voluntarily or imposed on us by nature, and/or by the universal laws. Regretfully, also by those who take it upon themselves to subjugate those they think weaker than they are. Let us never forget that, more often then not, bad governments are elected by good people who don’t vote. Thus, responsibility reverts to us.

  We must also never forget the biblical statement that many are called but few are chosen. Mother nature is cruel. Not every acorn will grow into an oak tree. Not every seed will bear fruit. Not every member of the Homo sapient species will reach his or her intended potential. That’s how nature works: in incredible abundance, in the hope that at least some of her plans will be fulfilled. We know that our bodies are recycled. Who knows what happens to our individualized states of consciousness? We know that they are immortal, but can they return to their Source, even as every drop of rain will, ultimately, return to the Ocean?

  Furthermore nature is most absurdly wasteful, or generous, if you hold God or Darwin responsible for creation.

  Sometime ago, an article from the Washington Post has been reprinted in my local newspaper. It has announced the results of an extensive scientific research, which stated that: “Most newly conceived human embryos harbor colossal genetic defects that are incompatible with life.” Furthermore, “...most pregnancies––whether naturally occurring or the result of test-tube fertilization––quietly fail within days or a few weeks after conception.”

  That’s only a small part of it. Yet in God Delusion Dawkins writes:

  “Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste. Nature is a miserly accountant, grudging the pennies, watching the clock, punishing the smallest extravagance.”

  Please read on. It seems that Messrs. Darwin and Dawkins live on a different planet.

  An average (human) male produces between two and six milliliters of semen in each ejaculation. This adds up to between 200 and 500 million sperm cells. Let us accept a conservative average of 300 million cells. Multiply that by say, 2 billion males, then by, say, 52 ejaculations per year. Do your own math.

  300,000,000 x 2,000,000,000 x 52 = the number of sperm cells wasted by males of our species alone in a single year. Less the successful impregnations, of course—one per year per male, say. For a few years. Then? Zilch!

  On the other hand we should add, perhaps, the same 2 billion men, boys really, going through their teen masturbatory years. That should add a good few trillion wasted sperm cells. After all, nature disposes teenagers by very natural selection to do so, right? Naturally, the boys might prefer to select girls, but usually they are not given a chance.

  Surely, my figures are very conservative, yet wastage is staggering by any standard. By contrast, women produce but a few eggs at a time, but even then, most go by the wayside. They are also wasted. The profusion of nature’s squander is flabbergasting. Perhaps in another few million years it will improve its batting average. At present, nature’s idea of Pragmatic Realism is to produce everything in such abundance that at least some of them are going to work—the most primitive trial and error technique.

  “…punishing the smallest extravagance???”

  I presume—by habitually destroying it’s own creation. Don’t get me wrong. I do not disagree with natural selection. I do disagree with juxtaposing it to religion in any way whatsoever. Perhaps nature ought to listen to Mies van der Rohe who advocated the maxim that “less is more”. He was also talking about creation; only he referred to buildings.

  And then, Dawkins adds on the same page:

  “Nature cannot afford frivolous jeux d’esprit.”

  My goodness! At the risk of being frivolous, I read somewhere that, with regards to masturbation, there are only two types of men in the world. Those who admit to doing so, and those who don’t admit it. That leaves, say, 3 billion men who do (the rest of the population are women and children). Let us multiply this number by some 300 million sperm at each ejaculation, and then say, again, by (a minimum?) of 52 weeks per year, and we have an elegant image of nature’s idea of jeux d’esprit.

  This seems to fall somewhat short of the “traditional interpretations of Darwinism, in which ‘benefit’ is assumed to mean benefit for individual survival and reproduction”.

  Unless, of course, Darwin and Dawkins exclude the human species from the evolutionary equation. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

  Just to recap. To make Pragmatic Realism work in the evolutionary sense, nature has devised a system referred to by Charles Darwin and his followers as natural selection. The system relies on its self-perpetuation, on the production of sperm/seed/acorn in such a profusion, with such abandon, that at least one sperm/seed/acorn might be malformed, which in turn might result in a mutation, which, if it survives, which is doubtful, might result in… an evolutionary advancement.

  Or not. Or it might prove inferior to status quo.

  Of course, some seed/acorns might be eaten by other wasteful organisms. As for human sperm, no one in their wildest dreams could accuse nature of exhibiting even a smidgen of intelligence in its method. Unless… …unless, regardless of what nature does with the rest of her creative profusion, from the evolutionary point of view, our, human, sole purpose, is to serve as milking cows for the bacteria, who, or which, indulge their gustatory tastes in the epicurean delight of our sperm.

  The rest of the time, we can walk about picking up poop after our dogs. (If you want to find our true purpose in the canine reality, I refer you to “Broohos” in my Cats and Dogs stories.)

  We, you and I, are part of nature. At least physically. For some of us, that’s all we are. Wasters? Or are we, some of us, more than that?

 
At the University stage, we become students. We discover that our newly found freedom is commensurate with our acceptance of responsibility. We no longer hold teachers, preachers, priests, confessors, psychologists, politicians, our parents, or even circumstances, responsible for our survival. In fact, our definition of survival is undergoing a fundamental change. The extension of our physical life is no longer our priority. Quality takes preference over quantity. We begin to suspect, then know, that we are entities with an unimaginable potential. We learn from every quarter, from the past and the present, from nature, from the positive and negative traits still integral to our mental, emotional and physical embodiments. We learn the difference between reactive and causative action. We refuse to conform for the sake of the illusion of security we used to derive from the concept of belonging. We become individuals.

  Even as the preceding phases of our evolution dealt with survival within constraints of time and space, they were also confined to specific duration. Our university, however, deals with that which has neither beginning nor end. It finds its reality outside constraints of the space/time continuum. This realization empowers us to step outside our material constrains. Outside our physical bodies. From this new vantage point we observe the forces controlling our environment. We observe the rich becoming richer, the poor––poorer. Only we no longer measure wealth by the old yardstick of money or fame or power. Those who are happy––increase in their joy, the miserable—tend to sink into depression. Regardless of circumstances. We became aware of the universal rule that, unwittingly, controlled us from the moment we became enwrapped in material reality:

  WE ARE THE PRODUCT

  OF OUR CONTEMPLATION.

  We note that every thought we entertain influences our environment. Every thought we energize with emotion, defines our future. We learn to control our thoughts. We become selective in the use of, and learn to control, our emotions. We learn that to realize a dream, we must have a dream. To reach a goal, we must have a goal. To realize the impossible, we must believe that everything is possible. We become the conscious effect of the creative power of our beliefs. We perceive that at every instant of existence, we are the consequence of our past, the forerunners of our futures. We take control.

  Growing we grow, maturing we mature, ever reaching for the eternally receding horizon. Slowly, so very slowly, it dawns on us that there are no horizons. We realize that we, ourselves, define the characteristics and the scope of our reality. We realize that we create the universe in which we find our being.

  The lightening strikes. Time stops. We begin living in the present.

  There may be another mode to our existence. As the universe seems to be almost empty of matter, we may find, in time, the secret of the great mystics of the past.

  (see POSTCRIPTUM)

  What if the whole universe, including our human bodies, were to be the result of the creative energy (spirit, if you like) unfolding itself in a pragmatic way? What if it were an ongoing process that seems to have had neither a beginning, nor a predictable end? All manner of creation is endowed with the ability to act in accordance with the universal laws, inherent in the creative energy itself. It is discernible in all, including human animals. We begin in a reactive mode of becoming. And then “unto us a child is born.” This is a wondrous phrase, already discussed above (Chapter 18), in which the prophet Isaiah describes his own experience. I beg your indulgence to look at it once more:

  “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

  Let us examine this phrase in detail. The ‘child’ symbolizes the first awareness that we may, just may, be more than just flesh and bones. This thought alone grows into such confidence that, instead of listening to priests and other men of authority, we begin to trust our own self. We no longer defer to outside sources to know how to act. As our confidence rises still further, we begin to realize that this power that has awakened within us is quite inexplicably wonderful. We began to trust in our judgment not just in decision concerning our everyday affairs, but also in matters of greater and greater importance; in matters affecting the welfare of others; of our whole environment. Even as we learn to do so, even as our confidence grows, we feel the stirring of unlimited power welling within us. We feel that nothing is impossible for us. And then, surprisingly, we realize that this power was always dormant within us, and that it is that power and not what we thought we were, that brought about this change within us. We begin to suspect that this authority, this ability, was always there, only it took us a long time to realize it, and then accept it. It and we became inseparable, indistinguishable. We became one. In the next phase, we realized that, in fact, we always were one. And this immutable knowledge gives us a most extraordinary, unearthly feeling of peace. Peace beyond human understanding.

  The perceiver and the perceived became one.

  Actually, they always were. Whether one reaches this realization in ones present life, or a million years from now, it matters little. That which waits dormant within us is immortal. It has its being outside the confines of time and space. It changes its external sheath until a suitable one is ready. Then, and only then this euphoric union takes place.

  So said Isaiah some 2700 years ago. One can but wonder how many people listened.

  This process described so poetically by the Prophet Isaiah should never be confused with the condition described by the American psychologist, Julian Jaynes, which he also appears to associate with the growth of human consciousness. In his observations there are external voices that insinuate themselves into our heads and imbue us with a reality supported by such voices, sometimes accompanied by hallucinatory images. The condition he describes is reminiscent of schitsophrenia or some other deeply seated psychosis.

  The above statement by the Prophet Isaiah has nothing to do with such images, sounds, or explanations. Any externalization, or dichotomy, taking place at any stage of the growing realization of our true nature would immediately throw us into the waiting arms of the religious proselytizers. We would immediately fall into the clutches of religion. The only method of reaching the state of consciousness offered by Isaiah is a lonely, lonesome, individual journey. No two people can reach the same level of realization of the infinite. That is why, perhaps, there are so many of us, scattered throughout the universes.

  But we should have no delusions.

  Those who are not even aware of the wondrous child, of the potential dormant within us—Yeshûa called dead. But there is hope. They are not already dead, but still dead. Not yet awakened. Like Buddhas in waiting.

  Considering that the man who is describing his new awareness is said to have lived between 759 and 690 BC, his evolutionary level vastly exceeded most men I’ve met to this day. He obviously states that, with a little effort, we can reach out towards our infinite potential. The only god he recognized was within his consciousness. Yeshûa of course, reiterated the same sentiment later. People, religionists, churches and… scientists, continued to look for that infinite potential outside their own being. Hence, disappointment and abject deism or atheism—two sides of the same coin.

  According to Isaiah, this new state of consciousness is making us aware that we are each, individually, one and inseparable from the total, universal, omnipresent consciousness, which brings about the transient state of eternal becoming. This new consciousness, this new awareness, this new ‘child’ is one and indivisible from the omnipresent consciousness.

  Fraction of the infinite is still infinite. All the attributes are the same. They are indivisible.

  All the knowledge is already within us. It is only a question of recall.

  Chapter 21

  Scientist’s Delusion

  “Tell him to live by yes and no — yes to everything good, no to everything bad.”

  As quoted in The Thought and Character of William James b
y Ralph Barton Perry

  “Let your Yea be Yea; and your Nay, Nay.”

  Matthew 5:33

  For some reason my favourite writer on all matters pertaining to biology fails to realize that admitting to being an agnostic, though with profound leaning towards atheism (apparently his mental stance of choice), simply lays claim to being ignorant, at least in the realms of matters discussed. And ignorant Dr. Dawkins most emphatically is not, providing he sticks to the illustrious subject of his expertise. To biology. It is true that his erudition in literature is quite exemplary, and his knowledge of various scriptures, the Bible in particular, surpasses that of most ‘believers’, but his heart does not seem to lie in it. Perhaps he just cannot serve two masters. Essentially, though denying this fact, all the interpretations of scriptures I read in his book are exclusively fundamentalist. Pity. His wonderful acumen and extensive knowledge could contribute a great deal to the truth veiled in those documents.

  Perhaps, taking into account that we, humans, are still extremely primitive units of awareness, agnosticism may be the most honest admission of ignorance. Although it may also, on occasion, act as a slight stimulus, it seldom advances the cause of learning. One doesn’t hear people saying, “I’m agnostic about the intangible, because I know nothing about it”. Nor, with the exception of speculative theoreticians, have I met many scientists who were willing to forsake their acquired knowledge, in order to cross new horizons. Even Einstein wasn’t willing to accept quantum mechanics. Rather one hears, “I’m an agnostic and proud of it. It’s the only honest thing to be.” For them, apparently, ignorance is bliss.

  Agnosticism is not an end in itself but, at best, a means to escape drawing conclusions. The usual admission sounds more like a coffin nail in ones brain than a stimulus to expand ones consciousness. And, when all is said and done, considering that life is the essence of change, and that our world is filled exclusively with at least possibilities, and for the daring among us with probabilities, the only thing that is worthwhile is the trip.