APPENDIX I
The Church
Gleamed from Essay # 18, Beyond Religion vol. III,
Dec.7, 2000
Love one another
John 13:34
Sometime ago, a dear friend of mine, having read a number of my essays, suggested that, on occasion, he had an impression that I have it ‘in’ for the Church. He was very polite about it, but, “Well,” he said, “you don’t seem to find much good to say about the Holy Mother the Church.”
What could I say? I don’t.
Not much.
Not as long as the Church, the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, takes it upon herself to speak on matters pertaining to the teaching of Christ. For try as I might, each time I attempted to reconcile Christ’s teaching with the Church’s manifest philosophy, I have been reminded of a man who asked: “Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” And after a preliminary discussion the answer came loud and clear: “...go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”
The last 2000 years made it abundantly clear that the Church has absolutely no interest in any treasures in heaven. On the other hand, the brazen agglomeration of priceless wealth which I suspect exceeds even that of the British Empire, which R. Buckminster Fuller once called: “...history’s most successful world-outlaw organization...” leaves me full of admiration. However, since the Church wouldn’t follow the Christ, I could hardly be expected to follow the Church.
But this is true only of the area of my particular interest. The area of Inquiry into the Nature of Being. Into my personal inquiry into the legacy of past Masters, which to this day appears to remain obscure, enigmatic, full of mystery, to all but few members of the Church I’d ever met.
Perhaps I should meet more people.
On the other hand, I have nothing but admiration and undying gratitude to the Church, present and past, in many other areas that are almost as dear to me. I wish my readers, and particularly my friend, to know that I hold the Church responsible for my countless moments of joy, of visual, aural and tactile pleasure that contribute greatly to the fabric of my daily life. In fact, outside my marriage, no other organization contributed so abundantly to the pleasure of my senses as the Church.
Let me count the ways.
I held my breath as I entered the Basilica of Saint Peter. What magnificent space, what resplendent vistas! I dare anyone, of any faith or religion, not to derive pleasure, not to admire the euphoric splendor (spiritual decadence only if you are a spoilsport) of the central building of the Church. The sensuously polished marbles, the forests of columns––forthright and upright, soaring towards heavenly domes, or multihued and spiral, mysterious… filled me with awe. The armies of sculptured saints, the galleries of paintings of more saintly figures, all immortalized right here, on Earth, for posterity. The greatest names of the 16th century, Bramante, Michelangelo and Raphael have been mustered to contribute their genius to this monument of human endeavor. And all this thanks to but one man, Pope Julius II. Admittedly there are those who call his reign “the decadence of papacy”, but there is another way of looking at this period. Without Julius, St. Peter would never have happened.
And then there is the Sistine Chapel ceiling, the papal apartments, the papal portrait galleries, the inexhaustible works of art in the Vatican Museum, the consummate splendor of other Vatican buildings, the gardens... and, last but not least, the superb archives of the Vatican library...
Who else could provide us with such unprecedented riches?
And this is just the headquarters.
Wherever I went, wherever I have traveled, in Europe, in Africa, in the North, Central or South America, everywhere, in every country, my joy was multiplied by the sheer numbers of beautiful churches, often amassing the best art and architecture that money could buy of local and imported talent. Often of genius left unknown, forgotten in small Brazilian, Mexican, Peruvian towns, in neglected English villages, in small hamlets the world over. The Gothic style alone could not have been inspired by any authority other than that of the Church. The Early English, the Decorated, the Curvilinear or Flamboyant, the sedate more reserved Tudor, all testify to the Church reaching ever higher, yet ever more lugubriously, for something she, the church, seems to have lost. But for me, for my own pleasure, the heritage speaks of nothing but beauty, of human endeavor, of the creative spirit.
And then, by unmitigated contrast I saw the inspiring, flowing, soaring effects of Amiens and other ecclesiastic monuments of the great French Cathedral cities... high towers, pinnacles, superabundant sculpture, effervescent stained glass, filtering preternatural light to the streamlined interiors. Wherever the Church stretched her mighty arms, she left an indelible mark of beauty in her prodigious wake.
And then there is music.
I defy anyone to point to any other source as abundant as the Church in commanding composers to produce their best for the good of all. Music cannot be retained by those who commissioned its fervor. It is a free gift to all that would listen. From the aria antiqua, through the doleful canticles to the Ambrosian and Gregorian chants, echoing among the stone walls of ancient monasteries, to Handel’s Messiah and other Oratorios. And who could claim that Bach wasn’t first and foremost a church’s composer? And then we find Tosca’s incomparable Vissi d’arte, Desdemona’s plaintive Ave Maria, Elizabeth de Valois’s Tu che le vanita conoscesti and so many other sublime arias all, surely, inspired by the Church’s teaching. And finally there is Mozart who, through his ecstatic prodigious and ebullient Requiem, allowed us a peak into his personal heaven. Could any of these have been born without the Church’s influence?
I think not.
And there is more––much more...
So I am to this day, and intend to remain, grateful to the Holy Mother, the Church. Grateful for her past inspiration and for giving access to us all, today, to share in her splendid, unequal aegis. And to those who belittle her wealth, I can only ask: Who else is prepared to spend millions, countless millions, on the maintenance of such legacy?
Perhaps this fact alone is the greatest blessing. The Church is assuring that the wonder of human creativity will remain accessible not only to us but also to our children’s children. Who says the Church cannot serve two masters? Perhaps we should forgive and forget the preacher’s peccadilloes and be grateful for his obvious achievements. By standing on guard of such illustrious past, perhaps the Church might also inspire our distant future.
And, after all, the future is our own.
APPENDIX II
Science
“It is important to foster individuality for only the individual can produce the new ideas.”
Albert Einstein
Even as I felt the need to express my gratitude to the administrators of the Church of Rome, I likewise feel the same sentiment towards a great many scientists, who spent their lives, if on occasion unwittingly, in an extended attempt to improve the quality of my life.
Whether it was first said by Samuel Johnson, John Ray, or Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, the fact remains that hell, or the road to hell, is paved with good intentions. Nevertheless, while many a positive event happens unintentionally, a useful prerequisite for positive results is the motivating intention. A man whose intention is to saves lives, seldom kills. Thus a surgeon seldom kills, while a soldier does so more often. A scientist whose intention is to produce the best in technology is likely to enhance our lives, while one who’s only purpose is to make money will end up a parasite, even if he, ultimately, (moved by genetically implanted pangs of conscience?) gives away a portion of his fortune later. A research biologist working to produce a life-saving serum will seldom produce poison.
Yes, intention does matter, but it cannot be used as an excuse.
Let us examine the issue from the perspective of Pragmatic Realism.
Imagine a world in which the air is pure. There would hardly be any lung diseas
es, reducing substantially the cost of Medicare. The savings in cost could be transferred to insulate residential homes better, eliminating the need for expensive heating, and the attendant pollution. In turn, the money saved could be invested into healthier food products, resulting in a healthier population, which would again result in less money being spent on medical treatment. Perhaps then medicine would concentrate on prophylactic solutions rather than on treating the pathological results of others’ ignorance. Imagine a world in which scientists are not so corrupt as to flood the market of ignorant masses with tobacco. (Imperial Tobacco Group PLC announced: “Our current scientific programmes are undertaken to improve our knowledge of tobacco and smoking...”).
The story goes on.
The same could be said of scientists who concern themselves with human comfort.
Industrial revolution raised the standard of living for millions of people, but it also produced unprecedented amount of waste, of which air pollution is only a part. Is it the fault of the inventor or the user? Can scientists be blamed for enabling people to travel in equally unprecedented comfort, be it in cars or in airplanes? Yes, they aught to know better. After all they claim to know better. If their primary purpose, their intention, had been to transport people while causing an absolute minimum of noise, smell, poisonous particles suspended in the air we breathe, than the consequences of their efforts would be very noticeable today. If they simply carried out the orders of their ‘superiors’, of people whose sole intention was to make money, regardless of the consequences, then they, the scientist and engineers do participate in the guilt.
So what am I grateful for?
First and foremost by igniting the holly fire of curiosity in all who feel the need to examine the reality we live in. The technology they invented enables me to speak to friends who are far away from the comfort of my well insulated, water and fire-resistant house.
All in all, I am grateful for the ease of life with which the scientists have surrounded me. I am grateful for all discoveries, which enhanced my concept of Pragmatic Reality in which I experience my becoming.
There are many, many things I am grateful for.
Thank you, scientists. May your comfort level be as pleasant as mine is. I hope you’ll continue to enhance life here, on Earth, without reaching out to the Moon, or Mars. If you do reach out, let it be, for instance, to conquer gravity, rather by expelling tons of pollutants into the atmosphere in your attempt to fight it. Please, act like scientists, not like henchman of pollsters and politicians. Let them stew in their own quagmire. Unless… unless you want to sent them all to the moon… soon?
Well…
Now, a word about scientists at their best.
On November 18, 2011 the BBC Internet News reported the unveiling by the US engineers the “World’s lightest material.” The Engineers say the material is less dense than aerogels and metallic foams.
“The substance is said to be made out of tiny hollow metallic tubes arranged into a micro-lattice—a crisscrossing diagonal pattern with small open spaces between the tubes.” The researchers say the material is 100 times lighter than Styrofoam and has ‘extraordinarily high energy absorption’ properties. Potential uses include next-generation batteries and shock absorbers.”
The research was carried out at the University of California, Irvine, HRL Laboratories and the California Institute of Technology, and is published in the latest edition of Science.
"The trick is to fabricate a lattice of interconnected hollow tubes with a wall thickness 1,000 times thinner than a human hair," said lead author of the announdement, Dr Tobias Schaedler.
The resulting material has a density of 0.9 milligrams per cubic centimeter.
“By comparison the density of silica aerogels—the world's lightest solid materials—is only as low as 1.0mg per cubic cm. The metallic micro-lattices have the edge because they consist of 99.99% air and of 0.01% solids.”
“Materials actually get stronger as the dimensions are reduced to the nanoscale,” said team member Lorenzo Valdevit. “Combine this with the possibility of tailoring the architecture of the micro-lattice and you have a unique cellular material.”
The engineers suggest that practical uses for the substance include thermal insulation, battery electrodes and products that need to dampen sound, vibration and shock energy.
The whole article was gleamed from the BBC mobile News Technology. The rest of the article can be read at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15788735
Before I took up writing, I’d spend many years designing buildings. I would have given a great deal to have such a material at my disposal. My congratulations to the US engineers, to all the scientists involved, and to BBC who were kind enough to make the information available to us.
Now if you accept that the “metallic micro-lattices have the edge because they consist of 99.99% air”, and multiply the result by 99.9999999999999% void in every atom of which the lattice is made, you get some idea of what I mean when I say that the world you experience with your senses is not real.
APPENDIX III
Richard Dawkins
“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.”
Richard Dawkins
Finally a word about the man, who not only is my favorite biologist, but is the scientist who also inspired this book.
My admiration for Richard Dawkins and his brilliant mind has waned somewhat following his persistent attacks not on religions, in which endeavour he has my full support, but at his juvenile and pathetic repeated commentaries on biblical stories of which he understands absolutely nothing. While mentioning that he is aware of other, non-literal explanations of the scriptures, nonetheless he continued to repeat, time after time, his pitiable fundamentalist versions, which can only serve to discourage others from even attempting to understand what is evidently beyond Dawkins’s scope, and simply to dismiss all the scriptures as dismal nonsense. One can but wonder why his opposition, those who disagree with him, use equally as inane arguments, as those of e.g. Pat Robertson, quoted by him. Action equals equal and opposite reaction: nonsense to nonsense. I tend to think that the author deludes himself if he imagines that he converted a single reader to his way of thinking. Pity. I’d venture to suggest that he is endowed by the selfish gene with a superb brain, which, outside the domain of biology, he fails to put to good use.
Although my learned hero claims that some people in America, having read his books, had given up their religions, such people, I suspect, were already well advanced into their apostate state of mind. Those deeply rooted in their religions, however, will only have an equal and opposite reaction. The email Dawkins quotes from a young medical student, who having renounced faith lost his girlfriend, is a perfect example of this. Hatred is said to breed hatred. Love seems to attract love. Both these adages seem to suggest very pragmatic solutions.
However, I am prepared to forgive all scientists a great deal for one reason alone. They often feel so passionately about science that I am sure they’re in love with it. And we all know that love is blind. And as I am told that most scientists are atheists and monists (in the material sense of the word) the rest of my notes will address scientists in general.
It seems that evolution equipped scientists’ brains to navigate a world that to them is real, and thus assures their survival. It is a world based 100% on material reality, guided by physical, or sensory observations, of things past. We must never forget that whatever we examine in physical world, that object is substantially if not completely changed at cellular and/or atomic level, before the examination is completed. This is a ‘scientific’ fact.
My world is one in which I continuously find themes to explore which are not necessary for my physical survival. Some great, great men lived a very short time (see Chapter 19). In my world the survival of my imagination, my emotions, my mind, of that which inspires me to feel, to recognize poetry and beauty in literature, music, dance and all
forms of art, is of vastly more importance. During and immediately after WW2, I met people who were physically very much alive, but they lost the capacity to love. This symptom, it seems, is repeated by the veterans of each and every war. They are the living dead, regardless what biology tells us about them. I dare suggest, that it is much easier for me to understand the world of the scientists than for them to understand mine. I don’t mean the intricacies of quantum mechanics. I mean that their world is only real if it can be objectively shared, if we all perceive reality in exactly the same way.
My world is filled with individuality, uniqueness, subjectivity, delight and euphoric appreciations of beauty in the eyes of the beholder. Even just a single beholder. The scientists will argue that you can do none of these things if you are physically dead. My response is that if you don’t do at least some of these things, you already are dead.
Scientists’ problem seems to be that most of them, recognize only material objects as real. If I close my eyes and see the image of my wife, that image is for me, just as real. If I dream and learn to enter and control the passage of my dream (known as lucid dreaming), even if I only think I did so, the events, pleasure, joys, beauty, even scents and tactile pleasure within my dream, are all just as real. My reality is not confined to the mundane sensory input. Perhaps it was evolution which equipped me with the capacity to experience my dreams with all my senses, but how can anyone deny my reality if they’ve never experienced it? Can a blind man deny the sight others enjoy? Perhaps if he was born blind, but what if he, the scientist, decided to pluck out his own eyes, as so many scientists do? None are so blind as those who have eyes yet cannot see…
DELUSIONS — Pragmatic Realism Page 19