'Somebody's turned up the gravity again!' - that was the thought as my feet hit the floor this morning. It's my usual greeting for the day. Of course, it's not actually true. As yet nobody in my primitive little world has got gravity under that sort of control. It's just the effect of a bad night and chronic personal entropy.
Apparently I share a disease with the late Arthur C. Clarke. 'Post-Polio Syndrome' or 'The Late Effects of Polio' is what it's called; PPS or LEP for short. I was amused to notice in the relevant interview, that he seemed somewhat miffed that the doctors had invented a buzz-word for his condition. That from a man who is responsible, at least in part, for the invention of all sorts of buzz-words. You know, modern everyday things like 'Communications Satellite,' 'Geo-stationery Orbit' and 'Video-phone.'
Well I suppose I have to blame Arthur for more than that. Seeing the original Cinerama version of '2001' was a turning point in my imaginative life. Until then, I'd only been into Dan Dare, Superman and Batman, great stuff for a future-minded kid, but comic-book stuff, nonetheless. '2001' was different; it was believable. A seminal moment that showed me our small planet's science-future was not all science-fiction, but much of it had a fair chance of becoming reality. For me that film was the monolith on the far side of the Moon. Now, after forty years or so, during which time I've been out-bound for Neptune, imaginatively, that is, I suppose I must be approaching the next seminal moment, or maybe its the one before the one after that.
For me, that's what life's all about, chasing those moments of enlightenment. Discoveries such as realising that most so-called professionals are hopelessly inadequate, business-men are mostly self-centred and often a paper-cut away from being crooks, organising a religion is the most deadly sin and if god exists, it's no friend of mine, or the world for that matter. It would be nice to catch up with some good news, but that's an experience I've rarely enjoyed.
We are in the middle of a multi-millennial war. The Battle of the Big Brain, the human brain, the evolutionary triumph that Im sure evolution never envisaged. A mad war made more terrible by pure creative thought.
The combatants in this war, of which there are two, can best be described in terms of gender, despite the Political-Incorrectness of the concept: The Earth-Mother versus the Celestial-Father or if you prefer it the Earth-Father and the Celestial-Mother - but, whatever viewpoint you like to take, the wrong one is always winning.
To appreciate my point, you may have to chuck away any current concept or belief in religion; there lies true fiction. EM, the Earth-Mother, represents the forces of nature and natural selection - She is unthinking, but anthropomorphically as real as you or I. CF, the Celestial-Father, represents applied philosophy - a virtual god of thought alone. What confuses the issue is that current popular belief applies these concept-characters to the wrong sides of the argument. It is the earthy deity who is the true scientist but the celestial one who is blamed for it.
This is a depressing discovery. It would be wonderfully comforting if we could rely on EM for all the nice sweet painless pleasures, a primrose-path to eternity following nature's ways. But nature's ways are harsh - success against all odds, at whatever cost to the loser, that is EM's way. Her contributions to what we humans call civilisation include conflict, greed, envy, war and crime; anything which gives one creature or species an edge over another. EM's only goal is the dominance and spread of some part of herself; one creature from her multitude that will succeed against all odds. There are no bounds to her territorial ambitions, except those of the Universe itself. CF is both her audience and opposition, He appreciates her beauties and tries to steer her towards the creation of more of them. CF is a true Utopian.
We humans are stuck in the middle. Our big brains have evolved both the ability to see EM's beauty and the ability to take advantage of her. The first of these talents created CF - for he is totally artificial, and the second portends his ultimate failure. EM is on a roll, I fear she can't be stopped, which is why CF is on the run.
Amusingly, it is those who proclaim to be followers of EM, that are CF's greatest warriors: the environmentalists, the fighters of famine, the seekers of cold justice (as opposed to emotional vengeance) and those who would apply science to the health of humanity. For EM this is simply some temporary attempt at subversion, unless, that is, it incidentally promotes Her purpose!
The 'Meaning of Life' is that we are each here to breed and multiply, whatever the consequences. That is EM's prime battle strategy. Total war between all species, even when that means the destruction of other species or the elimination of one's own. For EM, extinctions are irrelevant, there's always another evolutionary adaptation coming up behind. CF represents the unnatural concept that a species can preserve the status-quo for the purpose of beauty, and beauty alone.
The Answer is not Douglas Adams' ironic "42" - It's that we are here to do EM's bidding, fulfil her strategy. But 'The Great Question,' is simple. I suppose it can best be put as, 'Tell me Pilgrim, whose side are you on?'
-
- 2008-11-29 @ 10:33:55
-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-11-29 @ 11:06:56
You can of course, say that, but it doesn't change the actuality. My statement is not an opinion..... It's a logical conclusion.

-
- 2008-11-29 @ 11:20:05
A logical conclusion indeed, but one derived from a very limited set of initial premises, hence the over-specific and inaccurate conclusion :-)
Tom.-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-11-29 @ 11:56:52
Sure the fewer initial premises, the more accurate the conclusion?
The problem is that premises tend to become assumptions as they proliferate, and assumptions are often unsupported and therefore more likely to lead to inaccuracies.
A simple conclusion must be most elegant.-
- 2008-11-29 @ 12:09:13
The smaller the initial information set the more inaccurate the conclusion as the devilish details necessarily become trampled underfoot during the stampede towards simplicity.
Tom.-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-11-29 @ 12:18:57
By eliminating excess premises and avoiding all unsupported assumptions, I maintain that I avoided that trap.
You would obviously prefer a fuzzy conclusion that, like religions, can be misinterpreted in as many ways as you like - which as I see it, is no conclusion at all.-
- 2008-11-29 @ 12:31:57
As simplification increases so, inevitably, does inaccuracy. A single iteration is unlikely to be close to reality. Perhaps you are happy with the value of Pi as 3. If you are, don't be surprised when your calculations based on it start to get progressively more inaccurate as the error multiplies.
Tom.-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-11-29 @ 12:55:48
I like your illogical concept of "simplification increasing" surely this is a tautology?
The calculation of Pi is rather a different problem, especially as the universe is not big enough to calculate the true answer. This brings in the question of infinity, which is not relevant to our current discussion.
Pi has only one answer, presented in varying degrees of resolution; the least resolved being 3. You are asking me to accept multiple answers to The Meaning of Life, which makes any non-unitary answer meaningless.
I stand by my original argument, elegance and simplicity is best.-
- 2008-11-29 @ 13:44:52
Standing by an inaccuracy is your right. It does, however, remain inaccurate.
Tom.
P.S. no, that isn't a tautology.-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-11-29 @ 14:08:23
Having both used that same riposte, we've obviously run out of steam.

-
- 2008-11-29 @ 14:13:54
OK, let's leave it there :-)
Tom.
-
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-11-29 @ 13:35:28
Interesting post, Munzly...
There are moments in my life when everything changed for me and I saw the Universe and our world very differently...the first was the concept of the three brains in us, the reptillian, the mammalian and the human brain, the discovery of the quirkiness of the quantum world, and more recently, the M Theory, which is still in the process of being proved or disproved by the world's scientists...each struck a chord deep inside me and have been a huge influence on my life. With regard to your description of the Meaning of life, I tend to believe now that, for the first time, human beings can control Nature in ways not possible before and that we're moving into a new Age of possibilities...the birth of the computer age is going eventually to lead to the creation of a fully functioning quantum computer, which will change our world profoundly. Whether it will be a good thing for us remains to be seen as it will also inevitably bring in the Singularity where computer brains will be as powerful as the human brain and will overtake it in its capacity to change our world...I think the Meaning of Life is on the verge of changing far more profoundly than most human beings want or can imagine...I find it thrilling, but I think a lot of people would find it terrifying...I hope I live long enough to see its birth because that's about all I can hope for as I'm at an age now when I might not be around to see it...Damn...LOL...-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-11-29 @ 14:27:10
See below for reply - damn thing started a new comment...

-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-11-29 @ 14:23:59
I would agree with your milestones, we are obviously interested in much the same things.

EM's strategy certainly allows for such discoveries, as they can only make it more likely that our local flora and fauna will spread beyond their current planetary bounds and maybe even beyond those of the solar system. Even though it will take some huge advances in technology to adapt things for that future diaspora. -
- http://www.myword.blog.co.uk
- 2008-11-29 @ 22:38:06
Well Munzly,
I agree with your simplification. The fact that some of us earthlings can't actually multiply doesn't stop the urges of nature trying. Some people even enjoy the process! That basic fact of life, is just that, basic, simplified, call it what you like. Animals have the urge to procreate and humans are pretty good at it. What evolves from generation to generation, does not (yet) alter that fact. The complications relate to a broader topic, not the one you presented, in my view. Clearing Douglas Adams out of the equation, keeps it simple.
-
- 2008-12-01 @ 10:33:17
If our entire aim is to multiply, then we're doing OK, but not that good compared to other organisms. From this point of view there is no 'direction' to evolution - it's not survival of the fittest but survival of the luckiest (not inplausable). What I am saying is, if numbers is all that counts then the most succesful organism is not humans but single celled ameobas, bacteria and possibly cockroaches. If anything, by 'advancing' humans have just made the whole process more convoluted.
-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-12-01 @ 14:52:51
Except that it isn't a race for quantity but dominance. An intelligent minority may persevere over an instinctual majority - evolution is not a democracy.
-
- 2008-12-01 @ 15:32:22
But why dominate?
-
- http://poppycock.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-12-01 @ 15:49:56
To preserve your own gene lines, that's why I said "breed" as well as "multiply"

SeasideMan
Pro


That's a very cold and purely biological (or evolutionary) reading of tMoL:
"The 'Meaning of Life' is that we are each here to breed and multiply!"
I reject that reading and present this one instead:
The 'Meaning of Life' is individually determined and can be whatever the individual wants it to be.
Tom.