I had meant to pass on the blog today, leaving yesterday's essay ("Hobo Life," under "Essays") for the weekend, but Rooson's comments on free will are too interesting to pass by. They were made in the context of Campbell's statement (author of My Big TOE [theory of everything]) about the central importance of free will, and the necessity to slant our decisions to reverse entropy through greater knowledge and, eventually and especially, love. Rooson replied that he has found he has free will for small things - going to the grocery store and so on - but not the large - finding happiness, for instance. Campbell, however, would agree. Using the analogy of computer games, Campbell claims that our free will is limited by the parameters of the "rules," that is, our reality. Within the rules, the right choices will lead to an expansion of that reality, along with the rules and our possibilities. He claims that Being is always ready to help - that it wants us to succeed - and that it can bend the will of others towards the right choices if they choose to be influenced. And it is there that, once again, Rooson and Campbell agree.
Rooson, taking a traditional approach to Being, sees that his small knowledge is incapable of choosing the right path; this can only be done by the influence of God. Yet we have no arguments here between the two, at least functionally. The religious person's prayer is "I will to will Thy will." In Campbell's scenario, we are to allow ourselves to be open to a more comprehensive force that might better choose our path. Both are clearly talking about the same thing, but in different language. Further, Christians believe that Christ is the logos, the Word that has been placed on this earth for our salvation, as well as in our hearts. To beg God for His Will to be one's will, one is talking as well to his innermost being. Campbell again would not disagree. In his view, quotidian reality, small c, is a program made by the Big C (we could call it God); little c has a very limited reality set to work with, and so cannot adequately control its life with this knowledge alone. Instead, it must open to Big C, of which it is also a part (unlike, strictly speaking, a computer program and the programmer, although some would argue for that, too). Meditation, or clearing of the internal noise of little c programming is necessary for this. This, when we think about it, is prayer, without the proper noun for God. They are one and the same.
And so Rooson and the techy Campbell are on the same page. I myself prefer the more traditional spiritual nomenclature, for it is difficult for me to be spiritual while envisioning a computer. For each case, the totality of reality is crucial, one focusing on an expansion of parameters (Campbell's) and the other on an expansion of the heart (religion). They both refer to the same thing, and both concur - to find the proper balance in life, once must enlist the aid of greater powers. In both cases, one must humble the often arrogant (or fearful) voice of the small self to hear the will of the Big Self. This, for both the voice of a spiritual techy and the voice of the religious, is the first and most crucial step towards fulfillment. It is, after all, what a quiet voice is all about. FK
Rooson, taking a traditional approach to Being, sees that his small knowledge is incapable of choosing the right path; this can only be done by the influence of God. Yet we have no arguments here between the two, at least functionally. The religious person's prayer is "I will to will Thy will." In Campbell's scenario, we are to allow ourselves to be open to a more comprehensive force that might better choose our path. Both are clearly talking about the same thing, but in different language. Further, Christians believe that Christ is the logos, the Word that has been placed on this earth for our salvation, as well as in our hearts. To beg God for His Will to be one's will, one is talking as well to his innermost being. Campbell again would not disagree. In his view, quotidian reality, small c, is a program made by the Big C (we could call it God); little c has a very limited reality set to work with, and so cannot adequately control its life with this knowledge alone. Instead, it must open to Big C, of which it is also a part (unlike, strictly speaking, a computer program and the programmer, although some would argue for that, too). Meditation, or clearing of the internal noise of little c programming is necessary for this. This, when we think about it, is prayer, without the proper noun for God. They are one and the same.
And so Rooson and the techy Campbell are on the same page. I myself prefer the more traditional spiritual nomenclature, for it is difficult for me to be spiritual while envisioning a computer. For each case, the totality of reality is crucial, one focusing on an expansion of parameters (Campbell's) and the other on an expansion of the heart (religion). They both refer to the same thing, and both concur - to find the proper balance in life, once must enlist the aid of greater powers. In both cases, one must humble the often arrogant (or fearful) voice of the small self to hear the will of the Big Self. This, for both the voice of a spiritual techy and the voice of the religious, is the first and most crucial step towards fulfillment. It is, after all, what a quiet voice is all about. FK
RSS Feed