We have noticed Anderson's many Biblical references and maybe the last of them is simply the title of his last sf novel, Genesis.
"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)
My commentary: "God" is personified reality. Reality creates appearances. However, reality does not consciously create anything. Instead, it becomes conscious of itself by appearing to itself. It "creates" appearances which are not identical with reality but are appearances of it: different appearances for different sense organs, e.g., our five senses and a bat's echolocation differently perceive the same reality.
Gen. 1:1 does not describe the earliest moment of consciousness. That would have been the first bodily sensation in a mobile marine organism. A sufficiently complex and sensitive organism that needed sustenance began to experience hunger, to feel hungry. A need for sustenance is objective whereas experience and feelings are subjective. The emergence of consciousness is the qualitative transformation of sensitivity into sensation. Similarly, an organism that was becoming harmfully hot or cold began to feel uncomfortably hot or cold. Thus also, conscious motivations began to replace automatic responses.
Long after bodily sensations, came visual perceptions. There is the appearance of a sky above and a ground below, "the heaven and the earth." Sky and ground are separated by an apparently empty space which is really full of air, electromagnetic and cosmic radiations, the gravitational field and any other forms of energy. Reality is continuous although heterogeneous and mostly invisible to itself. As an invisible subject of consciousness, it is an omnipresent "spirit," although not perennially conscious.
(In the Biblical Genesis, creation consists of separating the waters above from the waters below, then moving the waters below to one side so that the dry land appears.)
In Anderson's Genesis, the Terrestrial AI, Gaia, creates within herself "emulations," conscious simulations of past or alternative timelines. Within each such emulation, many conscious subprograms of Gaia experience themselves as individual human beings living entire lifespans in England, Greece or North America etc in particular historical periods. Gaia consciously creates appearances whereas reality unconsciously creates them.
Gaia also re-creates extinct humanity on the Terrestrial surface and communicates with them in the forms of gods. Rightly is this novel entitled Genesis although Gaia's creativity occurs billions of years in our future.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Welcome back from your holiday in London!
Strictly, GENESIS was not the last of Anderson's SF novels. That was the posthumously pub. FOR LOVE AND GLORY.
And I still don't believe in materialism. My view remains that of the moderate dualism of Mortimer Adler, as expounded in his book THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES.
To say nothing, of course, of how I believe in divine revelation, beginning with Abraham and culminating with Christ and the Church He founded.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course FLAG was later. I tend to think of GENESIS as a thematic and conceptual culmination but that doesn't make it literally the last.
I think that my version of materialism fits in with Eastern mysticism: that there is one single, mostly invisible, reality that is conscious of itself through individual beings. I will read that book by Adler if I can get hold of it and learn what "moderate dualism" is.
Consciousness is qualitatively different from although grounded in empirically observable processes so the qualitative difference is conceptualised as dualism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But it can be confusing when at least four new works by Anderson were posthumously published.
"Pele"
"The Lady of the Winds"
FOR LOVE AND GLORY
And a very short piece whose title I don't recall.
I have no belief at all in Hinduism or Buddhism, I believe Western and Christian philosophy answers far more questions more convincingly than they can.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You have some agreement with some parts of Hinduism. It includes a lot of devotional theism.
Western philosophy, yes. However, Greek philosophy preceded Christianity. Christian theologians had to adopt it. Then European philosophy after Spinoza moved away from Christianity.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Hinduism has some bits of truth in it, as when any parts of it conforms with natural law. Ditto with Buddhism.
But the gross polytheism of Hinduism affronts me. As does the horrors of the caste system. And the fatalism, passivity, and belief in reincarnation of both it and Buddhism are more errors.
Not all Western philosophy became hostile to or moved away from Christianity. Bergson, for example, in his form of Existentialism. And there were others, like neo-Scholastics such as Jacques Maritain and Mortimer Adler.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course not all but there is a massive move in that direction. Can you summarise Adler's dualism? How does it differ from anyone else's?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And those strains of Western philosophy which moved away from Aristotelianism/Scholasticism are, IMO, making a serious error. Because they are becoming less realistic, less truly open to the universe and the sciences trying to understand it.
I cannot adequately summarize Adler's thought for several reasons. One, I've read only two of his books (and three or four of Maritain's works). Two, it's been a very long time since I read THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN..., but I still recall his detailed analysis of the senses and how humans know and learn thru our minds reasoning about what the senses perceive.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Materialist philosophy recognizes objective reality and the knowledge of it gained through science. We do not need Scholasticism for that.
I agree that animal and human consciousnesses are qualitatively different as also are unconsciousness and consciousness and many other aspects of the single reality.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And Aristotelianism/Scholasticism also recognizes objective reality and knowledge gained thru the material sciences. We don't need materialism for that.
Mortimer Adler went into massive detail discussing the other issues alluded to in THE DIFFERENCE OF MAN AND THE DIFFERENCE IT MAKES.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But Scholasticism makes other assumptions which are unnecessary.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
As does materialism, which also makes assumptions unnecessary for science.
Philosophy alone, of whatever school, cannot lead to definite answers for the ultimate questions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What unnecessary assumptions does materialist philosophy make?
Supernaturalist and naturalist world views are not on an equal footing. References to supernatural entities have to be defended. Statements that make no reference to anything supernatural do not have to be defended for not referring to anything supernatural.
What are the ultimate questions?
Paul.
I think that "What is ultimate reality?" is an ultimate question and that "Does God exist?," i.e., "Is the ultimate reality personal?" is subsidiary. Even how we frame the questions will reflect what we think the answers are.
"How should we live between birth and death?" is ultimate. "Does consciousness somehow continue after death?" is subsidiary.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe it's the other way about: does a personal, infinitely transcendent Being, God, exist. Ditto, with whether consciousness survives bodily death.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Those are not ultimate questions. They seem so to you because you are a theist. The very ancient religion, Jainism, assumes beginningless and endless matter and transmigrating souls. This religion gave answers to the questions: "What is ultimate reality?" (matter and souls) and "How should we live here and now?" (ascetically) The question, "Does a personal, infinitely transcendent Being exist?" did not arise. You think that it should because you already believe that. You have to explain why such a question should be raised. It is not a common starting point.
Paul.
Post a Comment