Brian Greene and Edward Abbey

In Brian Greene’s essay, “Our Universe Might Be a Giant Hologram,” he brings up the idea of another universe. A universe that is in another dimension and that we live in. Like for example our reflection in our mirrors could be a whole other dimension we live in. Just imagine how crazy and scary that would be. It would be crazy because we would have no idea when we are switching between universes; and it would be scary because we are basically being controlled. He describes it like a string puppet, someone always calling the moves the puppet is going to make and controlling its every step. If his theory of us being holograms were correct, then our reality of life would be completely wrong. Edward Abbey’s essay talking about the relationship between creatures and humans was rather beautiful. He did talk about how humans and animals possibly could have different emotions all together, but that since we are on earth we have to learn to live with each other and except one another. He first let mice live in his house, which most humans would want to trap and get rid of right away. He then noticed rattlesnakes appearing and instead of killing them, which I knew would have been my first instinct, he goes to get a gopher. The gopher and him then form this bond together, which in my mind is a beautiful thing. By letting the mice live in his home, he formed a different kind of bond with the creatures that lived around him.  He is able to connect with nature through this experience and at the same time knows that he may never know exactly what each creature is thinking, it leaves him guessing and wanting to know more. This relationship shows that there is much that we don't know about the universe that might be just in front of our eyes. It leaves room for us to learn and explore into greater depths by just noticing the small things, for example the creatures that we might normally be afraid of like the snakes and mice. 

Greene and Abbey reflection

The argument that Greene make in his essay is that our three dimensional reality is actually a projection of physical processes going on in a two dimensional realm; he calls this his holographic parallel universe theory. He explains this by referring to black holes; we see them as a two dimensional surface, but what lies within is a three dimensional reality. He refers to physicists that explain that the physical processes within the three dimensional volume of the hole are measured by the size of the two dimensional hole. This would mean that the physics of the two dimensional surface govern what happens inside. I think he's arguing that we are a three dimensional reality that's a projection of a distant surface. This idea doesn't change my ideas of reality at all. It seems like the physicists and Greene are coming up with ideas about our reality and alternative ones at no gain; it doesn't change a damn thing even if we are a projection of an alternative world. The things we do have an immediate effect on our physical world and our reality, and we need to worry about those rather than speculate about what could be out there.

Abbey is essentially one with his environment and the creatures within it. He’s completely connected with the creatures, however he also is isolated from them in the sense that he’s an individual just as much as each of them is; he conveys this well by recognizing “that where and when they serve purposes of mine they do so for beautifully selfish reasons of their own.” It would be life changing and necessary to experience what Abbey experienced in the desert. Connecting to nature and being one among many animals who are out on their directionless adventure of life and seeing animals as more important than humans is humbling. Abbey is very comfortable with the unknown, yet he longs for the answers about the unknowns of nature. He wants to know if animals feel some emotion that humans are unaware of because he sees that as one of the greatest mysteries of all time, and it is one of the most interesting inquiries there is. A common ground between the two readings is people wanting to figure out the unsolvable. Greene wants to know if we’re merely a projection of some alternate reality, and Abbey wants to know “what the dolphins are waiting so patiently to tell us.” I’ve experienced bewilderment in this way, and over both of these topics. Everyone has stared up at the stars and felt cosmic bewilderment and wondered what else is out there, and everyone has looked into the eyes of their pet or some animal and wondered if they can understand or if they have emotions that they are longing for us to understand. The earth is all we know, yet every aspect up for study is full of mystery and bewilderment. I think we have to just accept how things are and not worry too much about the loads of knowledge that’s just out of our reach, and stay bewildered.

Unknowing

The idea of the universe being just a large hologram honestly makes me think of the whole world being a spinning holograph on the dash board of Death Star. Just sitting there, incapable of doing anything but floating slowly and indefinitely. The concept of light having its own waves and means of movement also brings SciFi to the table, alternate realities having their own universe that we have no access to. It's rather terrifying to be frank. While Greene brings the string theory to the table, it makes me think about mirrors, and what if they are actually portals to other worlds. It's crazy, i know, but thats just the fun of it. What if mirrors really are a glimpse into something larger than us. What if the only thing keeping us from entering is our reflection. Or what if we're the reflection. Maybe everything actually is linked together. In The Serpents of Paradise, I begin to think of Adam and Eve in the garden, alone. The serpent speaks to them, as the doves speak to the main character. Though in both stories the characters are alone, they have begun to develop a relationship among what they have. In both readings, they have become lost in their surroundings. In Greene's essay, he has lost himself in the mirrors, and the idea of an alternate reality. In Abbey's story, he has become lost in the desert. They have both accepted this concept of bewilderment. They have strayed into the realm of the unknown, literally and figuratively. We know not what lays beyond the boundary of our city, more or less our universe. These massive concepts of being alone in the world, or not being alone in the slightest have become such an immense controversy, we forget that we don't even know if we are alone in this world. Until you have braved your own desert, or questioned your mirror, you don't really understand being lost in reality. We begin to take all we have for granted. When the serpent tempted Eve with the apple, she know not what she had, only what she wanted. This craving we have to know more may just be an itch to know more for now, but what if in the end, it really shows us what's beyond this atmosphere.

Serpents of Paradise

Abbey’s connection to his environment is quite beautiful. He has accepted the creatures’ presence and allows them to be around his home/territory. Most people are repulsed by mice and snakes and want them gone and nowhere near their personal sanctuary. Abbey first lets the mice live within his trailer house, but when he notices that the mice start to attract snakes he becomes wary, but before he decides to set traps for the mice he falls upon a gofer snake which in a way he domesticates and keeps in his house to eat the mice and keep the rattle snakes away. Instead of following his human instinct to kill the rodents and serpents he gets what he wants by using the cycle of nature for his own benefit. He becomes a mutual friend with the gofer snake and they use each other for their own purposes. I feel that he feels more connected to nature than most people but also disconnected to it at the same time. When he was witnessing the “pas de deux” of the two gofer snakes he was helplessly drawn to the dance but also when he was discovered and the snakes were slithering toward him he freaked out and let the fear of the snakes lead him to stand up and make the snakes go away. He mentions that, “If I had been as capable of trust as I am susceptible to fear I might have learned something new or some old truth so very old we have all forgotten it.”

I feel that it would be beneficial to experience this at least once in a lifetime. Aside from the serpent ordeal he experiences I can relate to his early morning gazes and appreciation for nature. I have moments like those very often. The world is indescribably beautiful and mysterious. It’s mind blowing to think how everything in the world works together to make a masterpiece. Everyone should have these moments of exquisite clarity. I think that Abbey wonders about the unknown and is intrigued but he has also accepted it as a mystery. He states, “We are obliged, therefore, to spread news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on hand are kindred…” which means that in a way he has already figured out the surface of the mystery.

Bewilderment

Bewilderment: to cause to lose one's bearings or to perplex or confuse especially by a complexity, variety, or multitude of objects or considerations; This is what Merriam Webster describes bewilderment as. I think Fanny Howe brought up bewilderment in her essay because with bewilderment comes new ideas and new ways or seeing things. "Lord, increase my bewilderment." This is the Muslim prayer Howe talks about in her essay. I think one would pray this because when you are in a bewildered state, you are forced to think about the situation in a different way. When you lose your bearings, you are forced to leave your comfort zone and think and act in ways in which will help you address your problems. Although if when one is lost or confused they may not see that they have another way out.  She talks about how weakness, fluidity, concealment, solitude can take over. We have all been in a situation where we were thrown a variety of things in our path and we just didn't quite know how to handle it. No longer are the feelings of courage, discipline, or conquest one our minds, like how Howe talks about, but the feelings or distress take over. Bewilderment can either enhance our actions and understandings or they can break us and make us feel more lost.

Bweilderment

Fanny Howe draws on bewilderment in her writing in such a way that she almost makes sure to create a sense of confusion; not to say that the reading is confusing, but that there’s a huge level of uncertainty associated with it. I like Howe’s use of dreams to convey bewilderment in this poetic writing. I’m either twisting her ideas or completely agreeing; I can’t be sure because it’s so open ended, but dreams are a connection to bewilderment. As she says, “there is no plain path, no up and down, no inside or outside, but there are strange returns and recognitions and there is no conclusion.” Bewilderment in life is essentially the certainty that everything is uncertain, and that we can’t be in control of the uncertain; we must be bewildered. It is important to know what is certain in life in several areas. If we were uncertain that we were physically here, then that would create quite the predicament; we should be certain of physical life. Complete dream state would be a world with no certainty; we have to be certain that we’ll be here tomorrow, otherwise we’d live without hope. Bewilderment is necessary on the other hand in a similar opposite way; we cannot know the spiritual truths that humans have questioned since the idea of creation. Bewilderment is essential to man because we mustn't lose sight of what is good and natural, and to industrialize everything and eradicate nature to the whim of our wants is to destroy the very foundation of what got us here and how we became.

Bewilderment

Bewilderment is the beauty of getting lost; experiencing the moments of euphoric wonder in uncharted territory, the mystery of the loss of bearing and boundaries, and the perplexity and awe of the inconceivable, mind blowing truths and coxes the world throws at us. When the spiral spins it seemingly appears and disappears into thin air; bewilderment. That moment when you figure out the maze and think about the infinite many detours/solutions the maze holds; bewilderment. When you gaze up at night and get lost in the constellations and thoughts of your size compared to the twinkling stars and if there really is an end to the seemingly endless black velvet landscape that covers the sky; bewilderment.

In my opinion, “Bewilderment,” talks more of the importance of bewilderment than that of certainty. Though I think both are very important, the emphasis on bewilderment in this essay made its importance more obvious to me. Certainty is imperative when making certain decisions. There are times when we need guarantees, concrete facts and rock solid barriers and boundaries to feel secure in our decision.  We cannot always blindly make decision and run into situations with no certainty of the out come or certainty of the layout. Sometimes we need a map. On the other hand, bewilderment is the divergence of life. It is the breaking down of concrete walls; it exposes “the weaknesses from the bottom up, the conspiracies, the lies, the plans, the false rhetoric.” Howe describes it as “grassroots that imitates the way grass bends and springs back when it is stepped on. It won’t go away but will continue asking irritating questions to which it knows all the answers.” Bewilderment is necessary because we need to look past the walls and out side the box. If we stay comfortably inside its cardboard barriers then nothing will ever change. Life is about taking chances, making mistakes and discovering and experiencing new things. All of these actions root from bewilderment and its dare to dream and get lost. “This walk into the wilderness is full of falls and stumbles and pains,” but it is to each their own if the wonders out weigh the possible risks.

Fanny Howe's "Bewilderment"

I think it’s funny that Shiloh assigned us to come up with a definition of bewilderment from the essay because going into the reading I was expecting something very difficult like Sartre’s “Existentialism,” and like Sartre, I was expecting her to give clear definitions of the ideas expressed. Instead, Howe, being a poet, leaves us to do the dirty work. Due to the poetic style of the essay, I’m not entirely sure what she means by the “bewilderment,” though I will give you my interpretation. Howe describes the dictionary definition of bewilderment is “to cause to lose one’s sense of where one is.” Though she that the wilderness metaphor is “not evocative enough because causing a complete failure in the magnet, the compass, the scale, the stars, and the movement of the rivers is more catastrophic than getting lost in the woods.” Though even this more elaborate definition doesn’t seem to satisfy Howe. To me, it seems that she views bewilderment as being the state of being one is in when, attempting to find truth in the world, one only finds that one is getting farther and farther from the truth. This causes us to feel lost and confused. When we try to find certainty, we come across more positions that seem more viable and we throw out things that we once thought were viable. It reminds me of something that Friedrich Nietzsche said about the abyss. “When you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.” When Howe talks about language and how we wish there was a way to signify actions that happen simultaneously, it seems that she advocates for certainty. She wants us to be clearer when we talk to one another. In the rest of the essay, she states bewilderment as both a problem and a solution. We have no other choice but to be bewildered. “Strangely one tries to get in deeper and to get home at the same time.”

Bewilderment

Fanny Howe explains bewilderment is a way of entering the day as much as the work. I think the meaning of bewilderment is when you get lost in yourself and you are confused because things repeat in your life and you still don’t know how to see them. Fanny Howe explains even when you see things over and over again you still might not recognize it. In the story she says, “But there are strange returns and recognitions and never a conclusion.” She also explains how bewilderment means lost by saying, “And even if it is associated with childhood, madness, stupidity, and failure, even if it shows not only how to get lost but also how it feels not to return…” Even if you recognize these things you still might feel lost. We need certainty in our lives because things should be set so we don’t get confused and lost. We need bewilderment in our lives because when things repeat we learn from the past situations and we know how to handle what is coming up. Fanny Howe is explaining how when you lose someone you love you learn from the repeating process. Howe says, “This action can produce guilt, withdrawal, and rumination that some might read as depression. But to preserve, and return to a past you have voluntarily left- to suffer remorse- has always signaled a station in spiritual progress.”

KIngdom of Parable and Is Everything Determined

The readings had a consistent connection throughout on how one explains the concept of how there is no unified theory of how the universe will be determined, or how everything will be. Steven Hawkings also further explains why god and man struggle for how everything is determined.  While Parables of the Kingdom is strictly ordained on how passages or parables that help one understand insconsistencies in the universe and help one fully comprehend the universe is not pre determined. Steven Hawking explains that anything we say is also pre determined, but that grand unified theory "is that anyhting I say is right". So therefore the "grand unified theory" is that man is what determines everything, but man is flawed. He later talks about free will and how the organism can determine if it is free or not. He follows with a series of rhetorical questions that continue to pick at your imagination and the consitency of his questions slowly reveal the thesis of his explanation and how his support comes together. Steven Hawkings explains that humans are "too complicated" and the human brain contains to many particles and there is too much data too meausure how the brain works and how each part is connected. So even with the latest in scientific theory and understanding the human brain it is still a far step from understanding how everything is determined, even through the different understood concepts of fluid mechanics and the "grand unified theory" can not quantify how everything will be.

Parables of the Kingdom and Is Everything Determined

The older humans get, the more we start to question our lives. Although there are many differences in the two articles, Parables of the Kingdom Is Everything Determined, there is also one major similarity. Both articles express wanting to know how the world works. In the Parables of Kingdom, a Christian view of how it works, there is no free will, you are living by Gods plan. This is hard for some to wrap their minds around because we do not know what God's plan for all of us is, he keeps it hidden and as we live our life with our eyes fixed upon him, he slowly starts to reveal it. For example in The Ten Virgins parable, it expresses how we should live a life with our eyes always fixed on Jesus and never loosing sight of him. There were ten virgins that came to see jesus that day and that brought lamps with them. Five were wise and brought oil to burn for the lamp and the other five were careless and did not bring the oils. The five who were careless, did not have their eyes fixed on Jesus and were forced to go back to get oil. When they arrived with their oil, they learned that they had missed their chance to see him. They wanted to be let in but instead were told, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." This means that we do not know God's plan. In order to know it and live in it, we have to be eager and always be thinking about Jesus. Another example of this is in the parable The Ten Talents. In this parable, the lord has given money, or talents, to servants. He believes that these three men know what he wants done with the money and trusts in him that everything will be okay. Two of the three men do exactly what the lord wants them to do, they go and trade their talents to get more. The other man who did not do this, was selfish and did not trust in the lord, he hid his talent/money from the world, showing that he does not trust in God's word. This story is made relevant to us now even though God doesn't hand down money for us to spread, he has given us his word through the Bible for us to spread. In his plan he has for us, we are told to go spread his word to nations. Those who have full faith that the Lord will give them life will do this, those who do not have faith will not do this. "And there shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." God's plan is for the righteous to strive and those who are not trusting or believing in him to be punished. He has the will to determine where we go after life based on what we believe and how we trust him in the life we live on earth. We as humans do not have the free will to determine where we end up, God is the only one who can judge that. The last parable, The Prodigal Son, also shows that even though God will judge where we end up after life, he also has a forgiving and welcoming heart when or if we decide we have not been living a righteous life and we want to turn our life around to walk in the path of Jesus. These parables are a completely different way of thinking than the way scientific people think about free will. In the other article, Is Everything Determined, there is free will. The group of people that believe in the way of thinking described in this article believe in scientific reasoning rather than the Bible and Jesus. "Is everything determined? The answer is yes. But it might as well not be, because we never know what is determined." This shows that they believe we have some free will because there is not proof to show that we don't. Instead of the bible they believe that we have free will based upon the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics and Darwin's idea. Both the two articles, Parables of the Kingdom and Is Everything Determined, are trying to express their opinion on free will and prove their thoughts and reasoning on it. As humans we want to know more and more about ourselves and the life we live, asking daily is our life plans were already determined or if we are determining the as we go.

Parables of the Kingdom/Is everything determined

The two reading were very different, however they had connectable similarities. Stephen Hawking questions the determination of all evolution in the universe; he argues that there’s no grand unified theory that determines how everything will be. He asks tons of rhetorical questions like: is who will be on the cover of a magazine preordained, and also asks- who determines what’s correct, since we all have equally possible wrong ideas with questionable validity. He starts off with the uncertainty in the universe and incorporates Darwinist ideas. The mass uncertainty in beginning of life on earth, the development of complex DNA that could pass off information due to being a product of survival of the fittest- this idea also applies to the free will of humans, which probably came from evolution of humans from primates; those that understood that they had unpredictable free will that also understood the consequences of their actions would have a better chance of surviving. He argues that if everything is determined then we don’t really have free will. But because our actions are unpredictable, we have free will and there’s no way that everything is determined. He explains that neither God nor science could explain the complicated functions in our universe. If God knew that the actions were to happen, then free will isn't free; it would've been “planned”. Also, there’s no set of calculations that could measure the millions of billions of particles within the human brain. The parables of the kingdom is not really about the same thing but ideas are reflected. The stories all are about a person or people that act in such a way that there are consequences for their actions. The story about the virgins the forgot oil in their lamps and the story about the man who saved his money instead of investing it both sort of show that the worth of the actions is up to the master. It was the master’s choice to not accept the virgins who forgot oil the first time, or to expect the servant to spend his money rather than to save it. This is a place where i find a similarity; the free will of the people in the examples led them to do things that had unpredictable consequences. Although some higher power was judging them for their actions, there was no instruction- they were almost expected to fail in order to teach a lesson. The people who failed were a product of survival of the fittest; they wouldn't have survived based on their ability to think about the consequences of their actions, however their fate was not determined ahead of time; it was up to them to make a free-will based decision.

Jesus' Parables vs. Stehpan Hawking's Scientific Determinism

The two readings seem to have some similarities but also some differences. Both of the world views assigned to us to read argue in favor of determinism. Determinism means that we have no control over our actions and every thing that happens in the universe is part of a plan or was already determined to occur. In Christianity, it is a very common belief that “everything is a part of a Divine Plan” or that “everything happens for a reason.” Though this is not stated explicitly in the text, most christians would argue in favor of this. Hawking concedes that his view of Determinism would work even if god set the universe into being. “These laws may have been ordained by God. But it seems that He (or She) does not intervene in the universe to break the laws.” However Hawking ultimately believes that ever human action and every occurrence within the universe could be attributed to the fact that the laws of science exist. Now when it comes to morality and the purpose of life, the two readings differ greatly. The parables of Jesus state that the purpose of life and all of one’s actions should be done in such a manner that they please God. This is done by either fulfilling one’s abilities to their maximum so that they do God’s bidding to the fullest. “Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into they joy of thy lord,” says God when one of the men doubles the amount of money they were given. Or life is done by begging for God’s forgiveness and pledging to serve Him. “They brother was dead, and is alive again: and was lost, and is found,” says the father when his son asks for his forgiveness. However, Hawking’s view seems to be that we should view morality in the same we have been doing: we should try to make the world, here and now a better place. “One cannot base one’s conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for ones’s actions.”