Are we just the universe doing its stuff?
Michelangelo Antonioni’s film Blowup constitutes the extent of my acquaintance with the work of the Argentine writer Julio Cortázar. But recently I posted on my blog this quote from Cortázar: “And do you accept the idea that there is no explanation?”
This was not long after I had written my last column, in which I quoted something Bill Vallicella had posted on his blog, Maverick Philosopher: “[I]f materialism is true, then I think Nietzsche is right: truth is not a value; life-enhancing illusions are to be preferred. If truth is out of all relation to human flourishing, why should we value it?”
I presumed that by materialism Vallicella meant the sort of mechanistic determinism encapsulated so well by Julian Barnes in Nothing to Be Frightened Of: “[F]ar from having a whip to crack, I am the very tip of the whip itself, and what is cracking me is a long and inevitable plait of genetic material which cannot be shrugged or fought off.” Later in the book Barnes cites a “specialist in consciousness” who explained over the radio “how there is no centre to the brain — no location of self — either physically or computationally; that our notion of a soul or spirit must be replaced by the notion of a ‘distributed neuronal process.’ ” According to said specialist, “these words coming out of this mouth at this moment, are not emanating from a little me in here, they are emanating from the entire universe just doing its stuff.”
When I reviewed Barnes’s book — which, by the way, is very much worth reading — I noted that the most logical inference to be drawn from this is that there really is no self — no you, no me, no Julian Barnes; only the universe doing its stuff, which just happens to include (for a time) what you think of as yourself, what I think of as myself, and what Julian Barnes thinks of as himself. (I also noted that “looking for a self-center in the brain is a bit like looking for a larynx in the telephone receiver.”)
I am told, by the way, that the preferred phrase for this outlook is “biological determinism,” but since life has presumably come about through a similar line of causation the differentiation seems academic, biology being just another brand of chemistry and chemistry another brand of physics. This seems especially so if everything is just the universe doing its stuff.
Nevertheless, an explanation of existence positing that our most immediate experience of it — namely, our sense of ourselves in the world — is an illusion would seem to demand an act of faith as great as any religious proposition I can think of. Buddhism may teach that the ordinary, everyday self is an illusion, but it also suggests there is an authentic self that we can experience if we can get past that superficial one. The universe doing its stuff is existence without any self whatsoever. It is a world in which the term meaning cannot possibly have any.
I could, for instance, say that I am just here watching the universe do its stuff, except that there isn’t any “I” to be “here.” In a universe doing its stuff, there can’t really be any here or there, just a great big everywhere doing everything all at once. But wait! If among the stuff the universe does are entities who think they are selves, who among those selves has the right to say the sense of selfness is illusory?
Which brings me back to the Julio Cortázar quote I started with. “And do you accept the idea that there is no explanation?”
Maybe there just is no one-size-fits-all explanation of things. And maybe we don’t inhabit a universe doing its stuff. Maybe it’s a universe that is nothing more — or less — than an infinite variety of entities doing their stuff.
Latest posts by Frank Wilson (Posts)
- An illusion of precision - September 9, 2015
- Watching the passing scene - October 28, 2013
- To see like a child - June 26, 2013
- Riffing and digressions - January 21, 2013
- Life is a parenthesis between one darkness and another - September 13, 2012
Print This Post
Yep, we’re the universe doing its stuff…but I wouldn’t say ”just.”
Not quite, Carol. I’m doing my stiff, and you’re doing yours. And so is everybody else.That’s all the universe is. I don’t actually believe that. But it’s more plausible than what Barnes’s specialist thinks
Nor, surely, is there any reason to believe that our current understanding of the universe will not change in the future; nor indeed that we will ever be able to perceive exactly what ‘the universe’ actually is, any more than a fly could ever perceive what human civilisation is. Thus such grandiose ultra explanations strike me as bogus from their very first principles.
“And do you accept the idea that there is no explanation?”
Well in answer to that, it first has to be be asked “Is there an explanation for WHAT, exactly? If we’re talking about the existence of the universe, it must be admitted that there IS an explanation. The fact that we haven’t come up with an explanation does not mean that there isn’t one. If , though we are talking about ” meanings “- well what is the meaning of,say, the planet Jupiter, the Grand Canyon or an aardvark? There are verifiable explanations for these things , but no meanings.
As for the musings of the Buddhists on the notion “self “, and all the philosophies that the world has known (and as interesting and invaluable as they are) they are by no means ” explanations”, but interpretations. They don’t “explain” anything. In this sense, Stephen Hawking i think was spot on when he recemtly said that philosophy is dead.
Also, I have to agree with Daniel K’s first assertion even though it flatly contradicts the second.
(Okay, owing to, I am presuming, an inadvertent typing of the word “ not”).
Even though, it is true that we may never be able to perceive “ exactly what the universe actually is” , if he did mean to say that our current understanding of the universe will not change in the future, then he is wrong. Our understanding is in fact changing a great deal as we speak and will continue to do so in the future.And the explanations are very far from being “bogus”.
I would agree that they are interpretations, but they tend to be presented as explanations. Moreover, I would also say that all that science has to offer is interpretations., not explanations. We really don’t know what is going on, but are reluctant to admit it. So we hit upon an interpretation and make a dogma of it.
But isn’t there a big difference between a subjective interpretation and explanations backed up with evidence?
Also most if not all reputable scientists are anything but reluctant to admit that there are things they don’t know- including what something like 90% of the universe consists of.
Hi Frank,
It’s rather that the selves do the universe, not vice versa, to the point that if all conscious beings were to die, the universe would go away. There would be no light, for instance, no touch, nothing. The universe is at all times created.
Yours,
Rus
Words are not sufficient to describe the horror of the universe…
I do not understand the film Blow Up, that’s for sure. I saw it when I was very young – my sister and I sneaked into the cinema pretending we were older than we were, as the film was rated X. We were so disappointed by it because of its weird ending. Who murdered who? Why did they play tennis? etc.
Well, I don;t know about the Universe, but if I could understand Blow Up, that would be a start.
The nameless, slithering horror, the old ones… I shudder.
First, to Gracchus:
“… it first has to be be asked “Is there an explanation for WHAT, exactly? If we’re talking about the existence of the universe, it must be admitted that there IS an explanation. The fact that we haven’t come up with an explanation does not mean that there isn’t one.”
That we have not come up with indeed does not mean that is not one. but it is certainly an indication that there may not be one. So I do not think it must be admitted that there is one.”
Second, to the wonderful Maxine: Naughty, naughty, Maxine, sneaking into those movies. But yes, I never got the tennis bit either, and still don’t. But the murder was committed either by Vanessa Redgrave herself or an accomplice. I love Blowup, which I saw several times when it came out — I was 24 — because of its ambiguity, which is what I think it is about. But it certainly isn’t to everyone’s taste. My wife, I seem to recall, feels much as you do. Ciao!
Hi Maxine,
I think you are right. Maybe a remake of the last scene . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97tbs0JwRL8
Yours,
Rus