MACROSCOPE

Exploring the World from a Distance

Objective viewing requires detachment.

We must remove ourselves from a forest before we can see it as a forest, as opposed to a bunch of trees that we may just happen to be surrounded by. The view from outside that bunch of trees, preferably from a hillside (a mountain top is even better), is much more useful for determining its macroscopic character.

And why would we want to do that?

To make certain of our place, where we are, and therefore who we are. Once we have done that, the task of figuring out what we should do takes on a different hue and color.

We may indeed be able to make out the various trees around us, but not the forest they are a part of, until we remove ourselves from it, then turn around and view it from a distance.

Traveling abroad used to be regarded as an absolutely essential element of one's education. And what is such traveling but another instance of getting away from our personal clump of trees and visiting another forest?

Without question one of the most important "forests" to get out of is that of religion. It should be an integral part of every rite of passage to abandon the "faith of our fathers" and find our own Way. It may turn out to be the very same Way as that bequeathed to us, but at least we would know that we found it ourselves. We generally feel better about something that we made ourselves (or did ourselves) than something that was simply given to us.

There is one forest, however, that is impossible to leave. I refer to the forest we call the world. We can only imagine leaving it.

(I no sooner write this than I realize that you can't even do that, imagine leaving the world. We are so wrapped up in the world that leaving it is truly unimaginable. We are, in effect, a part of it.)

However impossible detachment from the universe may be, we yet need an objective view of it as much as we do of our personal forest.

This particular kind of view—of the world (the universe)—is our cosmology. It is a perspective that many people scarce consider. They simply take it for granted. "The world is there," they say, "and I don't much give a thought as to how it got there. I could never figure it out anyway, so why bother?"

It is, admittedly, a challenge, especially since there is no way we could ever position ourselves for a detached view.

Our cosmology, however heavy a burden it may be for us, provides the basis for our entire philosophy of life. If you believe that the world is an artifact, something that was made, then you are going to believe as well that it was made by someone, some being. We typically (conveniently) refer to the maker of the universe as God, and many people worship this God as the Creator, and pray to Him (although He's not really a He).

They also believe (at least in most cases) that God can see virtually every move they make, even listen in on every thought they think.

If, on the other hand, you do not believe that the universe was made (or created), you feel no compulsion to go off in search of its architect.

Whatever position we take on the matter, we know that we can never "know" how the universe got here, since we would have to have been there (at the beginning) to acquire such knowledge. All we can do is believe.

We "believe" the universe was made, and therefore requires a Maker, or we "believe" the universe was not made and its origins are ultimately a matter of sheer mystery.

My personal preference is inclined to the Way of mystery.

Why? There is no reason. I just like it.

I most certainly do not like the idea that a Supreme Being made the Universe. It just doesn't feel good.

(I must point out here that I am in no way suggesting that there is no Supreme Being, just that IT had nothing to do with making the universe.)

If the universe is an artifact, something constructed by a Being, then it is ultimately a "closed" system. I don't like closed systems. On the contrary, I like for things to be wide open.

I'll take the libertarian policies over the regulatory kind any day. Anything else feels restrictive. Give me liberty or give me death. Yes, I want my country to be just like my universe, wide open, limitless, no barriers (so long as we don't intentionally touch anyone else, or their stuff).

This sentiment, coincidentally, blends very well with my views on government, which I feel should be the macro-manager of our lives, not the micro-manager that it is increasingly trying to be.

Government macro-manages our lives by maintaining standing armies and navies to protect our territory and all its resources. It does not (at least it should not) micro-manage us by telling us, for example, that we cannot have drugs for our own personal use.

The essays posted herein, however diverse they may appear, are all macroscopic in character. I will leave the microscopic details to you.

wayneholland.org 2004-2011