Musings

Musings

DirtySciFiBuddha22 Comments

Existence could be benevolent or malevolent. There’s plenty of ways to assert either possibility. When it comes to this subject, I like to keep my outlook general and vague, so I don’t stall my brain with a rat’s nest of specifics. So long as there isn’t definitive proof–an inarguable ontology that produces 100% predictability and accounts for all of causality–I’m going to happily believe in a benevolent reality. It may be unprovable, possibly objectively foolish, but for me it serves a practical purpose: instead of constantly condemning externalities or rotting in paranoia, it encourages me to trust in the long-term good, to be as present as possible, and to enjoy the moment. The idea of an underlying benevolence might be subjective, but for me, personally, it is objective enough.

22 thoughts on “Musings”

  1. Good thoughts! I’ve also always hated sinking into doom and gloom. It’s easy to see the news of all of the struggles and feel like the world is only dark and horrible, and while those things do exist, when I look at my present day life I see a safe, positive world. Maybe I should try to be grateful for it all more often. What I like to tell myself in the face of someone extremely pessimistic is, if it really is so hard for someone to live a good life, if we really have so much progress left to make, then I should embrace being one of the good lives lived.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    • Great perspective! Yes, I have been pleasantly surprised by stuff I thought was going to definitely turn out bad. The bottom line is I don’t know, but it seems if I keep a gloomy perspective, then even the good stuff seems not good enough. I’d rather not live that way!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. Well reasoned. A good perspective. I’m with you all the way
    It seems we have two levels:
    1. Which is the cosmological / and at a lesser scale our world and its natural dynamics. And these are neutral, so the sooner we learn to accept them, or try and avoid getting in their way, the better we will be. Gods we an’t.
    2. There’s the Human Way. That always has been imperfect. It can be absolutely rotten but can rise to wonderful levels. We should do the best we can, as we can, how we can. Embrace Compassion, Respect and Tolerance. And never be afraid to look in the mirror and say. ‘Well that could have gone better!’

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Yes. I frame it as a series of immediate hints and guidelines (I need to have shelter and oxygen, I have a tolerance for certain ways of interacting with society, an extreme example would be I don’t tolerate violence from others and myself unless it is extreme or in a sporting context). Also, while it may not be relevant within an individual’s lifetime, I believe the framework changes with evolving technology, the social dynamics that spring from that, and new discoveries. As of now, while advanced non-humans are suspected though not yet confirmed, UFOs and their ability to break the laws of physics as we know them are pretty much now in the realm of mainstream consensus, including public government. Who knows what will come of that in the next few centuries?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • In a 14 billion year old Universe with an estimated observable diameter of 80-90 billion light years and maybe 75% or more of its contents this unaccounted for…
        We’ve only just begun to begin.
        Onwards!
        And here’s to another ‘What the heck is that?’ interlude in scientific investigation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Absolutely! While I could be wildly wrong, I believe there are some Galileo-level changes on the horizon regarding our view of existence and its nature. We’ll see. I believe part and parcel of existence is that we’ll always have a choice to believe or doubt in what we wish to believe or doubt in, but I could be wrong about that as well.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well said!
        As one British scientist commented on the radio when discussing the cosmos.
        ‘It would be boring to be right all the time,’
        And there’s this classic ending to the 1936 film of ‘Shape and Things to Come’
        What a speech from Raymond Massey…says it all:

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m curious … What do you mean by “benevolent”? Do you infer some external, intelligent “power” that affects events in your favour? And would that be your personal favour or would it have equal benevolence towards all living things? For me, that opens up a question about how such a being might “allow” any living thing to exact harm upon another. Or does this “power” wish each living thing to make “right” choices? In which case, how can we see any benevolence, or do we just take that on trust? The same arguments hold, in reverse, for malevolence. When I ponder these thoughts, it seems to me that both benevolence and malevolence are very local points of view. Existence itself (it seems to me) gives every living thing chances – and each will then act according to its nature. Some things kill or harm, but for no reason other than their nature. One might as well impute malevolence to the wind, or to forest fires, as our ancient ancestors sometimes did.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • I just take it on trust. There’s too many things that have yet to be reconciled to assert a convincing case as to why it might be one way or the other. Quantum phenomena, a revamping of the laws of physics as we know them (UFOs recorded by rigorous detection measures) instances of conscious perception that transcend the body’s capability (near death sensory collection from inaccessible places in a hospital), and statistically significant data that correlates conscious intent with physical results (the least sensational stuff would be instances like the placebo effect and Wim Hof, but from my understanding there are more rigorous collections in more fantastical experiments, and although the phrase “extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary results,” is tossed around with casual dismissal, I think that’s somewhat lazy in the intellectual realm–simply because it sounds poetic, doesn’t invalidate the standards of statistical significance under rigorous collection measures, or witness testimony: witness testimony can sentence people to death in a legal setting, but is often scoffed at in scientific perspectives, when from what I understand they should be acknowledged as case studies or data points if there’s enough of them). But if we’re getting into what I personally believe, I suspect the Alan Watts model of reality is valid, where we are pieces of an omnipotent, omnipresent benevolence that voluntarily constrained itself into individual perspectives subject to time, space, and separation because within omnipotence and omnipresence, there is nothing to achieve, nowhere to go, nothing to become, and nothing to choose between., so it is limited by default, and thus in order to become unlimited, it must constrain itself with the arguable illusion of individuality, time, and space. So in that infinity of perspectives, benevolence and malevolence are indeed local. In the locality of my individuated perception, I choose to frame it as a benevolent existence. Anecdotally, I also believe benevolence or positivity to be a default state due to the well-being I experience in an empty or neutral meditative state. I don’t continue as empty or neutral; I naturally become positive and joyful. To your point, yes, killing is a natural act. There is genocide occurring inside my body, where countless bacteria are dying as part of my biological processes. To your last point, one might as well attribute malevolence or benevolence to any externality, but I believe this differs from my subjective belief, which is that I, as an inherently inextricable piece of existence, choose to (if free will indeed exists) believe that in an all-expansive perspective which I cannot reach, that existence is indeed benevolent, that I’m not in a horror story, but an adventure. That kind of thinking can easily lead to victim-blaming, which is why I emphasize the personal and subjective nature of it. Also, personally, I’ve tried being cynical and edgy or matter-of-fact, only to realize that being cynical and edgy makes me miserable, and being matter-of-fact just makes me confused and indecisive (when it comes to existential matters, not day-to-day challenges), because there are so many facts and perspectives to choose between. So while it may be illogical or maybe even objectively wrong, I find a belief in existential benevolence to be of practical use for me. Others, however, can choose to believe as they wish. I have no desire to wallow in condemnation or judgment, or try and dictate someone’s journey and experience.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  8. I am learning that there really is no “good and evil” but more people operating from ego, emotions, and programming. If we can sit and be completely present, bypassing the ego/emotions/memories/etc we can experience truly living in the present. I realize now that the “doom and gloom” is coming from my memories and bouncing around between my thoughts and ego and that is the filter through which I’m seeing the world. It is easier to see when I’m single/alone. I’m hoping, and working on, how to be present with others without this filter.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • I agree! I don’t believe in demonizing the ego, and I think it has a purpose–to allow us to experience separation, which is necessary to experience adventure, choice, motion, and progress, because in our native omnipotent and omnipresent state, there’s nowhere to go, nothing to choose between, and nothing to become, and so it is limited, and the only way to be unlimited is to allow for individual separate perspectives which means ego has a use. That being said, if we inflame the ego, that’s when separation amplifies into suffering, in my opinion, which isn’t necessary.

      I am fully on board with your idea of being present. It’s got a variety of personal benefits in regards to physical and mental health, but I also believe that being present allows for our natural state, which is positivity. When we empty ourselves or shift into neutral acceptance, we do not stay empty, well-being and/or bliss rushes in, sometimes referred to as nirvana and samadhi. I believe that’s the default state of existence, and consequently, our birthright. But if others don’t want to go that route, I’m fine with that. I’d just rather experience the well-being, personally.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  9. I so agree. It is surprising how assuming benevolence actually makes it lean that way. I find my head is clearer assuming the best and that’s good enough for me.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment