Simulacra

I recently bought new ear buds. I wasn't sure I even wanted them, but they would be small and good for traveling. The ones I had came with my media player and were cheap, too big, and the felt covers were coming apart. The earphones I use at work I like, but the wire is a bit too short, and anyway I wanted some for traveling. So I bought some mid-level ear buds and jesus, they feel nice and have some sweet bass!

And it got me thinking... the difference between the music I was listening to then and what I'm listening to now is purely due to the little tiny speakers in my ears (which I still find pretty annoying and weird). So which one is right? Obviously neither is the right way for the music to sound... it's not like my new ear buds are some how tapping into what the musicians thought the music should sound like. What they created with their instruments (synthesized or acoustic or whatever) is lost forever... it was captured by certain equipment, and what is played back is only a cheap copy. Then the sound people do what they do and change the levels and it becomes a different thing altogether. The musicians and the sound people decide on what the copied and played-back music is supposed to sound like, and they produce it.

And the journey has only begun! The music is consumed in various ways... on the radio, as CDs, or, and I say this with some disgust, bought as mp3s. Neither is what the musicians actually created, but at least the CDs represent what they think the music should sound like, instead of castrated and decapitated mutant-clones that contain a tenth of the original information. But then these digested forms of music are played with some kind of speaker and finally make it to your ear according to what the speakers can do; how do we believe that the speakers' interpretation of your music-playing software's reconstruction of whatever mutilated audio file that was torn from the original digital copy of music that was captured out of the air in some box where the actual music was created... how do we believe it represents that actual music?

It is actually a simulacrum; a "likeness" or "similarity." It is not the actual music, but we are used to taking symbols to mean the thing that they symbolize. I will admit that I only know the word "simulacrum" (plural: simulacra) because Jean Baudrillard's philosophical book "Simulacra and Simulation" was discussed in the behind the scenes DVD of The Matrix and referred to when Morpheus tells Neo, "Welcome to the desert of the real." The music that we listen to is a simulacrum of the music that it represents, and I don't mean to suggest that there is anything actually wrong with this way of listening to music, but it is interesting to think of it as it is and not what it appears to be. The journey from music creation to music appreciation, unless it takes place at a concert (and even then to some degree...), occurs through the degradation of meaning. The true form of the music (maybe Platonic, but maybe it's too late for me to be speculating on Platonic forms) exists in the act of music creation. Once the music is played, everything else is a copy, a likeness. (A shadow on the cave?)

I think the deep thing I'm going for here is that the creation of music is a process, and so it can't be captured, not by any audio equipment, and it certainly can't be sliced-and-diced until it's finally regurgitated into your ears. It exists only in the moment of its creation and is gone outside of that moment. BUT, listening to music is itself a process. All of my violent imagery aside, most of the true essence of the music survives this degradation of meaning, so that when you listen to some sweet beats it is an experience! Maybe the bass isn't all there and so some of the power of the moment is lost. Maybe it's an mp3 so it lacks complexity and fullness of sound... the complexity and fullness of the moment. But maybe listening to that combination of rhythym and melody is enough to bring you out of yourself and into your moment. Your attention is captured and you are fully aware of the music.

Even though the music may be a simulacrum, your experience of the music never is.

Crossings

Between forest and field, a threshold
like stepping from a cathedral into the street--
the quality of air alters, an eclipse lifts,

boundlessness opens, earth itself retextured
into weeds where woods once were.
Even planes of motion shift from vertical

navigation to horizontal quiescence:
there's a standing invitation to lie back
as sky's unpredictable theater proceeds.

Suspended in this ephemeral moment
after leaving a forest, before entering
a field, the nature of reality is revealed.

"Crossings" by Ravi Shankar

This poem came up on the PBS Newshour blog and I wanted to share.

That is all.

Jobs and Gender

There has lately been a bit of a scandal in (a very narrow segment of) the science community regarding a story published in Nature's Futures section called "Womanspace" by Ed Rybicki. Check it out for yourself, and then see which of the comments match your own opinions on the piece. There have been many blogs about it, including one by Ed in response to the outrage, that I am still reading and absorbing, and if I was on twitter I would probably start using the #womanspace tag, but a full blog post on this will have to wait.

What's more pressing currently is job season. In astronomy this is the time of year for postdocs, fellowships, and faculty positions to appear on the job register and rumor mill. I've been writing proposals, research summaries, research statements (which is incredibly vague and annoying), and finishing up papers. This morning I was sent a notice for new postdoc positions in my field. It turns out they're looking for people with different expertise than I possess, but sometimes it's nice not to have to apply for another job. And then I read the end of the advert and find myself back in #womanspace:

"Applications from disabled persons are encouraged and will be favoured when equally qualified. [The University] is committed to increase the percentage of female employees in sectors where they are underrepresented. We want to especially encourage female applicants to apply for these positions."

Now, as a female, I don't feel especially encouraged after reading these words. The intent is in the right place, but this type of disclaimer, I feel, only serves to promote the notion that women/minorities/disabled and other underrepresented groups only get accepted (to college, grad school, jobs) because of their demographic and not because they are qualified. The common conception that "all other things being equal" we will hire a woman or minority - held by those who believe they want to help - actually does more to hurt by reinforcing the Other-ness of these groups and down-playing their abilities, which is what all agree should matter in these situations. Consciously, people who think this way are saying "Your Other-ness is going to be a good thing, not a negative thing." But why should it matter at all? Does this mean that unconsciously, these people think the Other-ness is more important than actual qualifications? I don't want the fact that I'm female to be the deciding factor; I want to feel that I'm actually qualified for a job that I get. This type of thinking also reinforces the Imposter Syndrome in these "Other" groups: if my Other-ness is what got me here, maybe I don't really deserve to be here, I'm just filling a quota, etc.

The other side is how majority groups perceive this type of disclaimer. Those who aren't necessarily advocates for promoting equality among the majority and underrepresented groups see an unfair advantage being given to the Others at the expense of themselves. "These Others are not qualified and they are stealing our jobs! They are explicitly being favored! Not fair!!" Regardless of how fair the selection actually is (and I submit that standard practices give unfair advantages to majority groups because of unconscious biases and stereotypes, and that though this can be eliminated to some extent, the process will never be completely "fair"), the perception of unfairness is in fact quite harmful to all involved and especially to underrepresented groups, who always have to prove themselves with a higher standard just because of this assumption (held by few, not all, but enough to have an effect) that they start out less qualified because their Other-ness has helped them succeed.

There is in fact a growing amount of research into how unconscious biases creep into hiring decisions, including the writing of reference letters, that cause people of different groups (gender, race, etc.) to be judged with different standards. (Test your own unconscious biases here, you might surprise yourself!) After seeing a great talk on this topic by Dr. Abby Stewart, the PandA Diversity group has invited her to talk at JHU. Outright discrimination is much less of an issue these days so some are inclined to think the problem has been solved. Women just don't want to do science, right? As incredibly wrong as this is, and as unsupported by data from many studies that I don't feel like looking up and citing right now, some still do think this is the answer. Some may only think so unconsciously, having never bothered to consciously question their assumptions.

I could go on, but I'm getting into #womanspace issues again that will take more time and effort for me to sort out into a coherent post. Let's continue on with my day, during which I am reminded that the AAS job register has been updated (being the first of the month) and I should check it out. That's when I read this lovely job listing:

The Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille (CPPM) invites applications for a postdoctoral position in cosmology. The successful candidate will work with Dr. Stephanie X on original cosmological probes using large-scale structure surveys. The position is suitable for a wide range of expertises from theory and data modelling to statistical analysis of large-scale structures of the universe and of N-body simulations.

The successful candidate is expected to interact strongly with researchers of the Center for Theoretical Physics (CPT) and the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM). He will in particular work directly with Pr. ABC at CPT, who has led the development of new observables to probe the cosmological model. He will have privileged access to data from the BOSS and VIPERS redshift surveys. He is also encouraged to contribute to the science cases of next-generation wide-field surveys such as LSST, BigBoss and EUCLID in the conception of which our laboratories are strongly involved.

Perhaps it's because I've had #womanspace on the brain, but my immediate reaction was to get very angry. "Guess what job I'm not applying for," I tell my roommates. Oh, but the job is in France? It's probably just a translation issue, ain't no thang. (Full disclosure: no one ever actually said "ain't no thang," but they could have.) Other reactions are along the lines of "Oh, those French!" Somehow that failed to be satisfying, though my initial anger had cooled.

Then I noticed that the contact for the job was one Dr. Stephanie X. A woman! "You see!" says my roommate. "Ain't no thang!" (Ok ok, but he could have said that.) So maybe it is only a language issue and not a culture thing (those French with their insensitivity to gender, or something?), but the fact remains that it's not ok and I'm still pissed off. Whether or not I decide to apply (depending on factors other than choice of gender pronoun in the advert), I am seriously considering emailing Dr. X about it. On second thought, probably only if I don't decide to apply. But anyway, every other job listing has managed not to assume that the successful candidates will be male, and I feel like that is something to be encouraged. Whatever the reason how such language made it into the AAS job listing, it is completely unacceptable. Unacceptable!

I guess I'm less pissed off now. The lack of outrage from friends makes it hard to justify continued outrage in what's obviously an unintentional mistake that is completely unacceptable. I won't try to base my decision on whether to apply on this issue, but it will probably be a factor whether I want it to or not at this point. I wonder how many other female graduate students will read this and react with righteous indignation? I wonder if this job will get fewer female applicants compared to others? Of course, what would have been more awesome is if the advert ended with "females are especially encouraged to apply"...

Fear

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

- The Litany Against Fear, Dune, Frank Herbert

I remember only one time when I genuinely said this to myself. There have been many times when I might have thought “Fear is the mind killer” and then gone about my day, but one time I used the litany against fear as an actual litany. I was in the hospital, recovering from the surreal feeling of waking up after general anesthesia. I just had my third knee surgery in as many years and was about to be a senior in high school. The first two surgeries reconstructed my ACL, and I went back to playing soccer each time because that was a core part of my identity. This was supposed to be an exploratory surgery (screws from the first time prevented an MRI) and the doctor hoped the ligament was merely strained and could be fixed. Not the case.

It came unbidden. I don’t remember who told me the news, but I remember thinking it, repeating the whole thing, which I had read Dune enough times to memorize, over and over. I would not be recovered in time to play soccer my senior year. I would have to have another full reconstructive surgery and months of painful rehab, for nothing, because I certainly wasn’t good enough to play in college. (Side note: I ended up playing rugby and I don’t regret it, even though I did tear my ACL again senior year... haven’t had surgery because just thinking about hospitals and IVs and anesthesia fills me with dread and whatever I can run fine everything’s fine...) There’s probably no way for me to really convey what a blow this was, and I don’t exactly want to try, but the litany helped.

Part of it, I think, is that any kind of litany would help in that situation. A mantra that you repeat gives you something to focus on that is not the turmoil of your emotions or the racing of your thoughts, so you are able to just be while the shock wears off. But of course the mantra can’t be something meaningless – I don’t think “red socks red socks red socks” would be very encouraging in a time of crisis – so the litany helped because it is powerful. Fear is the “mind-killer” that prevents me from thinking rationally. I must “face my fear” instead of running away from the way things are. It will “pass over me and through me” because it is insubstantial, it is only fear; it is not the thing I fear and it is not me. “Only I will remain.” Saying the litany against fear or a similar mantra is a stabilizing force, and as we learned from the Avatar TV series, the first chakra (Earth) deals with survival and is blocked by fear.

This is significant, not just because I love that episode and it is one of the best explanations of the chakras I’ve ever heard, but because the chakras represent a hierarchy. You must open the base chakra before the others because spiritual insight or cosmic truth means nothing when you fear for your very survival. Fear is one of our most tangible and powerful emotions, and that is why it is so easily used to manipulate people. The conservative agenda has been very successful with “they are taking away your freedoms,” while loftier ideas of compassion (the heart chakra) and truth (the sound chakra) have much more difficulty taking hold. How can one have compassion for the other when one is afraid of the other?

I won’t go into politics or the culture of fear because it makes me angry, so I will stick with psychology. (I just mistyped “psychoco.” Freudian slip!) The hardest part of dealing with fear is not knowing what you’re afraid of, or even that you’re afraid. It can be hidden under layers of hate, anger, worry, anxiety, or despair. Of course, there’s no easy answer for that, but we could all use a little more introspection and self-awareness, because the things we are afraid of have power over us. We act or react to avoid them, but our fear of them comes from the inability to clearly see things as they are. That spider is not going to do you any harm; it is merely being a spider. That future disaster does not exist, because the future itself does not exist and neither does the past.

Face your fear. Find a point of stability within yourself. Open your Earth chakra. And if you still want to kill that spider, at least it won't be out of fear. ;-)

I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym

I can't concentrate on work right now, but I don't have time write anything deep. Over the last few weeks of not having time to blog, though, I've still been adding to my running list of blog topics that I may one day want to develop into complete thoughts and full sentences. I have too many other sentences to write at the moment - science sentences - so I thought I would post the list as a blog post about blogging. (So Meta.) The newer ideas are on the bottom and older on the top, with the most recent added last night, and I believe this post counts as item 3:

1. Dune, or specifically, the Litany Against Fear. Perhaps a personal account of my exploratory surgery before senior year of high school and how I remember saying it to myself...
2. Philosophy and Cosmology, for example the Anthropic Principle (reference that recent review, was it George Ellis?) or inhomogeneous cosmological models and the Copernican Principle, how that’s often misunderstood to be the Cosmological Principle (or vice versa) 
3. I could always post something less-deep...
4. Empiricism vs. Rationalism
5. ‘Tween t-shirt’ controversy: http://thelook.today.com/_news/2011/09/12/7730480-forever-21s-latest-tween-t-shirt-infuriates-consumers-parents?GT1=43001 and jezebel article (maybe with discussion of PandA Diversity group) 
6. “Floating in the void between theory and observation” (clever idea? clever title at least) 
7. Faster-than-light neutrino or how the universe doesn’t make any sense 
8. Culture of superiority as expressed in Tea Party/media reactions to Occupy Wall Street movement, psychological tendencies to compare/rank yourself with others, sense in physics (and business?) that arrogance interpreted as being confident/knowledgeable… 
9. The Indra simulations and the meaning behind the metaphor of Indra’s net

Since the list was never meant for human consumption, you will have to deal if it makes less sense than my usual posts.  One day, when I have more time for writing non-science sentences (or in some cases, non-research-related-science sentences).... well it still might not make sense, but there will be more of it!

So there we have it, a snapshot of thoughts about deep thoughts.

If you're curious about one of the topics or want me to write about it next, let me know! The idea that someone cares about something might get me to focus on it once I find myself wanting/having time to write non-research sentences... in, let's say, April? :-/

Joseph Campbell and the Masks of Eternity

A while ago I was asked to blog about Joseph Campbell, and after months of not knowing how, here it finally is. It’s hard for me to try to condense what I understand and love about Joseph Campbell into a few ideas. I’ve been watching The Power of Myth ever since college, after I read The Hero with a Thousand Faces (I still have the book I “borrowed’’ from my mom), when I saw it on TV and decided I had to buy it. I once described it as food for the soul. So for one, it resonates with me. For another, it deals with the human experience (as all myths do) and so it is universal and un-specific, and thus it is hard to specify. But anyway, it’s difficult to sum up what Joseph Campbell means to me... but this blog wasn’t created for summations that distill great meaning into digestible portions of meaninglessness, so I will do what I can. To not do that.

After watching the last episode of The Power of Myth, “The Masks of Eternity,” and writing down everything awesome (which filled nearly three pages), I am resisting the urge to quote the entire thing. But I think there is one part where Joe explains a statue of the Hindu god Shiva which encompasses most of the main themes he talks about.

 “The dance of the world – the dancer whose dance is the Universe. In this hand he has the drum of time, which shuts out eternity, and we are enclosed in that; and in this hand a flame which burns away the veil of time and opens us up to eternity; and in his hair is a skull and a new moon, the death and rebirth at the same moment, the moment of becoming.... The goal of your quest in your life is to find that burning point in yourself, that becoming thing in yourself, which is fearless, and desireless, but just becoming.”

Drum of time: The beat of the drum symbolizes time and shuts out eternity, which is timeless. Thought is temporal. Symbols are expressions of thought. The great mystery transcends thinking and symbols. “God is a thought – God is an idea – but its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. It is beyond being! Beyond the category of being and non-being! Is he or is he not? Neither is or is not.” So the idea of God that most people have is a symbol of the eternal, but it is not the eternal. Everything that exists, exists in the field of time, and things like unicorns merely do not exist, but the eternal refers to the transcendence of such dualities and is not then, or there, but in the ever-changing moment.

Flame of eternity: The flame which burns away the veil of time opens us up to eternity. It is a cleansing fire. To be open to what is instead of what you desire or what you fear is also to give up your ego and your identification of self with your thoughts. You are not your thoughts, and you are not your fears. This is the experience of the sublime, which opens you, but which may be terrifying, detaching you from what you had identified as yourself – your house, your car, your job, your country, what you are good at, what you hate, what you find funny – The “dismantling” process talked about in I <3 Huckabees, this is it. You are the blanket.

Death and rebirth: In the “moment of becoming” you have the symbols of death and rebirth, creation and destruction, and the idea of unified duality. Duality is expressed by the world and its opposites – being and non-being, light and dark, good and evil, up and down, true and false – and in the unity of duality, as in the symbol of the Yin Yang, polar opposites are understood as existing coherently and inter-dependently – for if there were no such thing as dark, then light would be meaningless. In one episode Joe talks about how Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the garden of unity, eat of the fruit of knowledge of the pairs of opposites and are cast out. From Heaven to Earth truly: from transcendence to existence. This is not to say that Heaven is a place, for that gives it the property of existence. Heaven is an idea, whose “reference is to something that transcends all thinking.”

Burning point of becoming: The statue of Shiva is understood as metaphorical, as all myths are, of the human mystery, and so the “quest in your life” is not to worship the god Shiva but to find the Shiva-ness in yourself that is “desireless and fearless.” The hero’s journey is a symbolic undertaking that represents this quest: the hero leaves the world of the known to obtain rejuvenating life for the community. The hero finds and brings back fire, dies and is reborn, kills the dragon, becomes enlightened... but myths, religions, and rituals can be understood in terms of the hero’s journey because the hero is a symbol of you, and his journey symbolizes your life. “Have you died to your animal nature and been reborn?” Have you killed your dragon of ego and greed?

Well, how do you do that? Find that point of fire within yourself: “Follow your Bliss.” (Or, as he later remarked, follow your blisters.) This is not what makes you happy but what makes you energized, or makes you “feel the rapture of being alive.” It increases the awesome and decreases the suck. It is the immovable center, the eternal, the God, that is in you. It is your hero quest and your great adventure. For Joseph Campbell, his Bliss was in the study of mythology. Sometimes mine is writing this blog. However:

“Words are always qualifications and limitations, and that’s why it’s a peak experience to break past all that, every now and then, to realize: ‘Oh, ah.’ I think so.”

As do I, Joseph Campbell. As do I.

Guest Post: Breathless

Luckily for my readers, I am not the only one with deep thoughts. Not only is Steph a doctor of astrophysics and an immaculate karaoke singer, she has decided to single-handedly combat bad science in the guise of a fiction novel. Her book review was recently published in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education and can be found here. Thanks Steph, and keep up the good fight!

Breathless
by Dean Koontz
New York: Bantam, 2009. 352 pages
reviewed by Stephanie LaMassa

The plot of Dean Koontz’s novel Breathless centers on the mysterious appearance of two furry white creatures in the Rockies. The size of young children, they have attributes of dogs, cats, and otters, yet resemble none of these, having hands with opposable thumbs. The two main characters, Grady Adams, a craftsman, and Camilla Rivers, a veterinarian, spend the majority of the novel acquainting themselves with these animals and speculating on their origins. The animals’ eyes are their most enchanting feature, larger in proportion to their head than any known animal’s and colored in various hues of gold.

Seemingly unrelated subplots persist throughout the book and are ultimately tied together in the conclusion. One such subplot focuses on Lamar Woosley, who holds a PhD in both mathematics and physics, specializing in chaos theory. His musings on the nature of scientific inquiry set the tone for the climax of the book, where the target of his criticisms of unfounded theories and the scientists who cling to them is ultimately revealed: evolution.

These new creatures signify the end of the acceptance of evolution and the beginning of a new way of thinking. Where do these creatures originate? From “out of infinity into the finite, from out of time into time” (p 305). Such an alternative to evolution is certainly not a viable scientific one, but as a novelist who often writes about supernatural phenomena, it is neither Koontz’s obligation nor his intention to promote this sudden appearance as a realistic truth. Rather, he is focused on inciting his readers to question the validity of evolution.

Koontz utilizes a two-prong approach to achieve this end: portraying scientists as dogmatic and closed-minded and debunking evolution using specious arguments commonly used by anti-evolutionists. For the first prong, he insists, through his character Woosley, that it’s unscientific ever to regard a scientific fact as settled: a scientist who does so has “ceased to be a scientist, and he’s become an evangelist for one cult or another” (p 300). Indeed, scientists are apt to “become so committed to a theory that they spend entire careers ever more desperately defending it as new discoveries ever more rapidly undermine it” (p 300). By declaring that evolution is such a theory that survives despite the contradicting evidence, he implies that evolution is a “religion” (p 216).

For the second prong, Woosley offers several lines of evidence against evolution, correcting the “misconceptions” Grady and Camilla, representing the non-scientific public, held. Koontz’s message seems to be that non-scientists accept the fallacious arguments supporting a debunked theory since they are  ignorant of the evidence to the contrary. However, these counterarguments are not based on an accurate understanding of evolution or scientific evidence and therefore lend no credence to the claim that evolution has been scientifically refuted. I consider three examples.

Fossil Record. When Grady points out to Woosley that the fossil record supports evolution, he is told that it provides no such evidence. His major points to back up this claim are that Darwin predicted thousands of dead-end species but none has been found, and that no evidence exists for transitional forms in the fossil record. Supposed transitional forms may be unrelated species that have since gone extinct; moreover, dating techniques are not precise enough to date fossils sequentially. The first claim, lack of evolutionary dead-ends, is quite perplexing, for evolutionary biologists have found numerous such fossils, even in the human fossil record. Also, his second claim contradicts the first: if the fossils observed do not represent transitional forms, but rather separate species that have gone extinct, then these would be dead-end fossils. Beyond contradicting the first claim, this second claim also reveals ignorance about the scientific process, since the age of fossils have been accurately determined using independent radiometric dating techniques.

Not Enough Time. Woosley claims that the earth has not existed long enough for evolution to occur. Assuming that each “bit of data” (Koontz’s phrase) in a gene is obtained from mutation, and the fastest this change can occur is the time it takes for the speed of light to transverse a molecule, the amount of time needed to accrue enough changes to evolve from a single-celled organism to a simple one, such as a worm, is much longer than the age of the earth (which he correctly cites as four billion years old). If a worm could not evolve in such a short amount of time, how could anything else, much less a human? (Apparently, the skills of a chaos mathematician are needed to multiply and divide a couple of numbers to refute a biological theory.) This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding about the evolutionary process since not each “bit of data” needs to be acquired through mutation.  Evolution occurs through a number of processes, and scientists have demonstrated that these mechanisms can account for evolutionary change within the history of the earth.

The Eye. Though the argument is never made explicitly, it is suggested throughout the book—from the mesmerizing nature of the new creatures’ eyes, referred to as a “more impressive engineering feat than in the human eye” (p 119), to how the “principal challenge they offer [a geneticist and physiologist] is the impossible nature of their eyes” (p 274), it is not coincidental that these creatures’ eyes are their most stunning attribute or that the background on the book’s front cover is a rendering of this eye. For those well-versed in anti-evolution rhetoric, this is a reference to one of the most often used claims of antievolutionists: the complexity of the (vertebrate) eye cannot be accounted for by evolution. True, the eye is complex, but not irreducibly so. Evolutionary biologists have shown how this system could have evolved naturally, and it almost defies reason that this often refuted anti-evolution claim still persists.

Koontz should take the advice he gives to his readers, namely to look beyond what they accept to discover the truth. In his attempts to discredit evolution, he only reveals his (seemingly willing) ignorance on this topic and becomes an “evangelist” for misinformation. His time would have been better spent to learn what the scientific consensus on this issue is and how such tired arguments have been often refuted in the scientific literature. One can only hope that his readers are not swayed by his specious arguments but are instead encouraged to learn the scientific truth—rather than taking science lessons from a novelist. Fitting with the title, Breathless’s dissemination of false information in the guise of bemoaning the stagnation of scientific inquiry can be best described in the words of Judge Jones from the Kitzmiller v Dover decision: “breathtaking inanity.”

About the author:
Stephanie LaMassa has a PhD in astrophysics and is a post-doctoral scholar at Yale University, studying the co-evolution of supermassive black holes and galaxies.

What is Quality?

Preamble: I wrote this in August 2007, probably shortly after I read Lila, Robert Pirsig’s long-winded sequel to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Zen etc. is a great novel with some philosophy and metaphysics interspersed that introduces his notion of Quality, and I recommend reading it, whereas Lila is a metaphysical exploration of these ideas with bits of a novel interspersed and is very boring. Both were thought-provoking enough to make me write this, though I am aware some of it only makes sense if you’ve read both, and some of it only makes sense to me. (Also, I apologize for the cheesy ending.) Anyway, without further ado, enjoy, and comment, especially if you are feeling philosophical! (If not, consider opening some wine.)

Is the lack of meaning over which I’ve been lamenting the same as lack of Quality?

Example which brought about this question: receiving scarves, gloves, and picture frames from Mom’s friend at Christmas and birthdays; a nice gesture, devoid of meaning – for me, worse than nothing?

This is to be the beginning of a discourse on Quality… or something.

Quality: the process by which the experiencer experiences the experience; the relationship between subject and object; the “pre-intellectual awareness” of object by subject; the connection between mind and matter, the perennial false dichotomy, two polar opposites residing in the same circle; an event; Reality.

Sweetly pondering chaos… “It is my path, though not my choice, and I will know the meaning.”

What is meaning?

I have and still do maintain that “the meaning of life” does not exist.  What is the meaning of a flower?  There is no purpose for which humanity exists, that guides or should guide our actions.  There is no striving from inorganic to biological to social to intellectual forms of static quality, no fight between static and Dynamic any more than there is a fight between mind and matter, subject and object, ideas and reality, or whatever terms suit you best.  Some believe ideas are the only way to truth, others experience.  Some like it hot.

I feel like I can interpret Zen etc. in such a way that it makes perfect sense to me, but that my interpretation would mis-represent what Pirsig is trying to say, as evidenced by Lila.  Why do good ideas always turn bad when they attempt to solve everything?  If Quality is composed of static and Dynamic, but static is lower-case and Dynamic always capitalized, and they are always opposed… what’s the point of introducing the static?  Indeed, it makes an easier subject for a Metaphysics, being definable and categorical; but these are the very things that Quality is not, and seemingly neither is Dynamic Quality, and so one wonders how static quality is Quality at all.

If one is better able to repair a motorcycle when they are open to Quality, does it mean one’s actions have intellectual quality?  Does a bolt have more inorganic quality when it is placed in the correct position on the bike, so as to hold it together?  Does the bolt care where it is placed; does it strive toward being assembled, being a part of a larger machine; does this give the bolt meaning?

What is the meaning of a bolt?

Humans are a process that has become aware of itself.  (Switching philosophical novels for a moment…)  But are we really more aware than, say, a squirrel?  It may not be able to tell that a car is coming, but it’s driven by hunger and the need for nuts.  It wants to survive, but sometimes its desire for better nuts somewhere else leads it to ruin.  We may not be able to tell that our foreign policy moves will lead to war, but we are driven by our own need to survive, and historically this has been at the expense of other tribes/nations/belief systems.

Are Meaning and Quality the same thing?

There’s something in me that loves certain objects, like my dragon candle for example, because of their meaning.  Obviously this is a meaning with which I imbue them, and exists for me and me alone.  It is a state of connection between myself and the thing.  In this way it is indeed very similar to Pirsig’s Quality.

However, I can’t believe that it has existence of its own, as a primary “pre-intellectual” reality, on par with the Tao.  Quality, an event, the phenomenon of awareness perhaps – awareness without thought – can be seen as the primary reality, out of which subject and object spring.  Does anything exist which cannot be perceived?  Common sense says of course, but philosophy says we can never know.  So maybe my aversion to giving Meaning this same status is the result of a lingering intuition that primary reality must be unchanging, constant, eternal, universal.  Okay, by “unchanging” I don’t mean it doesn’t change over time, but that in each instant of time it is the same everywhere…. But what is “everywhere”?

Anyway, perhaps I resist saying that meaning is the same as Quality because this raises meaning from a personal phenomenon to a universal primal Meaning of Life; it becomes Capitalized, a caricature of the thing itself, at once everyone’s contradictory ideas of it.  All of a sudden it has some Special Significance.  It is the Answer.

What was the question?

If I stick with my explanations (not definitions) that Quality is an event or process which connects subject to object, then the problem is solved.  Instead of elevating meaning (whose lack I lament) to the status of some Reality un-defined as Quality, I can instead realize that this mysterious quality can be understood to be the same as the meaning which gives objects, events, actions, etc. a fullness and wonder the absence of which is characterized by meaninglessness.

So when I receive a gift of another cheap scarf, it is not the item I miss, but the meaning behind it.  That is to say, I would rather receive something which connects me to this un-defined Quality, where I could say that this item has meaning and this meaning brings me outside of myself.  I would desire a gift that brings to me a feeling that someone cares.

Ah, good, I wanted to talk next about Pirsig’s notion that the inverse of Quality is caring.  It is hard to imagine an inverse of an un-definable pre-intellectual awareness event which creates subjects and objects, but such is the failing of words made plain.  You have to care to realize Quality, and opening to Quality entails caring.  “Caring about what?” is perhaps the wrong question that we are inclined to ask.  Caring is an investing of energy to the task of understanding; it is the desire to understand.  To understand is to achieve Quality, to have your perceptions of reality come from reality itself instead of preconceived notions, emotions, or drama.  To say that a thing lacks Quality is thus to say that it is meaningless, which is to say that understanding is not possible; but if one could understand the thing, Quality would be found.  It is as misguided to think that some things have Quality while others don’t as it is to think that some things are more real than others.  Thus the answer to the question which has been bugging me in some form ever since reading Zen etc. and Lila, that is, “How does one thing have quality while another doesn’t?”, which can be rephrased as “Does x have quality?”, can be answered: “Do you care?”

If you are open to understanding (that is, you care… see previous musings for more), then Quality shines forth.  That is to say, “A sacred place is a place where Eternity shines through Time.” (Joseph Campbell)

In my head, all of these ideas are really describing the same thing; all these words are explicating the same wordless reality, the indefinable, unfathomable, etc. etc.

“Eternity is Now” – Frank Herbert, Dune

“Follow Your Bliss” etc. – Joseph Campbell

“Quality blah Victorians blah blah” – Robert Pirsig

“The Tao that can be Named is not the Eternal Tao” – Lao Tzu

“A deep, abiding, living change” – Krishnamurti

“Bother” – Winnie-the-Pooh

I’m still left with the feeling that this is simply not enough.  It may be true, beautiful, and simple, but is that enough?  What would someone reading these ramblings think?  Obviously, it would depend on their past thoughts and experiences, but what can possibly be communicated here?  I see all these things as coming from a common thread which humanity shares, which human myths express; it resounds in me and fills me to overflowing, like a good piece of music.  But that’s just me.  I’ve had certain thoughts, reflected on certain other people’s thoughts, had certain experiences, possess certain personality traits and proclivities, which combine to form these lofty ideas.  I enjoy thinking in this way and attempting to open myself to wondrous new ideas, and finding their place in a coherent whole.  These things connect with me in a powerful way; but how can such a connection be communicated?  It is exactly the problem of “defining Quality,” of “Naming the Tao,” which Pirsig was drawn to do in Lila while at the same time acknowledging its impossibility.

Of course it’s impossible.  Wholly and completely impossible, but utterly necessary.  Humanity has some choices to make in the near future, and it is no longer a question of isolated groups surviving or not.  We are a global system, and forgetting to care about this amazing truth could spell disaster.  Then again, disaster is a part of life.

And we are life.  All of us.  Every one.  We are nature, and we are civilization.  We have become aware of ourselves, but we do not yet understand ourselves.

In the end, to care is a choice that all of us must make on our own.