Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

THE FALL OF BECAUSE:

Being the almighty philosopher king I am, I was originally going to write a little essay on whether God exists scientifically or not at first, but after a little bit of thought the name of this lovely zine popped into my head. The more I try to concentrate on my original topic, the harder it is becoming to stop thinking about "The Fall of Because".
The Fall of Because. Read out loud it sounds like the end of a battle or war where the opposers of "Because" triumphantly march past the walls which have held them at bay for the length of an imaginary siege. Smiles upon their faces the enemies proceed toward the inner keep where Lord Because is calmly awaiting, accepting his fate. Because has fallen and it is now time for the United Armies against Causality to take the throne and make their marks in the history books.
Of course this is only one of the ideas which come out of a beautiful phrase such as this. "The Fall of Because" can also be a boundary. It would be impossible to perceive beyond this boundary or even imagine what it could possibly be like, not least because I will be using the word because. Let me explain the concept.
In the editorial of issue 4, James explained the definition of the word 'because' which I shall repeat here for all those unfortunate people who haven't scavenged themselves a copy. 'Because' is the most direct and complete word for giving reason to a 'thing' be it an aardvark, a molecule in orbit around the Starship Enterprise or that smashing new pair of plastic boots you bought yesterday at the market.
Why is 'because' the most direct and complete word for giving reason to a thing? Let us split the word up shall we, my precious ones. Be 1: to equal in meaning: to have the same connotation. Cause 1: A person, thing, fact or condition that brings about an effect or that produces or calls forth a resultant action or state. To be a thing in relation to another thing, kinda. Just keep those definitions in the back of your lovely noggin.
So, do we only have meaning in relation to other objects? To have a location something needs to exist in relation to something else. If you as a human being were the only existing thing in the universe, what would be your reason for existence? Try and explain why you are doing anything to anybody, have your head explain it to your foot if you can't find anybody to enlighten, notice how you cannot explain without using the word because or a synonym or related phrase. This infers that to perceive a meaning of anything from rocks and of course aardvarks, molecules, starships (plastic or not), etc. etc. to emotions and concepts, you must place it in comparison to another existing 'thing'.
In essence by noting the difference between one thing and another thing you find the reason. If we want to get all scientific about this observation we could make an algebraic equation. By using R as the thing on the left, L as entry number two as the thing on the right and B as the reason for its existence, 'the because factor' we find this. B = L - R. Of course this equation cannot figure out anything logically solid as we don't know the reason for anything at all, but it does provide some sort of a pedestal for me to masturbate furiously from while spouting rubbish digitally into my computer.
We cannot figure out the reason for something because as yet we have no concept of how much and in how many ways something possibly can be different from another. The mathematics that would be behind an equation that could explain the exact reason of the most elementary of particles could possibly be far more complex than all the equations ever written down combined somehow into one seemingly endless problem. The reality though is that the answer is most likely as simple as 1+1 and we are too complex to figure it out. But that was a bit wanky… So onto the next paragraph I say:
There is no doubt that there are limits to the possible difference between one thing and another just as the universe is not infinitely large. We already know it is not possible for anything to be colder than -273 degrees Celsius and why should some things have limits and others not?. If there is a limit to how cold something can get there is also a limit to how hot something can get.
Science is one way we try to understand the possible differences in the universe. Can we perceive something that cannot be explained by science? At this point in time in the evolution of the human species and knowledge, it would be foolish to say a definite yes or no. I am gravitating towards the no side of the argument, I prefer to believe that science can prove everything perceptible, but of course neither side can provide any proof of any more than insignificant value.
On the flip side of this spherical coin, we have only been given or evolved 5 senses with which to explore the cosmos and all information must be filtered through these senses. Science in all its finite wisdom doesn't allow or tolerate something existing that isn't perceivable, and why should it? It can and is only merely studying perceivable substances and the effects those substances have on each other. Any thought that science can explain everything has a genuine possibility of being wrong until it is proven that there is nothing to sense other than what we can already sense. Who knows? We might evolve one day some weird glowing device that can extend out of our belly buttons that will perceive something currently not perceivable. We apparently evolved out of single-celled organisms. They don't have any senses, appendages, genitals or brains, but they seem to get around fairly well so maybe we are missing something.
All this speculation is well and good but now it time to return to an abrupt and necessary conclusion to this little 'The Fall of Because' prattle. Within conventional science there cannot seemingly be a 'Fall', as from its perspective 'Because' is what keeps everything together. From a religious point of view though, with the concept that man cannot comprehend the spiritual world, there could be a 'Fall' upon entry to that realm. The only way there could be a spiritual world in the traditional comprehension would be if at some time at some place for some reason there would be a Fall of Because.
If it can't be comprehended by any sense, attained by humans or not, living beings cannot see the difference or Because of something therefore; (deep breath) to have a spirituality based on the belief that humans and/or aliens in their present form cannot comprehend the 'spiritual world' be it heaven or whatever form of eternal bliss strikes your fancy also insinuates that there is a 'Fall of Because'.

Floppy

INDEX


Copyright© Floppy 1999
This site designed by James McLachlan copyright© 2000 - 2002