Tag: PURPOSE

“It is the old lesson – a worthy purpose, patient energy for its accomplishment, a resoluteness undaunted by difficulties, and then success.” – William Morley Punshon, 19^th century English Wesleyan minister.

 

In the last several posts I evaluated characteristics, roles, and decision factors regarding cosmic purpose and am now ready to discuss success factors. As with societal purpose, the first is an optimal selection process such as was outlined in that section.¹ The other success factors are again: (1) commitment, (2) patience, (3) flexibility, (4) enjoyment, (5) realistic expectations, and (6) intentionality.

Cosmic purpose almost certainly is untenable without persistence. Consider Robert Zubrin‘s life time commitment to see humans travel to Mars. In 1990 this dogged American aerospace engineer co-authored Mars Direct, a proposal for a practical mission to Mars, later modified by NASA for its “design reference mission.” When Zubrin grew concerned with NASA delays, he established the Mars Society, an international organization advocating a human mission to Mars using private funding. He alsoworked with Lockheed Martin and Martin-Marietta developing advanced concepts for interplanetary missions and drafted ideas for a potential single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft. His inventions include the nuclear salt-water rocket and the magnetic sail. He was featured in a 2007 CBC documentary special, The Passionate Eye, dubbed “The Mars Underground” and in 2016 was one of several scientists and engineers interviewed in the National Geographic miniseries Mars.² It is to be seen whether Zubrin will live to see the first manned mission to Mars, but certainly he has found cosmic purpose in his research and advocacy.

Zubrin may not be the best example of the second success factor, patience. A better example would be Kenya’s Wangari Muta Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, an environmentalist and human rights activist. She founded the Green Belt Movement in 1977 to plant trees across Kenya  in part to alleviate poverty and end conflict. She once said. “The more you degrade the environment, the more you dig deeper into poverty.” She mobilized Kenyans, particularly women, to plant more than 30 million trees, and inspired the United Nations to launch a campaign that has led to the planting of 11 billion trees worldwide.³ No one can expect to see dramatic results from planting trees in a short time frame; but the compelling purpose is undeniable. One is reminded of the ancient Greek proverb, “Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

(continued next post)

—————————————–

¹See posts on this site titled Purpose and Cultural Reality – Success Factors, dated 12/15, 12/17. 12/20. 12/22. 12/24, 12/27, and 12/29/2021.

²Wikipedia, Robert Zubrin.

³African Renewal website, article by Kingsley Ighobor: ( https://www.un.org/africarenewal/web-features/wangari-maathai-woman-trees-dies#:~:text=Kenya’s%20Wangari%20Muta%20Maathai%2C%20the,Ms. )

Last time we looked at personal decision factors in the choice of cosmic purpose. Now we move on to external factors. As with societal purpose, these fall into two general types: environmental (geopolitical and cultural) and temporal (historicity and destiny). Ultimately environmental factors will be mainly  impediments to one’s purpose such as whether an activist will be thwarted by the lack of political will to make the sacrifices necessary to slow climate change. Conversely temporal factors will be mainly motivational, such as the task to save a rare species before it is extinct. Pure science and mathematics are the exceptions here.

In the pursuit of the highest possible purpose, we come upon the paramount of factors, our beliefs on the destiny of the earth and of the universe. The Earth has suffered 5 prior mass extinctions and many more less severe ones. As Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku have argued, given the apparent rarity of life and intelligent beings in the cosmos as we know it, and our unique position as the terrestrial creature that can arrange off-planet travel, a cosmic purpose for our species is to preserve lifeforms including our own perhaps by colonizing another planet (most likely Mars). Thinking still further out, Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin in their intriguing book, The Five Ages of the Universe remind us stellar research shows that in a few billion years Earth will be uninhabitable due to solar expansion into a red giant and life in our solar system will be untenable after the Sun’s death in perhaps 5 billion years. By their calculations, an accidental galactic colonization of the Milky Way would require about 3 trillion years, but an intelligent one would take only about a billion years. A tangible cosmic purpose is to be a part, no matter how small, of that multigenerational effort to facilitate life’s spread in the universe.

Our last category of decision factors on cosmic purpose are intrinsic ones – magnitude, quantity, proportion, measurability, and likelihood of success. One might argue there are no small cosmic purposes;  size is completely subjective. Preservation of the most minor of species is of great import given that each is the result of nearly 4 billion years of evolution. Issues of quantity and proportion are much like we discussed for cultural purpose, though with cosmic purpose, quantity is likely to be few or one and purpose will nearly always be shared with others. Measurability and likelihood of success are lower in cosmic purpose especially since any effects on Nature may be temporary no matter how apparently successful (revitalizing a species off the endangered list is no guarantee of its eventual survival). All cosmic purposes have lower likelihood of success than most cultural ones; and this must be accepted at the outset.

At the end of the day, one must balance the negative environmental and intrinsic factors against the temporal pressures while factoring in one’s capabilities and tolerance. At that point one must make a leap of faith towards a cosmic purpose that validates a meaningful life.

“The moral shift from anthropocentricity to biocentricity is not psychologically impossible for human moral agents to accomplish… Nothing prevents us from exercising our powers of autonomy and rationality in bringing the world as it is gradually closer to the world as it ought to be.” – Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature (closing paragraphs).

In the last two posts I discussed the first two of three key decisions facing a person considering taking up a cosmic purpose, (1) whether to adopt one; where I concluded adopting a cosmic purpose in tandem with a societal purpose seems optimal, and (2) what cosmic purposes one may pursue; namely advancing our knowledge of Nature or elaborating, preserving, or boosting its constituents. Now we examine factors in choosing among various roles.

As with societal purpose such decision criteria will fall into three main categories: individual, external, and intrinsic. In the case of cosmic purpose, there is a unique individual factor – the matter of altering one’s mindset to actually care deeply about non-human reality. I believe Paul W. Taylor (see epigram above) would say the first step is to psychologically overcome a purely anthropocentric or humanist attitude to reality. Thus the first decision factor is which human chauvinisms one believes one can surmount.

Additional individual factors can again be subdivided into two types: (1) physical and (2) mental. Physical factors may demand greater consideration should one choose the sequence of societal purpose followed by cosmic purpose as one will be older for the latter. Significant limitations should be infrequent for the healthy, though as I know from personal experience, one is less giving of one’s time as the candle burns lower. Moreover major contributions in pure science and mathematics typically emerge from a younger brain.¹ Other decision factors regarding physical health and mental aptitudes are not fundamentally different then in the case of cultural purpose.²

(continued next post)

———————————————————————

¹Consider that Isaac Newton was only 23 when he developed his calculus and laws of motion and gravity and Albert Einstein was only 26 and 36 when he published his theories of special and general relativity.

²See blogs titled Purpose and Cultural Reality – Decision Factors published 12/15, 12/17, and 12/20/2021.

“Our destiny is to become the gods we once feared and worshipped. Science will give us the means by which we can shape the universe in our image. The question is whether we will have the wisdom of Solomon to accompany this vast celestial power.” – Michio Kaku, The Future of Humanity.

Last time we looked at the first of three key decisions facing a person considering taking up a cosmic purpose, i.e. whether to adopt one at all. I concluded that adopting a cosmic purpose in tandem with a societal purpose offers a greater chance than either alone of leading to the subjective assessment of one’s life as meaningful. Today we look at the second question regarding the kind of cosmic purpose to adopt.

If we infer the purpose of the universe from its trajectory (and no other method presents itself), then we conclude that its purpose is expansion with areas of localized order, and the emergence of complexity and variety, progressing so far, in our limited field of vision, to an immense assortment of living things highlighted by the unimaginable intricacy of the conscious animal brain, and perhaps the pinnacle of all – organically based intelligence.

Following this line of reasoning, human cosmic purpose comes down to aligning one’s life with that understanding of the construct fashioned by the universe as it has unfolded during its 14.9 billion year existence. In other words, one serves as an agent to reveal the secrets of the universe or to foster the diversity of cosmic creation. If Turgenev is correct that humans are the workers in the workshop of Nature, then our ultimate purpose is fixed by that truth. Thus while all people have a duty not to destroy Nature’s diversity, those seeking cosmic purpose or significance must go further by advancing our knowledge of Nature (pure science and mathematics) and elaborating and augmenting its contents through study and direct assistance. IN effect, all cosmic purpose falls into one of these two baskets.

Next time we will consider how various roles meet those exigencies and the manner to choose among them.

“A superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose.” – Alfred Russell Wallace.¹

 

 

We have now considered the ‘purposes’ we can impute to science, nature, and the universe; and studied the characteristics and types of roles befitting human cosmic purpose. This takes us to evaluation of factors that go into three key decisions on this topic: (1) whether to adopt a cosmic purpose, (2) which cosmic purpose to adopt, and (3) the specific role to assume relative to that purpose. I believe we can utilize much of our prior discussion regarding decision factors on societal purpose here, remembering  that what follows must remain general rather than specific given each person’s unique circumstances, interests, and strengths.

We begin with the question of whether one should adopt a cosmic purpose at all. It seems reasonable to assert that one need go that route.  A full and meaningful life is almost certainly possible as long as one achieves: (1) the individual purposes of making a good life for oneself, aiming for self-perfection, and finding happiness; (2) proximate purpose in filling roles for one’s family, friends, and acquaintances and contributing to their quality of life and virtuous improvement; and (3) societal purpose through a role worthy of one’s dedication. This appears to be the unspoken and cogent thesis of the humanist.

However some if not most of us will see any purpose limited to humanity as inadequate; what if humanity ceases to exist or itself fails to ever accomplish a great cosmic purpose? Any level of societal accomplishment becomes suspect should one of those futures await humanity. An informal proof might look something like this:

1. Societal purpose only serves to improve the human condition.
2. Improving the human condition has only a small chance of leading to something of enduring cosmic significance.
3. Pursuing a cosmic purpose has a good chance of leading to enduring cosmic significance.
4. My life is meaningful only if I achieve something of enduring cosmic significance.
5. Therefore, my life is more likely to be meaningful if I pursue cosmic purpose.

Needless to say this proof is weak. Most of the points are subjective; some may even be wrong outright. But if the reader believe the first four statements are true, then pursuing a cosmic purpose may be more desirable.

There is of course a middle ground, the one I prefer myself, one ought to have both a societal purpose and a cosmic purpose. This assures the greatest likelihood that one’s life will turn out meaningful. These purposes can be done in parallel though this asks much of oneself and entails a higher risk of failure. A greater chance of completing both to one’s standard for meaning is to do them in tandem – that is, one at a time; waiting until societal purpose is sufficiently complete before taking on a cosmic purpose or vice versa. For the remainder of this site’s work, I will assume dual societal and cosmic purpose is ideal, though each reader will have to decide this question for himself or herself.

——————————————————-

¹Quoted by Richard Leakey in Origins Reconsidered page 343.

“The desire to know something of our neighbors in the immense depths of space does not spring from idle curiosity nor thirst for knowledge, but from a deeper cause, and it is a feeling firmly rooted in the heart of every human being capable of thinking at all.” – Nikola Tesla.

If, as I concluded last time, a person chooses a cosmic purpose over a societal one from the sheer desire to advance an undeniable if incremental cosmic good, then one must still choose the form of that commitment. In the case of cultural purpose I identified eight role types: occupations, callings, missions, entertainers, influencers, politicians, practical scientists or inventors, and creators. In regards to cosmic purpose, I would exclude the roles of entertainers, creators, and to some extent politicians, and practical scientists (although some invention is essential to some cosmic purposes).

Occupations, callings, and missions merge in the setting of cosmic purpose. The wildlife manager, botanist, animal researcher may be paid a salary for her labor, but her motivation is similar to that of those with societal callings or missions. The main aim is not some good for humanity, but for other living beings. Other persons choose a role to influence society on behalf of a non-human interest rather than participate directly in its realization. In this case, individuals adopt a cause such as battling climate change, environmentalism, rare species preservation, even extraterrestrial colonization. Alternatively pure scientists and mathematicians usually serve two roles – research towards incremental progress and influence through their function as educators and experts.

One distinction that applies to cultural purpose, but not cosmic purpose is a basis distinct from specific roles. Adam Smith categorized social purpose based on economic productivity while Thomas Hobbes based it on power. Neither of these seems to fit cosmic purpose; one does not choose to preserve nature mainly for its secondary economic value, nor do most devotees consider the ultimate value of space travel to be its financial return as a form of recreation or as a source of future minerals. In this sense cosmic purpose seems more pure akin to charitable social missions such as helping the unfortunate or solving world hunger. This sense of purity appears to underlie virtually all cosmic purpose.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

As at the level of society, the choice of cosmic purpose can be one that offers pleasure to the individual or not. The pure mathematician may chose his field of work based on love of it or in respect for his natural aptitude. In his essay, A Mathematician’s Apology, G.H. Hardy combines philosophy, mathematics, and humor into an intriguing mix which applies to everyone:

“A man who sets out to justify his existence and his activities has to distinguish two different questions. The first is whether the work which he does is worth doing; and the second is why he does it, whatever its value may be.”¹

He admits the first of these is very difficult to answer, but the second is easier and takes one of two forms. The first is:

“I do what I do because it is the one and only thing that I can do at all well…I am not suggesting that this is a defense which can be made by most people, since most people can do nothing at all well…It is a tiny minority who can do anything really well, and the number of men who can do two things well is negligible. If a man has any genuine talent, he should be ready to make almost any sacrifice in order to cultivate it to the full.”²

Hardy does not deny we should take into account difference in value between different activities, but believes career choice is usually dictated by the limitations on natural abilities. His second answer as to why one chooses a particular line of work is:

“There is nothing that I can do particularly well. I do what I do because it came my way. I never had a chance of doing anything else.”³

Hardy does not feel anyone should be content with this reply, though he does not offer an alternative for those so disposed. However it seems to me this particular feeling should be countered with further soul-searching for one’s authentic calling. Hardy does come back to the question of whether mathematics is work worth doing noting:

“What we do may be small, but it has a certain character of permanence; and to have produced anything of the slightest permanent interest, whether it be a copy of verses or a geometrical theorem, is to have done something utterly beyond the power of the majority of men.”⁴

This then is the beauty of science and mathematics and perhaps all cosmic purpose: a lasting if incremental legacy.

Last as with societal purpose, desirability is a key criterion, although unlike societal purpose, one tends to choose cosmic purpose specifically because its desirability overrides the alternative of a more customary societal role. In other words we cannot imagine a person choosing a cosmic purpose which is unsavory (as we saw with the development of nuclear weapons); cosmic purposes seem to be intrinsically desirable.

—————————————————

¹Hardy, G.H., A Mathematician’s Apology, in Great Books of the Western World – Volume 56: Natural Science. Encylcopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1992. ISBN: 0-85229-531-6, page 364.

²Ibid.

³Ibid., page 365.

⁴Ibid., page 366.

 

“The difficult is what takes a little time; the impossible is what takes a little longer.” – Fridtjof Nansen, 1922  Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

 

 

In the last three blogs I detailed the purpose of the universe in preparation for our quest to identify individual purpose at the level of cosmic reality. I concluded that the highest ‘purpose’ of the universe comes down to the movement towards increased complexity and compartmentalized order while its human-level purpose manifests as (1) science’s laws and explanations underpinning cosmic order that permit our understanding and manipulation, (2) Nature’s fulfillment of the universe’s ‘goal’ of complexity and variety, and (3) the solar system’s dual function in facilitating Earth’s life-sustaining environment and in providing destinations for the spread of terrestrial life.

We come now to our analysis of the nature of cosmic purpose for ourselves, looking at similarities and contrasts with cultural purpose. We discussed seven characteristics there which apply here as well:  choice, number, magnitude, viability, satisfaction, desirability, and necessity.

Like with cultural purpose and unlike in the case of individual purpose, specific cosmic purpose is chosen, rather than integral to rational being. There is an assortment of possibilities for deliberation such as the pursuit of pure scientific research and understanding (for example astronomy or pure mathematics), the protection of nature (i.e. environmentalism), and endeavors at travel and expansion into space.  It can be multiple and can be mixed with societal purpose; consider Georges Lemaître, the 20th century the theoretical physicist, mathematician, and astronomer who first  theorized the origin of the universe from a primordial particle, but was also a Catholic priest. Cosmic purpose can entail degrees of magnitude from the seemingly simple but worthy commitment to wild animal rescue to an audacious multibillion dollar project to colonize Mars.

We saw that with respect to proximal purpose or relationship to others, viability is nearly automatic, but this is not true for cultural reality, nor for cosmic reality. Again the element of choice increases the chance of failure. We may choose the wrong goal, field, or line of development, or we may lack the talent or ability to succeed. External conditions including technological ones may also obstruct one’s cosmic purpose. For instance, international politics may obstruct a mission to halt global climate change no matter anyone’s particular abilities and charisma. This does not however equate to futility.

(continued next post)

The second dimension of cosmic reality for consideration is Nature, meaning the environment of Earth and the living things which inhabit it. Geologists tell us the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and has sustained immense transformations from an initial fiery ball through alternating periods of cooling and warming, the appearance of bodies of mostly liquid water, and varying formations of land floating on mobile tectonic plates. Paleontologists tell us the earliest forms of life appeared perhaps 3.9 billion years ago in the oceans, migrated to land at least 500 million years ago and have undergone nearly continuous alteration throughout their history. In the 19^th century Charles Darwin and Arthur Russell Wallace made convincing cases  for evolution via natural selection as the underlying mechanism of variation of species, a theory strongly supported by the later science of genetics.

Meanwhile astronomers have been searching for evidence of extraterrestrial life for several decades without success. Many of us hope that is a temporary situation, but until we can confirm life elsewhere, we must entertain the possibility that life is restricted to the Earth. We must also recognize that for now, Homo sapiens is the only species that can intelligently impact the environment of the Earth and its biology. Thus we come to the crux of our analysis – through the slow process of emergence and evolution, the universe has brought into existence the most complex entities known (life) on a single fortuitous planet with an accommodating sun. We must remember that every species of life on Earth is not only the product of billions of years of this process, but also entirely dependent on the unlikely environment Earth provides. Thus we should act as if this is the ‘purpose’ of the universe operative at our level.

The third dimension of cosmic reality is extraterrestrial space and celestial  bodies. We come upon that dimension of cosmic reality where human limitations apply. For our immediate future, given the limits of our science and technology, we can only consider the purpose intrinsic to our solar system. Only the Sun and the Moon have clear purpose while Jupiter may have one as well. The Sun’s energy radiation is obviously essential to maintain the habitable environment of the Earth. The Moon has effects on the tides in our oceans and perhaps other critical influences. Jupiter may serve as a clearing mechanism for stray objects (asteroids, comets, and the like) which might otherwise impact the earth with catastrophic consequences. Additional ‘purpose’ can be assigned by the human imagination for other planets and moons in the solar system mainly as potential places for colonization and the spreading of Earth life – Mars being the most obvious.

In summary, cosmic reality can be seen to have ‘purpose’ as the movement towards increased complexity and compartmentalized order. At our level of existence, science has purpose as those laws and explanation that reveal and underpin the order intrinsic to reality and permit understanding and potential manipulation, Nature is the fulfillment of the universe’s seeking of complexity and variety, and the solar system provides the contextual support for Earth’s environment and perhaps offers future destinations for its life.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com

“Man’s most sacred duty…is to promote the maximal fulfillment of the evolutionary process in his earth.” – Julian Huxley.

Last time I offered my best hypothesis on the purpose of the universe as the movement towards increased complexity and compartmentalized order, while conceding this is a subjective proposition. I leave it to the reader to decide on its merit and cogency. Today I would like to think through some specifics on the scope of this purpose applicable to a being as limited in size and time as Homo sapiens. I have delineated three dimensions of cosmic reality – Science, Nature, and the Universe – that we can subject to analysis at our level of comprehension.

Of course it may not be possible for humans to see beyond the curtain of our faculties as to the highest purpose that unfolds at the level of the cosmos as a whole. Cosmologists tell us the universe is barely out of its infancy, and thus any projection beyond the next several billion years is speculative at best. But we can identify purposeful aspects of the universe observable by us at the current stage of its existence.  And we have a singular responsibility to do this since we are the only being known to us capable of such an abstraction.

Let’s start with pure science (rather than its practical applications) which seems a creation of humankind, but is more likely instantiated in the universe itself, particularly as descriptive laws and statistical predictability. It seems odd to ask about the purpose of ‘science’ in this sense when its essence is interwoven into material reality itself. Nonetheless the short answer is that the laws and explanations contained in mathematics and scientific disciplines reveal and underpin the order intrinsic to reality. In turn this demonstrable consistency sustaining the universe serves to permit understanding and potential manipulation by a being of sufficient capability, such as a human  being. The study and advance of science by us then is a pursuit aligned with purpose of the cosmos appropriate to our meager stature in the universe.

(continued next post)

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com