.
Intersubjective Bootstrap
If all life is a dream, is it your dream or mine?
__And why should our two worlds agree?
An answer avails if we’re both The Divine,
__At our source, I am you and you’re me.
Though it seems that we’re separate (I trust you’ll concur
__It’s a stretch to conceive “one great soul”)
Still, we sense there are times when our boundaries blur
__Our designs coalesce as one whole.
If together we’ve dreamed up this life, with its flaws
__And its numberless wonders untold,
Might we rein back our species to mind Nature’s laws,
__Who can say what new worlds will unfold?
We might harness the power of resonant thought—
__We might dream exploitation to cease.
Once we own all the battles that e’er man has fought,
__Are we ready to co-create peace?
.
.
Josh Mitteldorf was educated to be an astrophysicist, but his life was derailed by the anti-war movement and New Age revolution of the 1970s. His two daughters were among the first adoptees from China in the 1980s. His book, Cracking the Aging Code was co-authored by Carl Sagan’s son, Dorion. He writes about science and politics at UnauthorizedScience.org. His own poetry and music, together with curated uplifting works of others, appear at Daily-Inspiration.org. His volume of brilliantly illustrated sonnets on the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching is available as an app for augury at I-Ching.guru.
On one level of thought your poem proposes a wonderful ideal that is shared. The laws of nature are not as ideal as we may wish to think. As a political scientist, I studied the theories of both Hobbes and Locke.
1. Hobbes
“Believed the state of nature was a constant war of all against all, with humans living in a “nasty, brutish, and short” existence. He thought that humans were naturally inclined to be cynical and that unlimited freedom would lead to chaos. Hobbes believed that humans should use reason to submit to the absolute authority of a monarch.”
2. Locke
“Believed the state of nature was a peaceful existence where humans were free, equal, and independent, but obligated to respect each other’s rights. He thought that humans were naturally rational and capable of keeping the laws of nature, which taught that no one should harm another. Locke believed that humans should use reason to exercise their rights to life, liberty, and property. He thought that people would agree to form a government to protect their rights and resolve disputes.” (Source: “Encyclopedia Britannica.”)
My precept is “Prepare for war and pray for peace.” Simply the “laws of nature” include the need for self-defense and the fight for survival. Hobbesian theory is based on the “law of the jungle,” which happens to be “natural law.” The Bible tells those of us who believe there will be wars and rumors of wars:
Bible: Matthew 24:6-8 (New International Version)
“You will continually hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end [of the age]”.
Thus, both natural law and biblical verse tell us to be ready to fight the worst. I still appreciate the ideal but know the practical must take precedence.
Einstein said, “One cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent war.” I think Locke and Hobbes got us on the wrong path. Empathy is deeply a part of our nature, and life without community is intolerable for most people.
This is a great poem. It’s quite possible that God is everything, divided into an infinite amount of separate entities and that we are all God, talking to each other. What is the purpose of all this? The purpose for all this is so God will have something to do.
From another perspective, the purpose is to give all people a reason to reach that godhood and become one.
Thank you, David.
Some interesting thoughts, Josh. Unfortunately, ‘rein back our species’ doesn’t seem to resonate with homo sapiens. It’s in Man’s nature to exploit his fellow planet dwellers, be they human, animal or plant, or just exploit the Earth’s land surface and mineral content without any thought for tomorrow or the generations to come.
Paul –
It’s my belief that this concept of the human individual has been used against us. Governments want us to be afraid of one another because it makes them more necessary and more important. Worse, governments want us to be afraid of other races and nationalities to justify war.
There is a small percentage of people born sociopaths, but for the large majority of us, empathy is deeply a part of our nature. We are evolved to cooperate.
I wonder how much our view of the nature of the human individual is distorted by the culture of capitalism, which pits us against one another.
It’s good to dream, and maybe better to have an interpersonal exchange of dreams. That seems to be what happens here. Speaking to another dreamer develops a sense of power over the reality that dreams can become. The very wide-ranging proposals here are necessarily tentative, but in a dream world, that recognizes potential. Reality may be a challenge one would back away from (the consciousness of all those battles). But to make it different, one must at least exercise dreams. I note that the final diffident proposal to “co-create” rhymes perfectly with “pro-create.”
Thank you, Margaret. You’re invited to collaborate on my next poem.
The first stanza of this poem was my inspiration. I should never have added the second stanza.
The first stanza is the essence of mysticism. The second stanza backs away from wonder and unknowing to a more comfortable romanticism.
Formally, it seems unsatisfying to leave the reader hanging at the end of stanza one. But that is where I am. I deeply believe that we each partake of a world soul, that our individuality is a temporary illusion. I don’t know how to break through that illusion. I have no idea what a conscious experience might be like that is different from individuality. Words like “expansion” and “collective consciousness” and “transcendence” come easily, but their referents do not.
Hence, the second stanza is a retreat, a dilution of the mystical wonder that is the subject of the first. World peace is a lovely ideal, but it is infinitely less than the mystical transcendence for which the first stanza is reaching, reaching.