Brains and Ethics

Posted on May 2, 2018 by Brian H. Gill

Revived pig brains, memory backups and ethical questions have been in the news.

It sounds like a B movie scenario, but the research is quite real. So are the questions.

I’ll be talking about research, technology, and why I’m glad that folks at MIT decided that brain backups were a dubious goal.

Principles, Rules and Change

I occasionally run into Christians who shun science, see it as an enemy of faith, or make up their own version. They’re almost certainly sincere, but I don’t share their views.

Refusing to learn about the wonders and beauties surrounding us seems like a poor way of showing admiration for God’s work.

Seeking truth, using our God-given brains, is a good idea. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159, 214-217, 283, 294, 341)

So is remembering that ethics matter. (Catechism, 2292-2296)

The basics of what’s ethical are simple. I should love God and my neighbor, and see everyone as my neighbor. (Matthew 5:43–44, 22:36–40; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–37; Catechism, 1706, 1776, 1789, 1825, 1849-1851, 1955)

Our rules work better if they follow those basic principles. The principles don’t change. Our rules must, as our tech and cultures change. (February 5, 2017)

Reanimated Pig Brains


(From Reuters, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The scientists used pumps, heaters, and bags of artificial blood to restore circulation to the pig brains”
(BBC News))

“Ethics debate as pig brains kept alive without a body”
Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (April 27, 2018)

“Researchers at Yale University have restored circulation to the brains of decapitated pigs, and kept the organs alive for several hours.

“Their aim is to develop a way of studying intact human brains in the lab for medical research.

“Although there is no evidence that the animals were aware, there is concern that some degree of consciousness might have remained.

“Details of the study were presented at a brain science ethics meeting held at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda in Maryland on 28 March….”

Yale University neuroscientist Nenad Sestan and other researches plugged over a hundred pig brains into a system that pumped blood through them.

They kept at least some alive for up to 36 hours. “Alive” in this case means that “billions of individual cells in the brains were found to be healthy and capable of normal activity.” (Antonio Regalado, MIT Technology Review (April 25, 2018))

That’s impressive, since the pigs had been decapitated about four hours before researchers plugged the brains into a fresh blood supply.

But it’s not the first time researchers have kept detached brains alive. Detached heads, at any rate. Experiments in the 19th century showed that heads could be removed, given another source of oxygenated blood, and show signs of life.

Keeping just the brain alive is easier with invertebrates, since they don’t use oxygen as fast as mammals or birds.1

Ethical Aspects of Flatlined Pigs

I’m uneasy about this research, but not because I think pigs are people. Or think the pigs were being mistreated.

The scientists looked for complex neural activity with a sort of porcine EEG.

The electrodes picked up signals, sparking “both alarm and excitement in the lab.” The signals were from nearby equipment, not the brains. The pig brains were ‘flatlined.’2

I’m reasonably sure the pigs weren’t feeling pain. That’s good news.

I think using animals and plants for research can be a good ideas, and that making animals suffer needlessly isn’t. (Catechism, 2415-2418)

The not-so-good news is that folks do, sometimes, mistreat critters. And people. Ethics matter, particularly while experimenting with humans. (November 11, 2016)

“Outlandish?”

I think, and hope, we’ll pay attention to what these scientists said:

“If researchers could create brain tissue in the laboratory that might appear to have conscious experiences or subjective phenomenal states, would that tissue deserve any of the protections routinely given to human or animal research subjects?

This question might seem outlandish. Certainly, today’s experimental models are far from having such capabilities. But various models are now being developed…”
(“The ethics of experimenting with human brain tissue,”3 Nature (April 25, 2018))

I think they’re right. Wondering about legal rights and protections for preserved brains seems “outlandish.” Nobody’s successfully kept a human brain alive and conscious outside the body. Yet.

But it’s not the B movie “mad scientist” scenario it was in my youth. I’ll get back to that.

Brain Backups


(From Getty Images, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Nectome aims to preserve biomolecules in the brain to let memories be saved after death”
(BBC News))

“Brain back-up firm Nectome loses link to MIT”
Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (April 27, 2018)

“A company attempting to map people’s brains so their memories can be stored in computers has lost its link to one of the United States’ top universities.

“US start-up Nectome revealed its brain back-up plan last month, warning at the time that the process involved would be ‘100% fatal’.

“A number of neuroscientists subsequently poured scorn on the plan.

“The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has now announced that it is severing ties with the project….”

Recording someone’s memory isn’t as crazy an idea as it might seem.

Researchers at Berkeley used fMRI and software to detect what folks saw while watching movie trailers.

The technology isn’t even close to letting us record dreams for playback, or see what a coma patient is thinking.

The reconstructed videos are barely recognizable. And the process won’t work unless the person being scanned has seen the video at least once before.4

Results of that research was published in 2011. We’ve learned a bit more about how the brain works since then, but still don’t have ‘dreamcorders.’

I think folks at Nectome are right. We will be able to detect and record neural connections well enough to piece together someone’s memories. Eventually.

We’re not there yet. Not even close.

Netcome’s research uses mice, not people. That, I gather, isn’t what bothers MIT.

It’s what Netcome plans to do after working with mice. Their goal is preserving and recording exactly what’s stored in someone’s brain — at the moment of death.5

And Netcome’s process kills the brain that’s being recorded.

Risks

MIT’s concern is that someone’s going to see having their brain pickled and analyzed as a step to immortality.

That’s an issue by itself. And another topic.

Valuing life and health is a good idea. Putting it at the top of my priorities isn’t. Neither is having someone kill me. (Catechism, 2113, 2280-2283, 2288-2291)

I don’t see medical research as “tampering with things man was not supposed to know.” But I think MIT’s right. Netcome’s goal is a problem.

More exactly, what will probably happen during Netcome’s research is worrisome.

The problem, as MIT sees it, is that we’re not even close to understanding how memory works. The odds are very good that someone volunteering as a Netcome test subject would end up with a well-preserved, and quite dead, brain.

Experiments with human volunteers can be okay. But not if that means taking “disproportionate or avoidable risks.” (Catechism, 2295)

I think a 100% chance of death is “disproportionate.”

Life and Movies

Virginia Leith’s most memorable role may her portrayal of Jan Compton in “The Brain That Wouldn’t Die.”

Compton lost her head — literally — in an car accident.

Her distraught fiancé, Bill Cortner, revives her head and starts looking for a replacement body. With regrettable results.

The film was made in the late 1950s and released in 1962.

Nobody had technology that could keep someone’s head alive and conscious then. We still don’t.

I don’t see a problem with Bill Cornter’s decision to keep Compton alive, even though she was missing everything from the neck down.

Bill’s first impulse, saving her life, made sense to me. So did his wanting to get a new body for Compton. His decision to find a suitable donor, remove her head and attach Compton’s to the body, was also understandable. But unacceptable.

Medical treatments, including transplants, are okay. If benefits outweigh the risks, and helping one person doesn’t mean maiming or killing another. (Catechism, 2278, 2296)

I haven’t seen the movie in decades, but my memory tells me that Compton wasn’t happy about her post-accident condition. I don’t remember why she felt that way.

Brain in a Vat

Getting back to preserved pig brains and ethics, I think learning more about how brains work is a good idea.

That’s partly because I deal with an autism spectrum disorder, depression and other glitches. (January 7, 2018)

An amazing number of things can go wrong with our brains, and with the connections between our brains and bodies.

I’ll focus on locked-in syndrome. Whether someone would see it as nightmarish or frustrating probably depends on attitude. Either way, being unable to move wouldn’t be good. Even if the person ‘inside’ could still control the eyes.

Add being completely cut off from sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch — and we’ve got a “brain in a vat” situation.6

In principle, someone’s brain could be alive and conscious, completely alone: cut off from all sensation and unable to move. That would be unpleasant, putting it very mildly. But it might be someone’s best chance for recovery after an accident or illness.

Or the person might experience an illusionary body, with virtual reality software replacing sensory and motor connections. Living in a virtual world could be pleasant or not, depending on how well the equipment works.

And whether the folks running the system were trying to help or torment the subject.

We’re not there yet, and may not be for decades. But “brain in a vat” speculations aren’t as hypothetical as they were in the early 1960s.

I think it’s a near-certainty that the question is no longer whether legal rights for detached human brains becomes an issue. It’s when we will need rules for using the tech.

Reason for Concern: Not Fear

Fear, like any emotion, can be useful, a signal that something needs attention.

But I think it’s a very poor guide. (October 5, 2016)

Feelings, emotions, are real and part of being human. By themselves, they aren’t good or bad. What matters is what we decide. Reasoning is part of being human too. Thinking before deciding makes sense. (Catechism, 1730, 1762-1770, 1778, 1804, 2339)

As Yale’s ‘pig brain’ news spreads from academic papers to supermarket checkout periodicals, some folks may see preserved pig brains as a threat.

I’m no fan of regulations, particularly when they’re written by clueless bureaucrats and politicos. But I think we need rules that spell out what’s legitimate research, and what’s another Tuskegee or Willowbrook waiting to happen. (August 18, 2017)

More of my views of fear, facts, and using our brains:

1 Keeping brains alive:

2 ‘Disembodied’ pigs:

3 Planning ahead:

  • “The ethics of experimenting with human brain tissue”
    Nita A. Farahany, Henry T. Greely, Steven Hyman, Christof Koch, Christine Grady, Sergiu P. Pașca, Nenad Sestan, Paola Arlotta, James L. Bernat, Jonathan Ting, Jeantine E. Lunshof, Eswar P. R. Iyer, Insoo Hyun, Beatrice H. Capestany, George M. Church, Hao Huang, Hongjun Song; Nature (April 25, 2018)

4 Brain scanner prototype:

5 Concerns:

6 Perceptions and reality:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ghosts?

Posted on April 29, 2018 by Brian H. Gill
Allied Artists: Vincent Price in 'House on Haunted Hill'. (1959)
Vincent Price in “House oh Haunted Hill”. (1959)

Whether or not I believe in ghosts depends on what’s meant by “believe in” and “ghosts.” And how I see myself, for that matter. I’ll be talking about ghosts and why I think seances are a bad idea. Also, briefly, superstition and metaphysics.

I don’t fear that an ancestral banshee might come to the new world and find me. Or think spirit photographers were selling pictures of ghosts. (April 11, 2018)

If that’s ‘believing in ghosts,’ then I don’t. On the other hand, I’m not a materialist. I think part of me won’t die, no matter what happens to my body.

It’s a Material World, Partly: Body AND Soul

I see the physical world — matter, energy, the structure of time and space — as part of reality. But not all of it. There’s more to me than the oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus in my body.

I’d think there was more, even if I was a strict materialist.

Those six elements only account for about 99% of my mass. Another 0.85%, give or take a bit, is potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.

Trace amounts of pretty much every other element complete the list.

All the more common elements in my body are also common on or near Earth’s surface. But not in quite the same proportions. Earth’s crust has bigger fractions of silicon, aluminum and iron.1

I could fret about Earth’s abundance ratios and Genesis 2:7 not quite matching. But I won’t. Oddly enough, I’ve yet to see a ‘Bible-based’ church denounce chemistry. Or geochemistry. Evolutionary theories have been among their favored foes since the mid-19th century. (February 9, 2018; September 22, 2017)

‘Biblical’ disapproval of post-Jenner medical tech may have been more popular in the 18th century, but it’s still an issue. And another topic. (July 21, 2017; October 16, 2016)

I think my body is part of me.

Like all other humans, I’m made of matter and spirit. This is not a problem. Matter isn’t basically bad. (Genesis 1:27, 31; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 285, 337–349, 355-373, 285, 1703)

My body will die. My soul can’t.

My soul, like every other human’s, is created by God, spiritual and immortal. I’m not more or less “spiritual” than anyone else. I can’t be. We’re equal, but not identical. We’re not supposed to be. (Catechism, 366, 872, 1703, 1880, 1934-1937)

We’re all creatures made from the stuff of this world and God’s ‘breath.’ Each of us is made in the image of God, with a body and “equally endowed with rational souls.” (Catechism, 355-379, 1703, 1934)

“SOUL: The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together form one unique human nature. Each human soul is individual and immortal, immediately created by God. The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection (363, 366, cf. 1703).
(Catechism, Glossary)

Having a spiritual and material nature comes with being human. What I do with these gifts is up to me. (Catechism, 355, 1730-1731)

Death, Life and Being Human

When I die, I’ll still be a human: a dead one.

I won’t necessarily be better off as a disembodied soul. Or basically different.

I’ll be a human whose soul and body aren’t connected. It’s a temporary condition. My soul and resurrected body will be together, eventually, along with every other human’s: in time for the Last Judgment. (Catechism, 990, 1038-1050)

If I’ve got any sense, I’ll be in that “great multitude, which no one could count” Revelation 7:9 mentions. Opting out is an option. But not a good one. (March 11, 2018)

I like being a creature made of matter and spirit.

That’s just as well, since I’m human and always will be. Maybe that seems odd, coming from someone who says he’s a Christian.

I’ve run into interesting notions and assumptions, maybe folklore by now, about life, death and all that.

I’ll never be an angel. Angels are pure spirit, an entirely different sort of creature. Angels are the ones who are agents for God. They’ve got intelligence and will, like we do; so working for God is their choice. Or was. (Catechism, 328-336, 391-395)

They don’t exist in space-time, not the way we do, so my language’s verb tenses don’t quite fit their situation. I’ve got more to say about angels, artistic conventions, and Mycenaean Linear B, but that’s yet another topic, for another day.

It’s like the 1937 movie said: “You Only Live Once.” Reincarnation doesn’t happen. I get to go through this live once. Or need to, from another viewpoint. (Catechism, 1013, 1020-1050)

Logical Explanations and a Pulsing Tombstone

Uncle Deadly is one of my favorite Muppets. His recent Halloween appearance on The Muppets YouTube channel showcases his witty charm.

Both an actor and vocalist, Uncle Deadly’s interpretation of “Sheik of Araby” was unforgettable:

“…At night when you’re asleep
Into your tent I’ll creep….”
(“Sheik of Araby” lyrics (Fats Domino))

So, for me, was his title role in “Phantom of the Muppet Theater.”

The following “Phantom” dialog makes more sense with an explanation. Not much more, since this was The Muppet Show. Kermit, the Muppet Theater house manager, has been dealing with panicky Muppets.

After a false alarm, Kermit says “…there is no such thing as a phantom. That’s final, period, end of report!” Then Fozzie asks Kermit what’s behind him, and leaves the long-suffering frog:

Kermit “Uh, you will notice that I didn’t fall for their joke. And if it isn’t a joke – I mean, if there is someone or something behind me – there is no doubt a logical explanation for it. So I shall now just turn slowly around and see what is going on here.”
He turns around and faces Uncle Deadly.
Kermit “Uh, pardon me, sir, but is there a logical explanation for your presence here?”
Uncle Deadly (cackles)
Kermit “Apparently, there is no logical explanation.”
He runs away screaming. Uncle Deadly cackles.
(The Muppet Show, Episode 121: Twiggy (1976))

I think Uncle Deadly’s response was more a ‘nya-ha-ha-ha‘ than a cackle, but that’s not my point. Kermit’s “apparently, there is no logical explanation” remark reflects both the frazzled frog’s inner spirit and a common perception of logic and reality.

Today’s notion that realty includes the material world and nothing else is part of the Enlightenment’s legacy. So is seeing logic and ‘spiritual’ perceptions as incompatible.

I don’t agree, but think generations of Post-Reformation state-run religions, turf wars, famines, plagues and witch hunts — fueled by faith-based propaganda — left a bad taste. (March 9, 2018)

Devoutly daft Christians don’t help.

Neither, I think, do “miraculous” products, apparently-Christian superstitions and folks who believe them. (August 13, 2017; July 23, 2017)

In a way, superstition is religious feeling gone wrong. If I believed that a prayer works if I say the right words with the right gestures, no matter what’s going on inside me — that’d be superstition, and a bad idea. (Catechism, 2110-2111)

Thinking that my soul can’t die doesn’t mean I think a local cemetery was haunted during the 20th century. I do, however, think a local story about the cemetery is true.

A particular tombstone pulsed with a pale radiance at every rising of the full moon: regular as clockwork, for years. I’ve seen the cemetery. Some of the older locals could have shown me the tombstone.

One of them told me how and why the tombstone pulsed with strange radiance at each clear rising of the full moon. And why the tombstone gleams no more in the gloaming.

The ‘haunting’ ended when a supper club on the south edge of town closed. The eldritch pulse was moonlight reflecting off the establishment’s rotating sign. When the sign stopped turning, the tombstone stopped pulsing.

“A Christmas Carol” and Metaphysics

I’ve never chatted with a ghost, or had the opportunity. Meeting a ghost, I probably wouldn’t say what Scrooge did. I’m a real American, living in 21st century Minnesota: not a fictional Englishman residing in 19th century London.

But I’d likely have Scrooge’s doubts about what my senses were telling me.

I think Marley’s questions made sense. So did Scrooge’s replies:

“…’You don’t believe in me,’ observed the Ghost.
‘I don’t,’ said Scrooge.
‘What evidence would you have of my reality beyond that of your senses?’
‘I don’t know,’ said Scrooge.
‘Why do you doubt your senses?’
‘Because,’ said Scrooge, ‘a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!’…”
(“A Christmas Carol,” Charles Dickens (1843) via Project Gutenberg)

Maybe “an undigested bit of beef” wouldn’t make someone see Marley. Our sensory organs and brain aren’t quite that unreliable. But hallucinations happen, Quite a lot can go wrong, and occasionally does.2

Scrooge and Marley were discussing what’s real and how we know about it: ontological and epistemological aspects of metaphysics. But without the obfuscatory grandiloquence that arguably gives metaphysics a regrettable reputation.

“The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words” says that “metaphysics” and “metaphysical” can mean “abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality” and “based on abstract (often excessively abstract) reasoning.”

I don’t have a problem with abstract theory. The trick is remembering what’s real, and what isn’t.

I’m interested in — fascinated by — what’s in this universe and the rest of reality, and what might exist.

My interests encourage me to think about what’s real and what’s not, and how sure I can be about what I think I know. That’s metaphysics, but mostly I see it as common sense.

Getting back to Scrooge, Marley, and attitudes, I think Dickens said it best. Scrooge was “a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner.”

I’ve seen Scrooge called a materialist, the sort who thinks physical treasures are important and spiritual ones aren’t. That’s pretty obvious, after the first few paragraphs.

A few folks have said he’s a materialist of the metaphysical variety. I see their point, since Scrooge said he thought Marley might be an indigestion-induced hallucination.

But I suspect Scrooge’s metaphysical musings hadn’t been much deeper than “It’s humbug still! … I won’t believe it:”

“…They were succeeded by a clanking noise, deep down below; as if some person were dragging a heavy chain over the casks in the wine-merchant’s cellar. Scrooge then remembered to have heard that ghosts in haunted houses were described as dragging chains.

“…The cellar-door flew open with a booming sound, and then he heard the noise much louder, on the floors below; then coming up the stairs; then coming straight towards his door.

“‘It’s humbug still!’ said Scrooge. ‘I won’t believe it.’

“His colour changed though, when, without a pause, it came on through the heavy door, and passed into the room before his eyes. Upon its coming in, the dying flame leaped up, as though it cried, ‘I know him; Marley’s Ghost!’ and fell again….”
(“A Christmas Carol,” Charles Dickens (1843) via Project Gutenberg)

I take spiritual realities seriously and think our souls can’t die, so why wouldn’t I try contacting deceased friends and relatives? What could possibly go wrong?

The Endor Incident

Folks who say ‘it’s good to be king’ may be thinking of kings reigning in tranquil times. Or maybe don’t see leadership’s downside.

1 Samuel 28:3–19 opens with Samuel’s death. Philistine troops are about to attack King Saul’s territory.

“When Saul saw the Philistine camp, he grew afraid and lost heart completely.”
(Samuel 28:5)

I’ll give Saul credit for using proper, by his standards, methods first.

“He consulted the LORD; but the LORD gave no answer, neither in dreams nor by Urim nor through prophets.”
(Samuel 28:6)

That wasn’t the first time Saul had asked for advice and gotten no answer. Thinking about why God wasn’t returning his calls would have made sense. But fearful folks don’t make sense. Not consistently.

Saul, who should have known better, had a medium in Endor arrange an interview with Samuel. The deceased prophet was none too pleased. Understandably, since consulting ghosts and spirits is a bad idea. (Leviticus 19:31, Deuteronomy 18:10–11; Catechism, 2116)

Saul got his question answered. Accurately, too; although I’m pretty sure Saul didn’t like what he learned.

I’ll grant that the medium could have staged Samuel’s appearance, or gotten the attention of someone who’s not one of God’s agents. Not all spiritual beings are ‘good guys.’ (Catechism, 329-330, 391-395, 414)

In this case, though, what Samuel allegedly said was consistent with what God and the prophets said before and after Saul’s time. Saul may have gotten who he asked for.

Three millennia later, folks who should know better still act like they don’t. Which gives me plenty to write about:

1 What we’re made of, material components:

2 Senses, perceptions, theories and a “myth:”

Posted in Being Catholic, Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Still More Mass Murder

Posted on April 25, 2018 by Brian H. Gill

Fourteen high-profile murders are in the news. Four died at a Waffle House in Nashville, 10 were killed on Yonge Street in Toronto. The accused killers have been caught. I put links to BBC News and Wikipedia pages about the murders at the end of this post.1

I’ll mostly be saying why I think murder is a bad idea, and how I see being human and making sense — or not, in some cases.

I’m not personally involved in the incidents. Living in central Minnesota, far from either city, staying calm about what happened is comparatively easy.

“Calm” isn’t “apathetic.” I think there’s wisdom in this advice:

“Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.”
(Romans 12:15)

These deaths left a great many folks missing family and friends. I trust and hope they will get the support and well-expressed sympathy they need.

Human Life Matters

Philippe de Champaigne's 'Still-Life with a Skull', a vanitas painting. (c. 1671) left to right: life, death, and time.Murder is a bad idea. Folks with a remarkable number of different views agree on that, although what’s seen as “murder” has varied quite a bit over the millennia.

I’m a Christian and a Catholic, so I see murder as deliberately killing an innocent human being. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2261)

It’s wrong because human life is sacred, a gift from God. Each of our lives matters. Age or health isn’t a factor. Being human is. (Catechism, 2258, 2268–2283)

Feeling that someone who commits murder is still human isn’t easy, at least for me. But easy or not: I’m obliged to remember that we’re all human; no matter who we are, where we live, or how we act. (Catechism, 360, 1700–1706, 1932–1933, 1935)

Responses, Assumptions

News from Toronto, bad as it is, could be worse. Despite the incident being yet another van crime, I’ve yet to hear someone demanding tighter van laws.

One politico even said being calm was a good idea. I think that, and how folks responded to similar crimes in England last year, is good news.

Maybe Western civilization hasn’t gone completely bonkers. (June 25, 2017; June 4, 2017)

The Nashville and Toronto mass murders almost certainly aren’t connected. That’d make an entertaining — sort of — conspiracy theory, and that’s another topic. (August 11, 2017; July 21, 2017)

But the murders have some common elements. Both were committed in North America, by someone in the male 18-34 demographic. Both suspects probably have mostly-European ancestry.

Canadian and American culture and politics being what they are, I don’t think we’ll be discussing the wisdom of locking up all 18-24 Euro-American and Euro-Canadian men. Or at least requiring that these walking time bombs carry their identification papers.

I don’t think that’d make sense, but I’ve been one of “them.” By some wacky standards, that might make me a fellow-conspirator. I don’t miss the bygone days when political correctness was in bloom. Or McCarthyism.

Ideas

Folks had, and have acted on, crazy ideas long before the 20th century.

I see the Thirty Years War as northern European bosses wanting a piece of southern Europe’s wealth. Mostly.

Maybe some really believed their religion-themed propaganda. That, and embarrassments like the Popish Plot, arguably inspired the Enlightenment.

Attitudes like Sapere aude/dare to know seem reasonable. The Cult of Reason’s toga parties, not so much. (March 9, 2018; August 20, 2017; June 25, 2017)

Imagining a perfect world, filled with the light of reason and warmth of love, can be nice. As an occasional intellectual treat.

As mental junk food goes, it may be better than snarfing down six-packs of doom, gloom, Malthus and Yeats. Or adopting fashionable melancholy, which sounds more sophisticated. (August 11, 2017; October 22, 2017)

Blame

The criminologist in Monty Python’s ‘Piranha Brothers’ skit was, happily, fictional. So was his madcap parody of sadly-real attitudes. (March 19, 2018)

We didn’t stay in the 1960s. Most of us didn’t, anyway. Trendy slogans like “victim of society” became dated, occasionally resurfacing as corny comedy relief.

Some of today’s experts aren’t any more reasonable than their wacky predecessors. But quite a few are promoting different ideas. I get the impression that decriminalization is out and the blame game is in.

That’s an extreme oversimplification. And nothing new. McCarthyism had communists, political correctness had oppressors. What’s changed is who’s being blamed. Or what. (November 19, 2017; November 15, 2017)

It’s early days, but I suspect we’ll learn that the person accused of killing folks in Toronto had psychiatric issues. The Nashville suspect almost certainly did.

I think that should be considered during their trials. But I don’t think crazy people are a threat to us all. I’ll admit to a bias. I deal with an autism spectrum disorder, PTSD and depression. (March 19, 2017)

Acting Like Love Matters

I don’t indulge in daydreaming about a utopian world where we’ve solved all our problems. Not much, anyway, now that I’ve passed my early teens.

I certainly don’t think today’s world is ideal, or that we ever had a Golden Age.

I was dissatisfied with the status quo in the ’60s, and still am. I thought we could do better then, and still do. Changing the world, or even my country, is beyond my power. I don’t mind a bit. Having that much responsibility would be scary.

We’ll probably need to change laws, sooner or later. That’s an ongoing process, since how we live keeps changing.

We may need to change how we deal with folks who won’t or can’t follow rules. That’s a can of worms I’ll re-open another day.

The sort of murder that’s in the news is already illegal in both Canada and the United States. Making it ‘more illegal’ might seem appealing, but it may not be a good idea.

I think both murders happened because two people decided that killing others made sense. Or felt good. Some folks might feel that way no matter how the rest of us act.

But we can, I think, start acting as if we believe loving our neighbors is a good idea. Doing so might encourage more thought, less anger; and maybe more mutual respect.

I’ve talked about that sort of thing before:

1 Mass murders, recent and otherwise:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Gnosticism

Posted on April 21, 2018 by Brian H. Gill

Some folks act as if they think physical reality is bad and having a body is icky. The notion’s ‘Biblical,’ sort of.

Galatians 5:19 through 21 call bad ideas like licentiousness, hatreds and idolatry “works of the flesh.” With a little paraphrasing, I could claim that 1 Corinthians 3:3 says jealousy and rivalry are “of the flesh.” Romans 8:3 mentions “sinful flesh.”

Taking those verses, ignoring Genesis 1:31, Psalms 84:3, Ecclesiastes 2:24–25 and two millennia of Catholic teaching, and I might see loathing physical reality as an option. But not, I think, a reasonable one. (October 8, 2017)

“Spiritual” isn’t necessarily good or bad. Neither is having a body. What matters is what I decide, how I use my reason and will. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1704-1707, 1730, 1852-1869)
I see sin as acting against reason, truth, and right conscience. (Catechism, 1849-1850)

Any creature with free will can do that. (February 4, 2018; November 6, 2016)

Satan was and is pure spirit, with no body at all; which didn’t keep the spiritual creature from sinning on an epic scale. (Catechism, 328-330, 385-395)

Philosophers and Fame


(From Dustin Dewynne, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Seeing reality as two things, dualism. Or one thing, monism.)

Materialism/physicalism and idealism are, in a way, two sides of the same coin. Both beliefs see reality as basically one thing. Like quite a few other views, materialism and idealism go back at least to what Jaspers called the Axial Age. (April 15, 2018)

Idealism assumes that consciousness, or something else immaterial, is the most basic part of reality. Plato may be the best-known idealist philosopher. He wasn’t alone. Anaxagoras said that nous, intellect, came first. Aristotle had pretty much the same view.1

Time passed, Anaxagoras didn’t get noticed nearly as much as the other two, and some European scholars got overly-excited about Aristotle in the 1200s. (November 5, 2017)

Meanwhile, folks kept refurbishing and repackaging Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas about ideals and forms.

Versions with a Christian spin started popping up during the first century AD. They’ve been endemic ever since.

One of the earliest headliners was Valentinus. He taught in Alexandria and set up a school in Rome. That was in the second century AD.

Saint Valentine is a different person and got killed for being a Christian. He wasn’t the first, or last, to decide truth is more important than this life.

Valentinus, the fellow with a school, enjoyed considerable success. So did Valnetinianism, an intriguing alternative to Christianity.

Valentinianism was a big deal in the 2nd century, not so much later.

St. Irenaeus called the Valentinian school “he legomene gnostike haeresis:” “the heresy called Learned (Gnostic),” “the sect called Learned,” or something like that.

Henry More coined the word “Gnosticism” in the 17th century. He was talking about a particular variation of Valentinus-style ideas. The name caught on as a handy label for that sort of anti-materialism.

“Gnosticism” comes from Ancient Greek γνωστικός/gnostikos, “having knowledge.” I think Gnostic beliefs were at least partly inspired by Plato’s theory of forms; but they’re not quite idealism, Platonic or otherwise.

Unlike idealism — and materialism — Gnosticism doesn’t necessarily say that everything’s basically one thing. I gather that a Gnostic might see physical reality as real: but not nice.

Each variation of Gnosticism was and is unique, but they agree in seeing physical reality as something to shun. That’s an enormous over-simplification.

Exclusivity Appeals

‘Secret knowledge’ seems to be another popular feature in Gnostic beliefs.2

I see the same exclusivity appeals in ‘learn ancient secrets’ advertisements. Saw, actually. It’s been a long time since I’ve run into that sort of thing in a magazine.

Selling the sizzle, not the steak, is effective advertising. I’ve heard that Elmer Wheeler said it in the 1920s. Advertising goes back at least to the Song Dynasty. And that’s another topic.

I suspect sizzle helps sell my culture’s chronic End Times prognostications. They arguably give believers opportunities to see themselves as part of the cognoscente.

I don’t take assorted ‘ancient knowledge’ and Rapture claims seriously.

Their effect on folks who believe them is another matter. So are impressions made on folks who see others getting duped. I think deliberately distorting truth is a serious violation of trust. (Catechism, Catechism, 2468, 2486)

Deliberately presenting fiction as fact is a problem. Presenting fiction as fiction — I’ll get back to that.

Gnostic notions and fizzling End Times predictions have been around for centuries. Millennia. Details vary, which isn’t surprising.

First century Rome, 11th century Paris and 21st century Los Angeles were and are centers of culture and influence. But they’re not identical.

Human nature doesn’t change. Not that I can see. Cultures are constantly changing. No competent publicist would ignore a target audience’s current perceptions.

I haven’t seen ‘ancient secrets’ ads in magazines recently. Maybe too many folks started thinking. Or maybe ‘truth in advertising’ regulations caught up with them. Or, more likely, I’m not browsing through the same sort of periodicals now.

‘Secret knowledge’ isn’t Gnosticism’s only attractive feature. I get the impression that denouncing physical reality is a cornerstone of faith for many folks, Gnostic and otherwise.

Being Human

I’ve encountered incandescent Christians of the fire and brimstone ilk raging against “works of the flesh.”

I don’t doubt that they’re sincere. The same goes for Carrie Nation and the “Reefer Madness” set. But I’m sure they’re wrong. (July 10, 2016)

Having a body isn’t a problem. How I decide to see my body, and how I act, can be. But being human, being a body and soul, is how God makes us. (Catechism, 362-379, 992, 2288-2291, 2331-2336)

I’m okay with that. Even if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t see complaining about God’s design aesthetic as a good idea. I hope I’d have that much sense.

The notion that being physical isn’t nice may play well to folks of fastidious spiritual tastes.

Maybe believing “the Word became flesh,” as John 1:14 says, doesn’t feel sufficiently ‘spiritual.’ But believing that the Son of God is human and divine comes with being a Catholic. (Catechism, 285, 456-478, 517)

So does acknowledging that I’m human. I like understanding things, but see wisdom in recognizing limits. How the Incarnation works is beyond me. God is infinite, transcending time and space. Fully understanding God won’t happen. Learning what I can? That’s a good idea. (February 25, 2018; August 20, 2017; June 16, 2017)

Christian-themed Gnosticism probably has roots in Judeo-Christian traditions, Platonism and Neoplatonism. Or Neopythagoreanism, Persian and Hindi traditions, Zurvanite and Zoroastrian beliefs, and Buddhism. Or maybe all of those. Or something else.

There’s not, putting it mildly, a consensus.3

Knowledge and Choice

“To follow knowledge like a sinking star…” is my Google Plus tagline. I might look like someone who’d become a Gnostic. Maybe I would. But it’s not likely.

I like knowledge, a lot. I also enjoy flights of fancy. But confusing what’s real and what’s a product of human imagination doesn’t make sense.

Neither does ignoring realities because I don’t like them, or believing that a figment of imagination is real.

I can continue being a Catholic. Or I can believe that Jesus isn’t or couldn’t be human. Not both. I have to pick one or the other. (Catechism, 285, 465)

I’ve got free will, so in principle I could change my mind about what I think is true. But deciding to stop being a Catholic is about as improbable as it gets. I like being a Catholic, know why I joined, and keep finding more reasons to stay with the Church.

Cool Names

Being a Catholic doesn’t keep me from seeing what’s appealing in Gnosticism. Appealing to someone with my tastes and interests, anyway.

Like that diagram. It’s from a book published in 1826, Jacques Matter’s “Histoire critique du Gnosticisme.”

It’s the Plérome de Valentin, showing how Valentinianism viewed reality.

Valentinian’s version of reality has entities with cool names like le Père, la Pensée and des éons.

If I was reading about it in English, they’d be the Father, the Thought and the Aeons.

If that sounds like some alternative liturgies you’ve run into, I’m not surprised. Like I said, Gnostic notions have been popping up for about two millennia: repackaged but recognizably Gnostic. The New Age4 brand was popular recently. Still is, in some circles.

I like cool names and imaginative alternate realities. But I don’t see a point in believing something because it’s cool, or because it’s kinda now and kinda wow.

Or impressively ancient.

And I know enough of what’s happened and what we’ve thought over the last few millennia to realize that many New Age ideas, for example, aren’t all that new. Some only go back a few centuries, at most. And that’s yet another topic.

Sub-Creation

I’ve known folks who don’t like fiction because “it’s not true.” Or dismiss myth for the same reason.

I wouldn’t try forcing them to read “Through the Looking Glass.”

Or avoid a tale of Líf and Lífþrasir riding out Ragnarök by hiding in Yggdrasil because it’s not science or history.

Avoiding stories because another person won’t or can’t enjoy products of our imaginations is possible. But doesn’t seem reasonable. (July 16, 2017)

Sharing a figment of imagination may not always be a bad idea. I see differences, significant ones, between a storyteller weaving a tale and a con artist selling a version of Victor Lustig’s “money-printing machine”

I also think Tolkien is right about at least one aspect of mythology:

“…This aspect of ‘mythology’ — sub-creation, rather than either representation or symbolic interpretation of the beauties and terrors of the world — is, I think, too little considered….”
(“J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories,” via The Heritage Podcast)

And that’s yet again another topic, for another day.

Other posts that may or may not be related to this one:

1 Philosophers, “isms” and all that:

2 A Saint, A Gnostic, and two “isms:”

3 Gnosticism’s origins, maybe:

4 Mysticism isn’t the problem. Nescience can be:

Posted in Being Catholic, Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Minnesota Spring Weather Continues

Posted on April 15, 2018 by Brian H. Gill

That’s what my webcam saw, a few minutes before 8:00 this morning.

It’s now about 10:15 am here in central Minnesota. The view is still much the same: a bit more light, off-and-on snow and wind.

Lighthearted poems about April showers bringing May flowers weren’t, I think, written by folks who lived in my part of the world. Taking a positive view of current reality, we’ve still got power and Internet connections — so I’m sitting back and enjoying the show God’s creation provides:

Posted in Discursive Detours | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments