On a Higher Order
Throughout history people have attributed the events of the world to some higher order. Whether it be some deity or force (such as karma) the faith in such a controlling influence has been fairly constant. As a disciple of empirical knowledge, I should eschew any such belief. I don’t.
I am not associated with any established religion, nor do I have any intentions of ever joining the ranks of said. No, the rituals and baseline theology of these are greatly unappealing to myself. However, this does not mean that I have no belief in a greater plan; a clockwork that I, as a cog, am gratefully a part of.
Consider the definition of an ecosystem: the interaction of the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components of an environment. These interactions, naturally, are omnipresent and often imperceptible, some happening on such a small scale that they are routinely overlooked. Imagine the universe as one ecosystem. As a part of this universal ecosystem, I am both the product of and the initiator of an infinite number of interactions.
In this model, the incidence of “luck” is simply the confluence of many interactions the beneficiary was unaware of, as all other events are (all with differing levels of awareness of the participants). This ideology does not depend upon the existence of some external creator but, rather, the god-out-of-the-masses (the sum-total direction of all these interactions).
As a one-time nihilist I found the world to be a vastly unappealing and meaningless entity, as all events were random and, ultimately, without purpose. However, when I explored the theory of the universal ecosystem I found comfort in knowing that I am a part of the universe, one who is affecting others just as they affect me, and in more ways than I can possibly comprehend.
On my level of consciousness I am simply an individual who tries to do his best in his environment. From a greater distance, however, I am just a single thread in a boundless tapestry only increasing in beauty and complexity.
West
October 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I think you mean “affecting others just as they affect me”. An effect is the result. You affect others, and have an effect.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
An error; duly noted.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
So I guess you believe in the butterfly effect?
October 5th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
That assertion is not inaccurate, though I think that the analogy suggested therein is somewhat misleading…salient phenomena are dependent on much more than simply the actions of a butterfly in Madagascar; there is not one “initiator” action but, rather, all actions lead to all subsequent actions. I suppose that this all plays into the “multiple worlds” hypothesis, but I will not comment on that at the moment.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
See existence not as a series of discrete events but as a continuous and holistic “thing” (this is the most applicable noun I can muster).