The Soul Wanderers

Quotes of Wisdom: Being a Stoic Philosopher

Epictetus, a philosopher from Ancient Rome, was one of the most well-known Stoics. He wrote a short book called The Enchiridion (or "Handbook") that outlined how you should live your life to attain tranquility. Despite common beliefs, Stoicism isn't about suppressing emotions, but cultivating a positive outlook on the world by getting rid of negative emotions and desires, and, like Buddhism, not being ruffled by external events.

From Epictetus's The Enchiridion (125 AD):
"A man's master is he who is able to confer or remove whatever that man seeks or shuns. Whoever then would be free, let him wish nothing, let him decline nothing, which depends on others; else he must necessarily be a slave."

Stoics separate things in our lives into two categories: things within our power, and things that are not. Simple enough. What is in our power are things like our opinions, aims, desires, aversions; what's outside our power are our body, job, reputations, and, in general, the external world. Now, we may have some influence over things like our body or our job, but on the whole, it depends on external circumstances beyond our control.
Once we've made this distinction, we can then see what we should concern ourselves with. Obviously, we should only strive to change things that are within our power, because if something isn't in our power to change, what use is there worrying about it? What use is there in bemoaning that a thunderstorm began during your picnic? You have absolutely no control over thunderstorms--it will happen whether you groan about it or not. The Stoics advocate that we have no desires and aversions related to such events. Instead, we should take them as they come, and learn to enjoy them. We should modify our desires to conform to what is and not vainly try to stop things that are beyond our control. If we eliminate desires and hatred of such things in the world, we will be able to attain tranquility.
So we should focus on what we can change. Namely, things that are internal to us. This might lead to change in the external world, but in order to succeed, we must strive to make changes in ourselves rather than the world. Sometimes, it's just about changing our specific goals. We should want to cultivate our reason and imagination. We should want to be moral. We should want to be a good citizen. All these things depend on how we think and act, something that's completely within our power no matter what external circumstances we find ourselves in. It may not be easy, but it isn't beyond our control.
Now, things that are semi-within our power, such as our body or job, have to be given a bit more thought. Instead of making goals such as "I will get a degree in physics," which is external and largely beyond our control, we should change the goal to be internal, such as "I will learn physics and do my best in whatever challenges are put against me." That is something within our power, and is the kind of thing we should make goals about. If we make goals like this, we'll never be disappointed (assuming we follow them through by working as best we can), and so won't be ruffled by external circumstances such as the contingencies that go into getting a degree (the specific questions asked on a test, the whims of the instructors and markers...) that are out of your power. This makes you the sole source of your triumphs and woes, giving you the power to change your life and focus on things that matter.
So that's a bit of background. Looking at the quote again, the first sentence is simply a definition of what it means to be a master or a slave. I think this makes sense: we want to gain certain things and avoid certain things in our lives, and indeed, we live our lives for the sole purpose of gaining or avoiding things (I mean "things" in the most general sense, so this includes internal qualities such as knowledge, love, tranquility, etc.). So if someone can give us what we seek or wish to avoid, then they rule over us, and literally determine our lives. We are a slave to them. For example, if our purpose in life is to be happy, and if the only way to do this is to get an injection of a happiness serum, then whoever controlled the happiness serum controls you, because attaining happiness is all you seek (in this example).

This means that if we desire things that depend on others, then we'll be a slave to them. There are certainly degrees to this, depending on how much you desire it, how much power they have over what you desire compared to how much you control it, etc., but to some extent, you'll be a slave. And unlike the simple example of happiness above, people have numerous desires and aversions, so even if we're only "a bit of a slave" to them all, you will be enmeshed in a web of slavery, each thread pulling you in different directions, preventing you from actually being free.
So we shouldn't desire anything that depends on others, in other words, things that are out of our control. For example, the weather is totally out of your control, so you should never desire anything of it. You shouldn't, according to the Stoics, desire that it will be a nice day, or that you will avoid being out on a bad day. Likewise, your reputation is beyond your control. Do what you will, but people will form opinions about you based on their own ideas and prejudices. Instead, we should focus on the things we can change. This, the Stoics tell us, will lead to tranquility and happiness, and I certainly agree with them. We'll be able to appreciate the world more, be able to view the world with a new sort of wonder. By being free of judgments, we instead experience the world rather than trying to change things we can't. Indeed, Stoics are often very happy people, experiencing the world without jaded indifference or complaining about things never being the way they wanted (this is the same as Buddhists and Taoists).
Thus, we should internalize our desires so that we are our own master. This is really what Stoicism is about: not being ruled by other people, their opinions of us, and unconscious things like the weather, but taking charge of our own lives. In theory, Stoicism isn't complicated: it's principles are quite simple. But putting them into practice is where the challenge lies. As with most ancient philosophies, these aren't just theoretical ideas, but ways to live our lives. That's one of the main differences between philosophy in the present compared to the past. In ancient times, and largely throughout history, philosophy was more comprehensive: it wasn't a discipline you just studied at school and wrote papers about, but a way to live your life. As the historian Paul Veyne said, "To truly be a philosopher was to live out the sect's doctrine, conform one's conduct (and even one's attire) to it, and if need be, to die for it." That last part is just gold: to find something that you would stake your life upon and die for. Because when you follow a philosophy or way of life that you would rather be burned alive for than abandon, then you know you truly belong to it and have found true meaning in your life.

Some Greek philosophers at the British Museum. From left to right: Socrates, Antisthenes, Chrysippus (a Stoic philosopher), Epicurus, and me :)

***

If you'd like to read the Enchiridion, it's very short, and is available for free here. I've also been reading a great book called A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy about Stoicism and how to apply it in your life. It's very easy to read and I would recommend it to everyone and anyone.

Quotes of Wisdom: The Fangshi

Posted by Mary-Jean comments (1)

I recently read a book about the wise men of ancient China called the fangshi, a fascinating book that catalogues stories from the lives of these men, involving their predictions, connection to spirits, and the natural magic they wielded. The following quote is attributed to the fangshi Kuan Lu, who lived in the 3rd century (note: a "li" is a distance measurement):

From Doctors, Diviners, and Magicians of Ancient China: Biographies of Fang-shih, compiled by Kenneth DeWoskin (1983)
"When the bright sun mounts the heavens, its light circulates over a vista of ten thousand li. But when it enters the ground, there is not even a ray equal to the glow of a small burning coal. The full moon on the fifteenth day illuminates the night with its clear radiance, so brightly that one can see off in the distance. But when morning comes, its shine cannot even rival that of a mirror. Now, beyond the sun and the moon, there is the systematic regularity of yin and yang. This system of yin and yang is woven into the infinite variety of things. It is in accord with this system that the birds and the beasts are undergoing endless transformations. That being so, how much more must it be true of men! By ingenuity one can gain mastery over this system and with spiritual prowess can grasp the unfathomable."

The fangshi (or "fang-shih", depending on how you want to write it from Chinese), form an important part of Chinese legend and philosophy. They were solitary men who studied Nature and the esoteric arts, and although there weren't any fangshi organizations or groups, each of them discovered similar practices, so are all called "fangshi." Many of them studied the hexagrams of The Book of Changes (The I Ching) to predict future events. For example, the appearance of certain animals, the flight patterns of birds, the weather, etc. can have significant meanings in people's lives and the affairs of a state if they are interpreted properly.
In ancient times, the fangshi were sought after by kings and nobles for their wisdom, most of which revolved around predicting future events. The fangshi also had a connection to the spirit world, where ghosts of those deceased as well as spirits and demons dwell.
In the quote above, we can see why events in Nature reflect human affairs. It's all about the microcosm and macrocosm: as above, so below. As Nature reflects Heaven (or whatever higher world you want to call it), so does the human world reflect Nature. The human world is at the same time a part of Nature as well as a microcosm of its own. Likewise, when something happens in the world below, there is a response that can be read in Nature and even the heavens. For example, Lu says, "When armies move and people suffer, there is a response among terrestrial things, and that means among the mountains, forests, birds, and beasts." Each world has its own "code" that must be studied to read the meaning behind it and how it connects to ourselves and our society.
We also see the idea of the rise and fall of certain forces as they take turns in domination. For example, the moon pales next to a light reflected from a mirror in the daytime. This doesn't mean that moon changes, but that different forces "takes turns" dominating, for they are all part of the cycle of yin and yang (two opposite qualities that describe the world). They are connected, ever transforming into one another. Fire into water, love into hate, light into dark. Hence the well-known symbol:

Or something thereof :)
Likewise, in the human world, we may be powerless against, say, a flood, but by ingenuity, we can rise above it by building a sanctuary on high ground. Most people are unable to extend the years of their lives, but it is said that the many of the fangshi found the secret of immortality, or at least, were able to live extended lives (for example, by performing what is known as fetal breathing, a practice that involves sustaining oneself with as little respiration as possible). This is an example of what Lu means when he said, "By ingenuity one can gain mastery over this system and with spiritual prowess can grasp the unfathomable."
The unseen force that flows between beings and events, between the different worlds (which are in truth all connected) is called ch'i. Ch'i is a life force present in the world and all beings within it. Everything is linked by the flow of ch'i. When there is a disturbance in one world, it is reflected in the others, and will manifest in whatever elements are present in that world--so in Nature, creatures like birds respond to the flow of ch'i, and their movements can have a significance. Elements such as fire, earth, air, and water also have a distinctive ch'i, and being some of the most simple substances in Nature, they are more likely to reflect changes in the heavens and human world. For example, storms (air and water) were often seen as portents for state and military affairs.

All of this may seem to be in the realm of pseudo-science, but I think there is some merit to it. From biology and physics (especially quantum physics), we know the world is all connected, and if someone could read the linkages between things, had an eye for perceiving them, they might be able to read it as the fangshi did. One only has to look at someone like Sherlock Holmes to realize that some people have extremely heightened perceptions so that they can perceive details about world that are hidden to others. In many ways, Sherlock Holmes is a later day version of the fangshi.
It's difficult to properly appreciate the understanding people in the past had of Nature, mostly because, on the whole, our society is out of tune with Nature and regards it with scientific principles rather than trying to connect to its more subtle essence that cannot be laid bare by mathematics, but has to be perceived. Imagine how different it would seem to the fangshi and other philosophers who tried to understand the world, such as Druids and shamans. Their way of understanding the world wasn't wrong, nor is ours, but in many ways, theirs was deeper than our own. They had a spiritual understanding of the world as well as a physical one, and were able to navigate how things were connected, in particular, by the subtle signs revealed in Nature.
That is one of things our science of today is missing. And that, I believe, is where we must reforge our paths if we want to gain a better understanding of our own world and those beyond it.

Click here for more posts in my Quotes of Wisdom series.

The StarCompass is up for free again!

Posted by Mary-Jean comments (0)

You can get a free copy of my historical fantasy short story The StarCompass today! The e-book is on a free promotion until Sunday:
In Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/The-StarCompass-Mary-Jea…/…/B00IC51LT4
In U.S.: https://www.amazon.com/StarCompass-Mary-Jean-…/…/B00IC51LT4…

Philosophy and Ghost Particles

Posted by Mary-Jean comments (1)

Having recently taken courses in quantum field theory and particle physics, I've been noticing more correspondences between quantum fields and metaphysics (some of which was discussed in my previous entry here), but I'd like to bring up one more neat topic:
Ghosts and Virtual Particles
Believe it or not, there are ghosts in physics. Well, "ghost particles" and "ghost fields", to be precise. When I first heard about them, I was swift to imagine all sorts of ghost fields about the world, ghosts interacting with particles...So what are "ghosts" in physics?
In quantum field theory, particles correspond to fields that can be described as waves. Ghosts are additional fields added to a theory so that the math is consistent. They're a kind of "virtual particle", particles that cannot be observed but are considered to be present in certain particle interactions to make things consistent.
For example, say you have two electrons interacting (see diagram below). Well, one of them will be an electron (e⁻) and the other one will be a positron (e+...this is the antiparticle of the electron. It's just the same as the electron except it has a positive charge. Antiparticles have arrows pointing against the flow of time. Just to confuse you). Time flows from left to right, so the two particles come in and annihilate to form a photon (ɣ), which then does some fancy things before becoming an electron and positron again.
However, we can only observe the initial and final states of particle interactions: the two particles coming in, and the resulting particles coming out (which happen to be the same as the initial particles in this case). But what happens in between?

Well, in quantum physics, what can happen does happen! Basically, any possible interaction can happen inside--any possible one, not anything. So you can't have this:

i.e., you can't make a cat appear in the loop. So barring strangely appearing Pusheens, the example above shows that a photon is created, it turns into a certain particle and antiparticle (the loop), which then recombine to form a photon. This last photon turns back into an electron and positron. In principle, you could have more loops too (these are known as "higher order" diagrams).
Both the photons and the loop particles are virtual particles. They aren't particles you can observe because it isn't possible to observe anything more than the particles going in and the particles going out of the experiment. In particular, ghost particles appear as loops in diagrams, so the loop in the above diagram could be due to ghost particles.
Ghosts are basically nonphysical particles that appear and disappear in the math depending on a choice of what is known as gauge. You have to choose a gauge when you want to calculate most things in quantum field theory, and although the choice of gauge doesn't change the physical particles you observe, it will determine whether or not there are ghosts. One of the reasons they're called ghosts is because they violate what is known as the spin-statistics theorem: ghosts are spin 0 particles, but they behave as if they were particles with a half-integer spin (1/2, 3/2, etc). This isn't allowed to exist in nature: just like you can't have two positive charges attract each other, you can't have ghost particles really existing.
So what form of existence do these ghosts/virtual particles have, if you, a mere human being, can introduce them in the math depending on whether or not it's convenient for your calculations? Do they correspond to anything in nature, even though they can't exist as real particles? Do virtual particles exist in a sort of "playground" of nature, something like a higher level experiment that we only see the end results of?
Physics, by using mathematics, is trying to piece together some of these questions (though usually without a philosophical bent, mind you). It's trying to understand not only what we can observe, but the underpinnings of the world: how it actually works, and how it came to be the way it is. Perhaps these virtual particles are like Plato's forms, a higher level of "ideas" above the physical world. They're potentially real particles, but only come into existence if they adhere to whatever physical laws are set up in a particular universe. Change those laws, and another set of particles might come into being. So what could be ghost particles in our universe could be completely viable particles in another universe with another set of laws, and vice versa: their ghost particles might be things like electrons, positrons, and photons--things that are totally viable here. Some particles, like photons, can have a real existence our world--they can be observable particles of an experiment. Ghosts, on the other hand, cannot be: they can only exist in loops, so it's like they can exist in the realm of potentiality, but not actuality: they can't be observed in the physical world by us.

These are just my ideas on this, and I'm far from sorting it out, but it's important to think about. This is definitely important in determining how certain ideas/forms become substantiated in the world around us. Why can some things become "real" and not others? What set of laws could let ghost particles exist? I think this could help us get a better grasp of what reality is, and how it's related to things that could potentially exist but do not.
I almost want to make this comparison: a unicorn is to the animal kingdom what ghost particles are to particle physics. Just something to think about.

“There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche:

And, believe it or not, there are also "good ghosts" and "bad ghosts" in quantum field theory (but that's a bit more mathematically involved to explain). Not to mention "anti-ghosts" :)

Quotes of Wisdom: The Field & the Knower of the Field

Posted by Mary-Jean comments (2)

Today, I have a very short quote from one of my favourite books, but despite its length, we could really write books and books upon it. But I'll try one blog entry.
This quote is from the ancient Hindu text The Bhagavadgita:

From S. Radhakrishnan's commentary on The Bhagavadgita (1948)
"Man, essentially, is not a part of nature but a spirit that interrupts the continuity of nature."

We can categorize the universe into two aspects (though later, we'll see that one aspect is actually a part of the other, but ignore that for now): the field, and the knower of the field.
The field is the world, the unconscious matter and energy out of which the universe is formed. There are also knowers of the field, the sparks of consciousness that can perceive the world. The field is called prakrti, and the knower is called purusa.* These also correspond to the body (field) and the mind (knower).
Yet beyond our individual consciousness is the supreme "knower" that witnesses everything. This is called ksetrajna, the knower of all objects. Yet so too is this consciousness within all objects. It is a panentheist idea: the knower--God, the first cause, or whatever you like best--is within all objects, but is also beyond them. He is not the world (pantheism), but the world is within him.
Humans are two-fold beings, both prakrti and purusa. We are limited by our body and our senses, by the elemental forces of the world that prevent us from living out our full potential. Yet what really defines us as humans is our consciousness that connects us to ksetrajna. As Radhakrishnan writes, "Man, as a subject, has another origin. He is not a child of the world...He does not belong to the objective hierarchy of nature...He can only be recognized as a subject, in which is hidden the secret of existence, a complete universe in an individual form."
This returns us to the quote; we are, in a sense, a microcosm of the universe, both prakrti and purusa. Like ksetrajna, our bodies are a part of us, but so too are we something beyond them. As part of the universal consciousness, we are a subject and not just an object. We disrupt the continuity of nature in the sense that we do not just obey physical laws, but have a freedom that can change the course of nature. Maybe we can't change forces of nature like reversing gravity, but we can make decisions, and these choices set us apart from inert matter that will just follow natural laws (natural laws involve some probability, but not "choice").
Man "enters into infinity and infinity enters into him." This is difficult to grasp (is it even possible to grasp something that involves infinity?) but the idea seems to be that the universal consciousness is infinite, and as we ourselves are microcosms of this infinity, we too must be infinite (in the sense that we are purusa). But we are still part of the greater universal infinity! (This is my interpretation, at least). It is the paradox of immanence and transcendence: the knower/consciousness/God is in the world and beyond it, is infinite and finite. We are both infinite and finite.
One can also look at this from a scientific angle. In quantum physics, we have a world of subatomic particles that our observations can alter. The very act of measuring some property of the particles will alter their qualities. We are the knowers of the field, not just matter, but something beyond it. Something that can "interrupts" nature.
It is even more intriguing because particles are described by fields, so matter is in fact just quantum fields interacting with each other. Our consciousness is another sort of field that is not the material, and it allows us to interact with the world. The quantum world, the "fields", serve as the interface between matter and consciousness: the fields of matter can interact with the fields of consciousness at this level.
So this quality of being a "knower", or having conscious perceptions of reality, is what distinguishes us as human beings. We are not just a part of nature, but a spirit. To fully realize this identity, to gain the freedom which is characteristic of our identity, we must rise above the limitations of our prakrti nature and truly be the souls we are behind it all.

*Note that I'm using the spelling of these words (and others later on) given in Radhakrishnan's translation, but I am omitting the accents, so they might not be technically correct. The ideas behind them should be clear nonetheless.