God and Nature

Harold Morowitz, in his book, The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex, points out that nature is governed by certain laws that revolve around physics, chemistry, etc. He then says, "If God operated through a set of inviolate and deterministic laws [of his/her own making-my words] then God was removed from the world of mankind," because in order to be a hands on God he/she would have to, of course, act through miracles, which would violate his/her own laws. BTW, a God who violates natural law through miracles is referred to as a "transcendent God," the God of Christians. Morowitz goes on to point out, "As the universe got larger and older [through discovery-my words] the immanent God became more and more distant." All of this, has solidified my (and other's) belief in Deism. But, a belief in a distant God is not very consoling, to say the least, particularly when you, essentially, have no family, like me. So, I have wished, over the years, that I could discover some way to explain this absence of God in away that would be acceptable to me.

The problem, then, (for me) has been in how to reconcile the differences between an immanent God of Nature with a transcendent God who is responsive to the needs of humanity. Morowitz presents an idea that reduces this distance, and offers me (and perhaps others) a little hope. I'll try to explain it as best I can.

Morowitz also points out that the evolution that lead to Homo sapiens involved the continuous development of brain size, as well as, manual dexterity and social organization; in other words, the laws of nature (the immanent God) operating under the rules of selection gave rise to Homosapiens and human society. Morowitz writes, "Sometime over the last 5 million years, something radically different occurred: the emergence of a species capable of altering some small portion of the universe in ways far more radical than anything in the past." So, according to Morowitz there appears to be something special, not only about earth, but, about humans as well; therefore, one could argue, as Morowitz does, that the transcendent God is present in humans, and acts through them, because, after all, humans are a direct result of the immanent God's laws of nature. The loci of this transcendence is, of course, human consciousness-the mind. Our level of intelligence is, after all, what sets us apart from the rest of the animals. The problem, of course, is that while humans are capable of, and have done, great good, they are also very capable of accomplishing incredibly heinous acts against humankind, as well as the rest of nature.

This reality was a bit of a stumbling block for me, until I realized that without opposites we cannot appreciate either; in other words, if humans always acted in a noble and righteous, fashion, we would never be able to appreciate (or understand) what being a "decent" human being was all about. So, there is a necessity for both good and evil, and along with this comes, of course, free choice,or free will . . . . whatever you want to call it, which, again, makes our consciousness central to our existence in the form of decisions we make along the way.

This idea of God existing in us is, of course, not novel, but, I think some of the early Christian theologians were probably thinking along this line.. They didn’t know about evolution, but, it appears (to me) that they too saw great potential “in humans” as expressed through the conscious and deliberate decisions humans made that set them apart from other animals, and prompted these early Christian thinkers to profess that we are “temples of the Holy Spirit,” and “made in the image and likeness of God.” This may not be acceptable to some folks, because it puts humans on a pedestal in terms of the rest of nature, but, that may very well be the case.

Before, while I recognized that humans were part of nature, I didn’t think very highly of them (me) as a species; however, despite our failings, there seems to be something inherently good about humans, which is our "saving grace." This idea of an “inherent good” is an interesting topic as well. But, enough for now.

Complexity is in the Eyes of the Beholder

One day I was out hawking and my bird flew on a rabbit. She flew straight out, dipped her left wing slightly, and then, using the wind, which is blowing towards her, she very quickly threw her entire body into a strong right turn, exposing the backside, or top, of her body, and then, again, very quickly, she straightened out and crashed into the brush. Reading what I just wrote is not very exciting, but, look at it this way: Picture a jet, screaming through the air in pursuit. The pilot dips the plane's left wing slightly, and then pulls the stick hard right, which means the plane has to turn from a slight left trajectory with its wing dipped in that direction into a strong right turn with its right wing pointing towards the ground. And then the pilot, immediately levels the plane out and instantaneously fires for effect. Aerodynamically, that's a hell of a maneuver; in fact, if a pilot did that, full-throttle, he/she would probably pass out because the G-force would, momentarily, drain all the blood from the brain.

Granted, the bird is not flying Mach II, but, the speed of the bird is relative to the speed of the jet; in other words, the bird is making these maneuvers at max speed. So, to me, these rather mundane flights are really quite exciting, because there is a lot going on aerodynamically. And, imagine the split-second (literally) thinking that has to go into these maneuvers. It's amazing how fast and effective their brain fires signals for them to be able to make these instantaneous decisions in flight.

There us a lot going on during these seemingly mundane flights . . . . if you think about it.

Perception is not Equal

A falconer friend of mine has this, seemingly, uncanny ability to visualize flights on prey more fully than I can. He seems to be able to recall details of these, relatively, fast action pursuits with remarkable clarity. We, recently, had a discussion about this on my listserv, and, I remembered doing some research on perception for my Master's thesis as it pertains to nature writing, in which, I quoted V. B. Montcastle's article titled, "The View from Within: Pathways to the Study of Perception," published in the John Hopkins Medical Journal. He writes:

"Each of us believes himself to live directly within the world that surrounds him, to sense the objects and events precisely, to live in a real and current time. I assert that these are perceptual illusions, for each of us confronts the world from a brain linked to what is 'out there' by a few million fragile sensory nerve fibers. These are our only information channels, our life-lines to reality. These sensory nerve fibers are not high-fidelity recorders, for they accentuate certain stimulus features, neglect others. The central neuron is a story-teller with regard to the afferent nerve fibers, and he is never completely trustworthy, allowing distortions of quality and measure, within a strained but isomorphic spatial relation between 'outside' and 'inside.' Sensation is an abstraction , not replication, of the real world."

A little more research on human perception has left me awestruck by it all. Vision is incredibly complex, and the speed in which the brain is able to process this sensory information is absolutely remarkable. It is clear to me that people, like my friend, can, in fact, see things more fully than other people; not only that, but, they may see things differently than I do, because each of us have our own internal biases, in terms of reality (what we see), and, some of us have better perception than others based upon our physiology, just like some are better at math, or writing, or whatever. As much as we might think otherwise, perception does not appear to be equal, we all have innate limitations, like anything else. So, there really are "hawkeyes" out there. And, since perceptions of "reality," or, in this case, flights of hawks, are a replication, and can vary depending upon internal differences between individuals; and, since these perceptions dictate, to a great extent what is written, defining these flights can indeed be varied.

Synergy

I recently completed reading Nature's Magic: Synergy in Evolution and the Fate of Mankind by Peter Corning. The idea of synergy has been around a long time, but, Corning uses it to oppose traditional Darwinism. He argues, quite convincingly, that synergy has played a defining role in evolution; that, it has not been all about the survival of the fittest. Evolution has been determined more by cooperation than competition, specifically, "it is novel forms of functional synergy (cooperative effects) that have been responsible, over time, for shaping the progressive evolution of complexity in nature through a process that can be characterized as 'synergistic selection' . . . I side with the growing number of contemporary biologists who hold that evolution must be viewed as a multilevel process in which selfish genes are most often subordinated to the dictates of 'selfish genomes'--synergistic systems. Outlaw genes are the exception rather than the rule." Interesting concept! If we extrapolate out from Corning's position to humankind, we could argue that our problems in today's society are a direct result of an absence of synergy, which is contrary to progressive evolution, as we know it. Pretty foreboding thought!

The Essence of Falconry

A fellow falconer on my listserv stated, "I enjoy a beautiful falconry flight or successful hunt, but more important to me is that connection when I feel in harmony with nature." I would agree with my friend, while falconry is defined as hunting with birds of prey, it also represents a very close association in which our hawks give us an opportunity to experience the nature in a way that few people have an opportunity to do.

Grossman and Hamlet described the relationship between a falconer and his/her hawk in their book, Birds of Prey of the World, when they wrote, "in all man's association with the birds of prey there has been none more intimate than that of the falconer with his hawk." It is an association born out of pure, unadulterated, trust--a trust that has been carefully nurtured by the falconer. It is this trust between hawk and falconer that causes a Harris's hawk to find home after being lost in the Sonoran Desert for 30 days, or a lost Red-tail to seek out its falconer friend from deep within a Georgia forest, guided only by a whistle, or a falcon to fly to the origin of a familiar voice, and a fist it can 't see, during a blinding snowstorm in the Northwest. It is because of this association, which represents the essence of falconry, that falconers continue to be falconers, and it is through this association that falconers, unlike any other segment of society, learn to appreciate birds of prey.

In the beginning . . .

I'm not sure how to begin this blog. I want it to be more than just a journal of my falconry endeavors. I want it to wander, not aimlessly, but, kind of like Thoreau says in "Walking"--the route is not planned beforehand, or if planned, then only in a general way. There is room for being dilatory, time for digression. There is the prospect, too, of an occasional sally: a spirited little foray to some appealing spot ahead or sideways, some object or sight that calls for a closer look. The route is mapped in the going. And except for a general familiarity with the terrain to be walked, there's no anticipating what will come your way; you set out to see what is out there to be seen; this being said, let us begin our journey.