Cause Effect Paradigm 003

Frustration Syndrome

G: I surmise that your motivation to develop Cause-Effect Inverse is to prove that one has no independence in choosing the future consistent with your Destiny Principle.
S: You are right in being suspicious about my motive. But my voyage is one in exploration and examination.
G: But I also suspect that your Choice-absent Destiny Principle has emerged from your frustrations and failures that you have experienced in your life. Since you could not succeed in many areas despite your best efforts, you have become a believer in fate. I say that you exhibit a Frustration Syndrome. You failed in many areas and did not find any cause of that failure that was under your control and you chose not to use the control.
S: You are partly right. My frustrations and failures in life are the raw data for the hypothesis of Destiny Principle. But all my achievements and successes in life are equally important raw data that contributed to my thinking. I could not relate anything independent / free choice that led to my achievements and successes. There was no cause that could fully and uniquely explain my successes and achievements as the effect.
G: But your life is not a representative sample.
S: You are right. But there are so many persons like me in this world. The states towards the end of many lives are so similar despite wide differences in initial states. There is no unique relationship between end states and states before that. When we deal with so many persons we have more than representative sample for analytical purposes.
G: But much depends on how you establish equivalence of (identical) states. That is very difficult considering the multitude of dimensions of a state for an individual, especially in view of individual differences in psychological and mental perception about seemingly identical states.
S: If we cannot establish equivalence of states among different individuals, the problem gets further compounded for the reliability of scientific methods.
G: How sure are you that your approach is not conditioned by your failures and frustrations and your life experience?
S: I am not sure of anything. I just want to explore and find out. I want science to address my concern about the capability of science to attain complete knowledge in finite time.
G: You can never get that.
S: In that case reliance on science for attaining complete knowledge about Creation becomes a matter of faith.
G: How does that matter if people have faith in science?
S: It matters. In that case, it would be difficult to make a rational choice between spiritual / religious pursuit and scientific pursuit of knowledge as alternative paths to complete knowledge.
G: I understand what you are saying. One can have blind faith in God or Destiny Principle. Another can have blind faith in the future progress of Science. Being faiths, there is nothing to choose between them. So what?
S: You are right. It does not make much difference to the World. If there are cultural prejudices, social prejudices, religious prejudices and irrational behaviour all over the world, the scientific prejudices can co-exist as well. For, all this is consistent with the Destiny Principle. It is the very essence of Nature and Natural Laws. Belief in Science and belief in God will co-exist in Nature. That’s Natural Law. And that’s Creation. We cannot really choose between them. We happen to be believers in either Science or God or both or none from time to time.
G: You will say that this is just the result of a stochastic process.
S: Yes. There are many who are frustrated by failures including failure to get God’s favour to fulfill their desires or wants. Some of them stop believing in God while some continues to believe in God. It is not a result of independent free choice: it is simply the result of stochastic destiny process.
G: But Science delivers. There is proof.
S: Yes. Science delivers. But God also delivers so many things including Science. Science and scientific methods are part of the Creation, i.e. God. Concept of God, spiritual philosophy and practice of religion are the result of the natural human urge to know about the Universe and about Creation. This urge has given birth to many concepts, methods of analysis and experiments. Over time this helped evolve the concept of science and scientific methods. Science is also a result of Man’s urge to know.
G: But the urge to know is followed by the urge to use knowledge in life.
S: That is absolutely right. All these urges are natural sub-processes of the great stochastic destiny process. Scientific inquiries have made great successes and great failures. But Science continues to advance in both knowing and in continuously expanding the new areaa of ignorance Man wants to reduce.
G: How then do Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Cause-Effect Inverse contribute to the process?
S: These two are very natural, integral sub-processes of the Creation. These processes along with Cause-Effect Paradigm and human race have no choice but to co-exit. That co-existence and interaction is the history and future of Creation and its various parts.
G: Spiritual leaders do not know many of the Truths that Scientists have discovered.
S: The reverse is also true. Spiritual leaders know something that Scientists do not. Scientists also do not know how and why spiritual leaders come to exist. Spiritual leaders try to know something, which if they come to know results in zero need to know anything else including what Science may have discovered or trying to discover. But Creation is not about just spiritual leaders and their knowledge: it is also about Science, scientists, about people afflicted by Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome, about people with blind faith in God or Science, about human beings in general, about other life forms and about everything else we are aware of and not aware of.
G: To avoid confusion, lets end this session now.