Hulia

Yes, this is a fragment from Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts, giving an exact answer to you question. A theory about moving towards higher compexity, also a theory avout what is good and what is evil: ‘The history of the universe is a history of motion,’ Khader began, still looking at the boats nodding together like horses in harness. ‘The universe, as we know it, in this one of its many lives, began in an expansion that was so big, and so fast that we can talk about it, but we cannot in any truth understand it, or even imagine it. The scientists call this great expansion the Big Bang, although there was no explosion, in the sense of a bomb, or something like that. And the first moments after that great expansion, from the first fractions of attoseconds, the universe was like a rich soup made out of simple bits of things. T hose bits were so simple that they were not even atoms yet. As the universe expanded and cooled down, these very tiny bits of things came together to make particles. Then the particles came together to make the first of the atoms. Then the atoms came together to make molecules. Then the molecules came together to make the first of the stars. Those first stars went through their cycles, and exploded in a shower of new atoms. The new atoms came together to make more stars and planets. All the stuff we are made of came from those dying stars. We are made out of stars, you and I. Do you agree with me so far?’ ‘Sure,’ I smiled. ‘I don’t know where you’re going yet, but so far, so good.’ ‘Precisely!’ he laughed. ‘So far, so good. You can check the science of what I am saying to you— as a matter of fact, I want you to check everything that I say, and everything you ever learn from anyone else. But I am sure that the science is right, within the limit of what we know. I have been studying these matters with a young physicist for some time now, and my facts are essentially correct.’ ‘I’m happy to take your word for it,’ I said, and I was happy, just to have his company and his undivided attention. ‘Now, to continue, none of these things, none of these processes, none of these coming together actions are what one can describe as random events. The universe has a nature, for and of itself, something like human nature, if you like, and its nature is to combine, and to build, and to become more complex. It always does this. If the circumstances are right, bits of matter will always come together to make more complex arrangements. And this fact about the way that our universe works, this moving towards order, and towards combinations of these ordered things, has a name. In the western science it is called the tendency toward complexity, and it is the way the universe works.’ To continue this point, the universe, as we know it, and from everything that we can learn about it, has been getting always more complex since it began. It does this because that is its nature. The tendency toward complexity has carried the universe from almost perfect simplicity to the kind of complexity that we see around us, everywhere we look. The universe is always doing this. It is always moving from the simple to the complex. ’The universe,’ he continued, ‘this universe that we know, began in almost absolute simplicity, and it has been getting more complex for about fifteen billion years. In another billion years it will be still more complex than it is now. In five billion, in ten billion— it is always getting more complex. It is moving toward …something. It is moving toward some kind of ultimate complexity. We might not get there. An atom of hydrogen might not get there, or a leaf, or a man, or a planet might not get there, to that ultimate complexity. But we are all moving towards it—everything in the universe is moving towards it. And that final complexity, that thing we are all moving to, is what I choose to call God. If you don’t like that word, God, call it the Ultimate Complexity. Whatever you call it, the whole universe is moving toward it.’ ‘Isn’t the universe a lot more random than that?’ I asked, sensing the drift of his argument, and seeking to head it off. ‘What about giant asteroids and so on? We, I mean our planet, could get smashed to fragments by a giant asteroid. In fact, there’s a statistical probability that major impacts will occur. And if our sun is dying— and one day it will— isn’t that the opposite of complexity? How does that fit in with the movement to complexity, if all this complex planet is smashed to atoms, and our sun dies?’ ‘A good question,’ Khaderbhai replied. A happy smile revealed the run of his slightly gapped, ivory-cream teeth. He was enjoying himself in the discussion, and I realised that I’d never seen him quite so animated or enthused. His hands roved the space between us, illustrating some points and emphasising others. ‘Our planet may be smashed, it is true, and one day our beautiful sun will die. And we are, to the best of our knowledge, the most developed expression of the complexity in our bit of the universe. It would certainly be a major loss if we were to be annihilated. It would be a terrible waste of all that development. But the process would continue. We are, ourselves, expressions of that process. Our bodies are the children of all the suns and other stars that died, before us, making the atoms that we are made of. And if we were destroyed, by an asteroid, or by our own hand, well, somewhere else in the universe, our level of complexity, this level of complexity, with a consciousness capable of understanding the process, would be duplicated. I do not mean people exactly like us. I mean that thinking beings, that are as complex as we are, would develop, somewhere else in the universe. We would cease to exist, but the process would go on. Perhaps this is happening in millions of worlds, even as we speak. In fact, it is very likely that it is happening, all over the universe, because that is what the universe does.’ ‘Okay okay. And you want to say— let me guess— that everything that helps this along is good, right? And anything that goes in the other direction— your spin on it is that it’s evil, na?’ In essence, you are right. Anything that enhances, promotes, or accelerates this movement toward the Ultimate Complexity is good,’ he said, pronouncing the words so slowly, and with such considered precision, that I was sure he’d spoken the phrases many times. ‘Anything that inhibits, impedes, or prevents this movement toward the Ultimate Complexity is evil. The wonderful thing about this definition of good and evil is that it is both objective and universally acceptable.’ ‘Is anything really objective?’ I asked, believing myself to be on surer ground at last. ‘When we say that this definition of good and evil is objective, what we mean is that it is as objective as we can be at this time, and to the best of our knowledge about the universe. This definition is based on what we know about how the universe works. It is not based on the revealed wisdom of any one faith or political movement. It is common to the best principles of all of them, but it is based on what we know rather than what we believe. In that sense, it is objective. Of course, what we know about the universe, and our place in it, is constantly changing as we add more information and gain new insights. We are never perfectly objective about anything, that is true, but we can be less objective, or we can be more objective. And when we define good and evil on the basis of what we know— to the best of our knowledge at the present time— we are being as objective as possible within the imperfect limits of our understanding. Do you accept that point?’ ‘When you say that objective doesn’t mean absolutely objective, then I accept it. But how can the different religions, not to mention the atheists and agnostics and the just plain confused, like me, ever find any definition universally acceptable? I don’t mean to be insulting, but I think most believers have got too much of a vested interest in their own God-and-Heaven franchises, if you know what I mean, to ever agree on anything.’ ‘When we say that this definition of good and evil is universally acceptable, what we mean is that any rational and reasonable person— any rational and reasonable Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or Christian or Jew or any atheist, for that matter— can accept that this is a reasonable definition of good and evil, because it is based on what we know about how the universe works.’ ‘I think I understand what you’re saying,’ I offered when he fell silent. ‘But I don’t really follow you, when it comes to the … physics, I guess, of the universe. Why should we accept that as the basis of our morality?’ ‘If I can give you an example, Lin, perhaps it will be clearer. I will use the analogy of the way we measure length, because it is very relevant to our time. You will agree, I think, that there is a need to define a common measure of length, yes?’ ‘You mean, in yards and metres, and like that?’ ‘Precisely. If we have no commonly agreed criterion for measuring length, we will never agree about how much land is yours, and how much is mine, or how to cut lengths of wood when we build a house. There would be chaos. We would fight over the land, and the houses would fall down. Throughout history, we have always tried to agree on a common way to measure length. Are you with me, once more, on this little journey of the mind? Well, after the revolution in France, the scientists and government officials decided to put some sense into the system of measuring and weighing things. They introduced a decimal system based on a unit of length that they called the metre, from the Greek word metron, which has the meaning of a measure.’ ‘And the first way they decided to measure the length of a metre was to make it one ten-millionth of the distance between the equator and the North Pole. But their calculations were based on the idea that the Earth was a perfect sphere, and the Earth, as we now know, is not a perfect sphere. They had to abandon that way of measuring a metre, and they decided, instead, to call it the distance between two very fine lines on a bar of platinum-iridium alloy.’ ‘Platinum …’ ‘Iridium. Yes. But platinum-iridium alloy bars decay and shrink, very slowly— even though they are very hard— and the unit of measure was constantly changing. In more recent times, scientists realised that the platinum-iridium bar they had been using as a measure would be a very different size in, say, a thousand years, than it is today.’ ‘And … that was a problem?’ ‘Not for the building of houses and bridges,’ Khaderbhai said, taking my point more seriously than I’d intended it to be.’ ‘But not nearly accurate enough for the scientists,’ I offered, more soberly. ‘No. They wanted an unchanging criterion against which to measure all other things. And after a few other attempts, using different techniques, the international standard measure for a metre was fixed, only last year, as the distance that a photon of light travels in a vacuum during, roughly, one three-hundred-thousandth of a second. Now, of course, this begs the question of how it came to be that a second is agreed upon as a measure of time. It is an equally fascinating story— I can tell it to you, if you would like, before we continue with the point about the metre?’ ‘I’m … happy to stay with the metre right now,’ I demurred, laughing again in spite of myself. ‘Very well. I think that you can see my point here— we avoid chaos, in building houses and dividing land and so forth, by having an agreed standard for the measure of a unit of length. We call it a metre and, after many attempts, we decide upon a way to establish the length of that basic unit. In the same way, we can only avoid chaos in the world of human affairs by having an agreed standard for the measure of a unit of morality.’ ‘I’m with you.’ ‘At the moment, most of our ways of defining the unit of morality are similar in their intentions, but they differ in their details. So the priests of one nation bless their soldiers as they march to war, and the imams of another country bless their soldiers as they march out to meet them. And everybody who is involved in the killing, says that he has God on his side. There is no objective and universally acceptable definition of good and evil. And until we have one, we will go on justifying our own actions, while condemning the actions of the others.’ ‘And you’re putting the physics of the universe up as a kind of platinum-iridium bar?’ ‘Well, I do think that our definition is closer, in its precision, to the photon-second measure than it is to the platinum-iridium bar, but the point is essentially correct. I think that when we look for an objective way to measure good and evil, a way that all people can accept as reasonable, we can do no better than to study the way that the universe works, and its nature— the quality that defines the entire history of it — the fact that it is constantly moving towards greater complexity. We can do no better than to use the nature of the universe itself. And all the holy texts, from all the great religions, tell us to do this. The Holy Koran, for example, is often telling us, instructing us, to study the planets and the stars to find truth and meaning.’ ‘I still have to ask the question, why use this fact about the tendency toward complexity, and not some other fact? Isn’t it still arbitrary? Isn’t it still a matter of choice as to which fact you choose to use as the basis for your morality? I’m not trying to be obtuse here— I really think it still seems quite arbitrary.’ ‘I understand your doubt,’ Khader smiled, raising his eyes to the seasky horizon for a moment. ‘I, too, felt very sceptical when I first began along this road. But I am now convinced that there is no better way to think of good and evil, at this time. That is not to say that it will always be the best definition. With the measure of the metre, as well, there will be another, slightly better way to measure it, in the future. As a matter of fact, the current best definition uses the distance travelled by a photon of light in a vacuum, as if nothing happens in a vacuum. But we know that all sorts of things are happening in a vacuum. There are many, many reactions taking place in a vacuum, all of the time. I am sure that in the future an even better way to measure the metre will be found. But, at the moment, it is the best way that we have. And with morality, the fact of the tendency toward complexity— that the whole universe is doing this all the time, and always has— is the best way we have to be objective about good and evil. We use that fact, rather than any other, because it is the largest fact about the universe. It is the one fact that involves the whole universe, throughout the whole of its history. If you can give me a better way to be objective about good and evil, and to involve all the people of all the faiths, and all the non-believers, and the whole history of the whole universe, then I would be very, very happy to hear it.’

@Zeroguy Oooooh, don´t say me anything about the control of emotions. I don´t understand the purpose of this thing. Besides I have also a theory, that the men who rejected a relationship with me, did it out of control of emotions. So this thing has become my personal enemy.

@Zeroguy I have a theory now. You have been rejected a lot of times in your younger days and now you take revenge on all the "older" women. i.e. women of your age - those who rejected you back then. Just to remind you; maybe you didn´t register in the storm of rejections, - I didn´t reject you. Be more selective in your rage! It´s really a wickid joke of nature on both genders. A woman in her 18-20 has a big range of options - from 18 to 40, and is on the peak of her attractiveness. A guy in his 18-20 normaly has only girls of his age, more or less, and is not in his best form. Look at all the desperate pickupers on this forum. Then everythings changes. A woman in her 30-40 can only have men of her age or just a little bit older. And even for them she is less adorable than younger women. But a man at the same age can now interact not only with the women of his age but also with all those who are younger. The other effect is that men on the contrary to women are getting more attractive with the age. They get the qualities, which women like in men: confidence, maturity, they even more easily open emotionally. The bastards have become of better quality now and have access to bigger quantity

@Zeroguy you are childish. It´s a question of mentality. In the countries where status doesn´t play a big role and men and women are financially independant having children is not an issue. Look, if from a man in Serbia is expected to financially support his woman, than it matters, if you get a woman or a woman + 3 to support. The other thing thing is status. If a guy has a high quality woman on his side, it signals to his partners and friends, that he is wealthy, can afford. The same as with the cars. A woman with 3 kids is considered to be out of the range. You cannot signal with her your prosperity. That´s all. A matter of culture, upbringing, mentality but also wealth. I live in Germany. And children is not a big issue here.

What I am trying to say (not sure you have enough empathy to understand), my contentment is none of your business. If you really have a GF, and I hope you have, try there. It will be appreciated.

@Zeroguy I have always been an empathetical person, but more in a sense of non-judging and accepting (well sometimes too much acceptance) than in a sense of healing and nursing. So I have never felt being used like a vest for crocodile´s tears. Maybe you have had different esperience with empathy.

what points for example?

Is it a try of deliberate offence? No, I don´t need empathy. Why should I? I have nothing to complain about, if this is what you mean. I am just saying, that somebody who sees herself in the role relationship coach should at least be capable of empathy. Maybe we just have different understandings of the word "empathy".

Why does it bother you, whether I have a cat or not? Really. You are not very much bothered about other aspects of my life.

You are speaking out of assumption, that any man is better than no man. It´s understandable, because it´s a men´s perspective. Yes, we both, men and women, need and love sex. But the men are in bigger need than we, because of their physicality. So it might be valid for you : better any woman than no woman. But not for us. Speaking about Teal Swan her problem is not so much high expectation (who of us is rationalizing?) but a lack of empathy. And generalization, but it´s the same as lack of empathy - the inability to take other person´s perspective.

It´s not hyper rational, it´s just rational. It means, that I am able to give up rationality for emotional contentment if the situation requires. Because I rationally know what is important and what is not.

Lucky you. Last time I felt the same with somebody was 3 years ago with our CEO. Sometimes we said the same thing or joke simultaneously and looked at each other and laughed.. and looked at each other... But now he has gone. And I have no chance for this type of synchronisity with any man around me, because I am too developed.

It´s not that easy. It would be, if a woman were a man, but she is not. For woman it is not enough to have sex with some body, there should be an emotional connection, otherwise sex is no fun for a woman. And here we are - men and women balanced. With how many of 50+ interested guys can you create an emotional bond? With not so many. At the end we are facing the same problem as you, guys - irregular sex Nothing is easy on this planet, for nobody. And the only source of this uneasiness is a physical aspect. We should have been elfs instead of humans.

I came back from lake - melting and sunburnt. My skin, tight and glistening, from the cold of the water and the heat of the sun, smelling of summer - of seaweed, of sand, of strawberries. haha! No! I hope, I didn´t do or say something what would let you think this way. Sorry, you are not my type. Go to your teacher, student. ?

@Zeroguy I am going to the lake now (just 5 minutes by the bike from me) Why don´t you ask, is there someone I AM interested in?

I think, the woman of 30-40 just has a heap of broken relationships behind her and an unnerving unwanted husband near her. So she begins the theorization of what went wrong. I came to conclusion it was (partially) sticking to the gender roles, which are a theoretical construct - pure fantasy - on both sides. I mean in the beginning of relationship to create an attractione, gender roles might be quite useful: he plays a super-hero, she plays a weak and fearful princess. But at some point the both should let this rubbish drop. Becaue fear and weakness is common for both genders on the same scale. Otherwise false expectations, disappointment, bitterness, reproaches and mutual disrespect. She suddenly discovers, he is not a super-hero, and he suddenly doesn´t find his fearful doe any more, but a fireful hyena. Swan came to the opposite conclusion. The relationships break up because one part (of course it´s a male part) doesn´t stick hard enough to its role I really wonder, how her BF looks like, who is this poor guy?

@Peter Miklis Why do men on this forum post her videos and are so ineterested in stuff she is talking about? If she isn´t even attractive? If a man would like me to change myself for him (according to his idea of how a general female has to be), I would rather change a man. Not that I am generally not willing to change maself, yes I am! But not in the sense to please somebody - it´s degrading. Why so many men on this forum are willing to change themselves because this stiff cold woman wants them to? There is no integrity in her, no empathy. She is absolutely not capable to take the perspective of other person. There exist no other persons for her. Only a theoretical male and a theoretical female.

For yourself you preserve a financial stuff, and I should deal with some random cat? I told you million times I don´t want it. Wish me... idk... travelling... kind of work and travell. Living in different places and different countries. The circumstances are getiing ripe for this kind of life.

Patience? Did you tell her, that you have a GF, which you won´t leave? What are you expecting of her? To be your number 2? Forget it. No woman will be ok with it. I hope, she´ll find soon a nice BF

@Zeroguy Now I´ve got it. You agree ON her, not WITH her. ON her WITH me - you agree. I have problems with these small bridge-words. I thought, you wanted to annoy me. Sinse this is what you always want.

If you agree on Swan, your not my muchacho any more. It´s better we part our ways at this point. Forget your chica. Your teacher doesn´t bother me. It´s a scientific interest. I am trying to understand male psychology. Why for example that hippy IT guy was so crazy about my colleague. If he likes this type of women he shouldn´t be hippy. It´s illogical.

I could easily be a friend with Vzdoh, though I have nothing in common with her. And she is biased, but well who of us is not? As long as she doesn´s impose her biases on other people, I would be perfectly ok with her. But Teal Swan is ABSOLUTELY NO NO NO! If she were my colleague I would try to change a department or a company. I had such a colleague once. But luckily she´s become pregnant. By a lawer. It was very important for her that everone knows, she is pregnant by a lawer. How she has everything under control in her life: a lawer, a work, a hippy-type IT guy, who is always there to solve her IT problems and all the other people who absolutely need her advises on everything. Always presented herself like independant woman with a high self-esteem. She invited us in restaurant before her maternity vacation. (Our boss payed at the end and she didn´t even say a word). Her lawer came almost an hour later. Fell on the bench on her side with a discontent grimace and began smoking. She - high pregnant, all of us - no smokers. And she didn´t even says something like: Darling. look, I am pregnant, my colleagus don´t smoke, can you go 5 m further to smoke? I could feel a tension in the air, nobody was comfortable any more.

On the other hand I don´t understand the male psychology. They might like stiff, cold and hypocritical women like Swan. They really often do. Even a guy has a teacher as GF. I wonder if she gives him lectures about what is expected of him. And whether he misses them when he is with another girl who likes him how he is.

In the 1st world countries we have a luxury of just having fun with each other- the guys and girls, the women and men. Well a little of investment calculation in Excel, but still a lot of time and money for fun - more than in other countries or centuries ago. Why does swan want to deprive and destroy and force the rules, which might be necessary for survival but not for fun.

I wonder if Teal Swan has a BF. I cannot imagine a guy with her. I would ask him, why does he do it to himself? I would recommend him to take a therapist.