Daemon Targaryen Sees the Truth

If you define free will as being a self-causing agent who controls everything they do and what they don’t do; then we do not have it. Our lives and our actions are influenced by countless factors beyond our control. We did not choose our family traits, when we were born, or where we were born. Nor do we have any control over the numerous external influences that affect our daily behavior. We are embedded within an interdependent, unfolding world. Not necessarily a teleological world of unfolding purpose - but a world that is moving forward on its own terms; no matter how much we try to protest. If the world was an ongoing drama, we would be performers playing out our given roles - rather than directors calling the shots.

This recognition of our place in this reality was something that I always found interesting about the popular HBO television series Game of Thrones. Based on books by author George R. R. Martin, the narratives in the show always seemed propelled by a sense of fate. Much of the tension or drama within the show surrounded various characters either accepting their purpose in life; or attempting to strive against it. For eight years the show moved forward steadily towards an apocalyptic climax that had been foreshadowed in prophecy and dreams. Each character had a role to play in bringing about the predetermined sequence of events.

Eager to capitalize off of the success of Game of Thrones, HBO debuted a prequel series in 2022 called House of The Dragon. Since the events in the show are supposed to have taken place hundreds of years before the events of Game of Thrones, the show seemed naturally teleological. After all, the events in Game of Thrones literally depend on the events in House of The Dragon playing out a certain way. And like Game of Thrones, the characters in House of The Dragon struggle with the conflict between their desires, and the path that the world has determined for them.

As of this writing, the show is still ongoing. Yet there is one character whose journey so far has served as an interesting metaphor for the modern human condition. The brother of the late King Viserys Targaryen, Daemon Targaryen. It is the power vacuum created by the death of King Viserys that sparks the events of House of The Dragon. Daemon, and other members of the Targaryen family begin a struggle for power that will ultimately lead to war and destruction. Yet it was Daemon who displayed a desire for power and glory from the first moments of the show.

He sought to prove himself on the battlefield against his enemies, and in the bedroom with countless women. He felt he was a man of destiny, and a great man of history. Yet to Daemon’s dismay, King Veserys had named his daughter as the heir to the throne before his death. Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen would be unable to secure power after her father’s passing, which would result in the ensuing struggle. Whether out of true love, or his desire for power, Daemon would begin an incestuous love affair with Rhaenyra (his younger niece) that would result in marriage. Yes, George R. R. Martin was very keen to include high royal incest in his works.

Regardless, this union of pure royal blood only made Daemon agitate for power more. He began to chafe at the idea that he (the great man) would be not King, but ‘King Consort’. He did not see himself as a servant, or a sidekick to a Queen. It was with this mindset that Daemon would leave Rhaenyra as she struggled to form an army for the coming war. Instead of marshaling support from varying houses and clans for Rhaenyra’s cause, Daemon would begin to pursue arms for his own ends. With the end goal being that he would garner enough military strength to claim the throne for himself, and finally become King Daemon Targaryen.

Daemon’s base of operations for his power play was a large (but pretty much empty) castle in disrepair. The house or family that owned the castle quickly bent the knee and pledged loyalty to Daemon’s cause. Even if they were a bit confused as to whether Daemon’s cause was his own, or that of his Queen. Daemon’s spirit was torn between his own ambitions, and loyalty to Rhaenyra. His torment was only exacerbated by the fact that the castle he now called home was haunted or cursed. His nights became filled by nightmarish visions, and his waking hours interrupted by hallucinations. Time seemed to blend together for Daemon as he suffered under the weight of desires born of ego and narcissism.

All the while, Daemon began to have cryptic encounters with an inhabitant of the castle named Alys Rivers. Alys seemed to be trying to guide Daemon to some kind of realization about his situation. Whether an actual witch or not, Alys’ character played a role that viewers of Game of Thrones would find familiar. In Game of Thrones, the Red Witch Melisandre served as a kind of shepard for the other characters. She would nudge, suggest, or sometimes directly interfere in order to steer events on their predetermined path. She knew how the story was to unfold, and what each person needed to do in order to keep events on their proper trajectory.

Melisandre was basically the hand of determinism brought to life in human form. Alys Rivers wasn’t quite that, but she did steer Daemon towards recognizing the truth about his place in the world. Over time, she would irritate and prod Daemon about his visions, his struggles, and his lust for power. Daemon was resistant at first, but as his confusion and suffering continued, he began to relent. Until finally, Alys felt he was ready to see, and accept the truth. Which in turn, would allow the events to come, to play out exactly as they were supposed to.

As Daemon is sleeping one night, he awakens to find Alys sitting next to his bed. He quips, ‘Do you never sleep witch?’. To which Alys replies, ‘I’m going to the Godswood (a wooded sanctuary)’ as she gets up and walks away. Daemon would follow her outside as they walked towards a ‘Weirwood tree’. In Game of Thrones mythos, Weirwood trees have an almost religious significance - and for some they even have supernatural powers. As Daemon follows Alys cautiously, they would have the following exchange:

Alys: When you came here you were a closed fist. You wished to bend the world to your will.

But you’ve discovered I think that this world will not be governed.

There are omens here for those who seek them.

You do not scoff?

Daemon: I am no longer inclined to.

Alys: (Laughs) I am pleased to hear it!

Do you wish then to learn what is given to you?

All your life you sought to control your own fate. But today you are ready.

Alys then guides Daemon’s hand to touch the side of the Weirwood tree and its dripping sap. Immediately Daemon’s mind descends into a prophetic vision where he sees the war to come, and the events hundreds of years ahead in Game of Thrones. Instead of himself on the throne, he sees Rhaenyra in her rightful place as Queen. He then encounters his niece, Helaena Targaryen, who says to him:

It’s all a story, and you’re but one part in it.

You know your part - you know what you must do.

Since the show has not reached its conclusion yet, Daemon’s reaction to his experience can only be judged in the short term. Like a weight had been lifted from his soul, he pledges strict personal loyalty to Rhaenyra, along with the loyalty of the army he struggled so terribly to assemble. He had seen, and accepted his place in the world, and finally had a purpose to follow. He had ceased to grasp, to want, or to desire things to make him whole. He had let go, and finally seen himself as a part of something bigger. For now, he was no longer suffering.

Time will tell whether Daemon’s newly found peace will last, or whether he slips backwards into egoism and a craving for power. Yet it should be noted how apt a metaphor Daemon's situation is for the modern human condition. Like Daemon, we believe we have free will, but we do not. This belief leads us to be hard on ourselves, hard on others; and to create suffering as we anguish over actions and decisions. In Buddhist thought, our false perceptions about ourselves and the world lead us to crave and desire; which in turn leads us to suffering. For most of Daemon’s life he saw himself a singular agent apart from the world; while imposing his will on it. Yet the reality for him, and for us, is that we are embedded in an interdependent world. One where a false perception of ‘I’ (or self) can lead us to misery and frustration.

Like Daemon, when we can begin to see reality for what it is, we can begin to find purpose and meaning within the path that lays before us - whatever that might be. We begin to realize that craving money, power, status, or hedonistic desires will never make us whole. In a Buddhist sense, we realize that latching on to our egocentric desires is a reification of emotions that do not deserve to be reified. This recognition of our true place in reality doesn’t mean we give up striving or reaching for anything at all. It’s just that we gain the ability to strive and reach for what is actually meaningful.

When we lose our false sense of self, we arrive at the same place Daemon did. A place where our actions and thoughts align with our place in reality, rather than attempting to align reality to our ends. It is not easy for the human mind to recognize this, or to remain in such an enlightened state. The allure of our false perceptions is hard to ignore. Yet when we see them for what they are, we begin to see the path that is laid out before us. A path we did not choose - and a path we have much less control over than we think. This realization is both uneasy and freeing. Yet like Daemon, when we give in to it, we can begin to live within the world instead of trying (and failing) to bend the world to our ends. 

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis; A Hegelian Path to Metamodernism

Much of 19th century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel’s philosophical outlook was grounded in a dialectical perspective. A perspective that saw ideas and concepts evolving through contradiction and inherent limitation. In this framework, new formulations could emerge without negating prior formulations. The original formulation could be preserved, while enhancing the new formulation that was created through natural progression. Hegel saw this unfolding process as one that trended towards increased understanding and universality. In terms of world history, Hegel saw historical development as the dialectical movement of the ‘World Spirit’ (Weltgeist). For this writing, we will think of the World Spirit as a ‘metaphysical total’; or the entire metaphysical nature of our reality from the 1950’s onward.

In a simplified view of Hegel’s dialectical framework, we can divide the metaphysical total into three parts: the original framework (thesis), the counter framework (antithesis), and the combination framework (synthesis). It should be noted that the exact terminology of ‘thesis, antithesis, synthesis’ should be attributed to the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte; even though it is often attributed to Hegel. Regardless, the broad Hegelian concept of dialectical historical progression fits very well with the metaphysical concepts of modernism, postmodernism, and metamodernism.

If we view things through this lens, the thesis in this case would be the age of modernism. The nature of metaphysical discourse doesn’t really lend itself to hard lines or definitions. But for the sake of this writing let’s say the age of modernism ended with the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. A speculative beginning for the modernist age matters little in terms of discussing its nature and how it relates to a Hegelian dialectical framework.

Two of the main metaphysical pillars of the modernist age were tradition and religion. They helped form a cultural structure that ordered the world; which led to ethical and moral beliefs flowing from their guidelines. This created a kind of simple or ‘solid’ metaphysical reality. One where the line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ was understood to be clear and easily defined. In the United States after World War II, modernist feelings peaked with notions of victorious American ideals, and the seeming blessings of capitalism. All of this was reinforced by the nature (and limited amount) of modernist communication mediums. The nature of books, newspapers, and radio aligned with a slow paced, structured reality. This meant the human mind had less opportunity to escape the metaphysical determinism fate had decided for it.

Yet from a Hegelian outlook, this modernist thesis contained the seeds of its own undoing. Its inherent nature brought about the dialectical response of the postmodern antithesis. The religions and traditions that buttressed the modernist metaphysics contained inherent hypocrisies. Religions that professed chastity were followed and upheld by people who indulged their hedonistic appetites behind closed doors. American ideals that were supposed to represent universal human rights, were limited to WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) men who held power. Every other minority group began to realize that for them, ‘American ideals’ were nothing more than empty lip service.

The destruction of the modernist grip on society was also aided by the changing communication technology of the day. The acceleration of television as a medium began to allow the human mind to escape modernist metaphysical constraints. In the late 1950’s, young viewers began to visually witness taboo breaking entertainment like a young Elvis Presley singing and dancing. Television allowed the human mind to see a metaphysical world beyond what the old religions and traditions were telling them. In a Hegelian sense, communication mediums could be seen as helping unfold the progress of world history. While not an explicit part of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis idea framework; they could be seen as laying the foundation for the idea framework to unfold. They could be seen as both a product, and a driver of human teleological progression.

In an ironic twist, it was television that helped create modernism’s final metaphysical act: the mythos surrounding America’s 35th President, John F. Kennedy. The young, handsome, and eloquent World War II veteran was made for the television age. The first televised presidential debate in history took place in 1960 between Kennedy and then Vice President Richard Nixon. While pretty much equal on debate substance, the visual distinction between the two presidential candidates was profound. The (seemingly) healthy and well groomed Kennedy stood in great contrast to Nixon with his pale complexion, ill fitting suit, and five o'clock shadow. The debate helped solidify the fantasy around Kennedy’s identity, and helped carry him to a narrow election victory in November of the same year.

Yet as with other modernist metaphysical narratives, the Kennedy ideal that would later be known as ‘Camelot’, was empty at its core. While Kennedy projected the image of health and vigor, in reality he suffered from terrible ailments. While Kennedy projected the image of a devoted family man with the ‘perfect’ wife and kids; the reality was anything but. Kennedy’s private life was filled with countless women and affairs. Some of which were rather messy. The major media of the period, coupled with Kennedy's stirring traditional and patriotic rhetoric, preserved the last aspects of the modernist thesis up until November 22, 1963. That was the day Kennedy would be murdered in cold blood; and the facade of the modernist thesis would give way to the reality of the postmodern antithesis.

In the years after Kennedy’s assassination, the generations coming of age in the 1960’s began to forcefully reject the hypocrisy inherent in the modernist world around them. Movements for racial civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and workers rights illuminated the need for the old modernist economic and moral structures to be dismantled. The Vietnam War laid violently bare the hypocrisy of a ‘great nation’ disproportionately sending young, poor black men to fight for ‘freedom’ thousands of miles away - while not enjoying freedom in their own country.

The flimsy US foreign policy justification for the war in Vietnam was seen as nothing more than another modernist lie by many of the 60’s generation. In 1969, at the now famous Woodstock Music Festival, the last song of Richie Havens’ opening set was titled ‘Freedom’. Havens’ rhythmic rendition could be seen as an apt metaphor for the metaphysical change of the day. Hegel saw the progression of history as a dialectical process towards ever increasing human freedom and expanded consciousness. In the dialectical rejection of the modernist thesis, ‘freedom’ was an explicit causal force. Freedom from oppressive moral structures, freedom from discrimination, freedom from war, freedom from poverty, and the freedom to live a life without being told what to do or how to think.

In the decades following the cultural upheaval of the 1960’s, the pillars of modernism continued to be deconstructed. The 1980’s saw a brief modernist resurgence with the policies and rhetoric of US President Ronald Reagan. Yet with the falling of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the final dismantling of the Soviet Union in 1991, the peak metaphysical age of the postmodern antithesis had arrived. The 60’s generation was now entering their prime adult years, and their children were entering the world they created. A world free of all modernist constraints, yet pulsating with the postmodern spirit. In a Hegelian sense, generations that came of age in the 1990’s were blessed with an expanded freedom of consciousness. Yet like the metaphysics of modernism, the metaphysics of postmodernism contained tensions and contradictions that would ultimately lead to its undoing.

By the late 1990’s, the postmodern antithesis had pretty much taken total control over the metaphysics of the day. Freed from religious or traditional moral constraint, music and entertainment regularly depicted realistic sex and violence. Popular culture seemed to thrive on aggression, cynicism, and unchecked hedonism. Political institutions in the US began their downward spiral as politicians discarded any remaining norms of decorum. The major media began to shed its tradition of unbiased, fact based reporting in favor of political partisanship. The old norms of society were coming apart, piece by piece. And all of it was projected through the medium of television, which had become dominant and ubiquitous.

One way to look at the postmodern era would be this: the postmodern antithesis wasn’t about constructing something to replace what it had torn apart; it was about having a party amidst the rubble. Yet it was within this indulgence that lay the problem that would ultimately lead to the end of the postmodern antithesis. No matter how much one tries to deconstruct, or to have no ‘rules’, or no moral constructs; something will always fill the void. In postmodernism’s case, the metaphysical void was filled with hedonism, and unfettered capitalism. The problem with both of these in a human sense is that they are devoid of any true meaning. An individual can have an abundance of money, sex, and drugs, and they will have fun and moments of happiness. But in the long term, these things will leave the individual empty on an existential level. They will yearn for true, authentic meaning. The inherent contradiction within the postmodern antithesis was that its ultimate end lay in conflict with our nature as a species. In the Hegelian view, the postmodern antithesis had gone too far in its reaction and opposition to the modernist thesis.

Countless cultural products from the 1990’s and the early 2000’s dealt with what Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl described as the ‘existential vacuum’. Whether it was HBO’s widely acclaimed television drama ‘The Sopranos’. Or the epic novel ‘Infinite Jest’ by David Foster Wallace. Art that sought to not simply indulge in postmodernism, but reflect the status of the human condition within postmodernism, conveyed existential angst. Human nature had remained unchanged despite the deconstruction of the metaphysical world. And with the seeming nihilistic emptiness of unfettered capitalism surrounding the human mind, the deepest philosophical questions began to emerge: What is the purpose of life? What is truly meaningful? What is really ‘good’? How can one find true happiness?

The metamodern synthesis would emerge mostly from the metaphysics surrounding these questions. As stated before, it can be difficult to assign a concrete date to the start of an ephemeral metaphysical age. Yet for the purposes of this writing, let's say the metamodern synthesis unofficially began with the 2008 presidential campaign of former US President Barack Obama. Obama’s ‘08 campaign stirred the emotions of voters with seemingly modernist campaign slogans like ‘hope’ and ‘change’. Yet through his campaign rhetoric on subjects like race, economics, or government institutions, Obama acknowledged the cynicism many voters felt. Obama’s campaign didn’t try to paint a naive modernist picture, or a totally nihilistic postmodern one. He sought to acknowledge what was truly meaningful in a realist, pragmatic way. He sought to inspire voters by weaving a narrative about what he felt was authentically good, and how politics and government could be as well.

This kind of synthesis can be seen as a calling card of metamodernism. A kind of rebalancing between the poles of superficial modernism, and empty postmodernism. The metamodern synthesis is a kind of collective metaphysical response from the human mind. It’s almost as if after all the years of postmodern metaphysics proclaiming authentic feeling as ‘kitschy’, the human mind began to realize that authentic feeling was what it actually yearned for. Yet it wasn’t going to settle for being sold superficial narratives about patriotism, love, morality, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’. It wanted to find, and construct something new. Something that in a Hegelian sense created a new, and higher form of consciousness. Something that saw reality for what it was: a cynical landscape dotted with moments, and potential wells of authentic meaning or feeling.

The emergence of the metamodern synthesis has also been enabled by the communication mediums of the day. Just as modernist and postmodern notions aligned with (and flowed from) the dominant communication mediums of their time; the same is true for metamodern notions. The age of metamodernism moves through our digital connections and our smartphones. The digital revolution helped pave the road for the human mind to escape the nihilism of postmodernism; and begin to search for something new. The explosion of access to information (and media) that the digital age enabled, has provided an abundance of tools for metamodern construction. The creative combination of disparate pieces of information, cultural realms, or digital artifacts is a metamodern hallmark.

Digital social media feeds oscillate the human mind between authentic feeling and cynicism not in an abstract sense, but in a real physical way. An individual scrolling a social media feed might be exposed to an uplifting post one minute, only to encounter a depressing update moments later. This means the metamodern synthesis is truly a ‘metaphysical total’. One that encompasses human sentiment, culture, and the physical nature of our communication systems. This kind of ephemeral, yet physical metamodern combination could be seen in the 2022 Academy Award winning film, ‘Everything Everywhere All At Once’. In that film, the physical manifestation of the multiverse functioned in a causal role similar to the way our digital connections do now.

From a Hegelian viewpoint, the metamodern synthesis seems to have resolved the tensions within, and between modernism and postmodernism. Authentic feeling and meaning have gained an appropriate foothold in the human cultural experience. Yet the cynicism surrounding failed institutions, unfettered capitalism, and certain aspects of the human condition have rightfully remained. The metamodern synthesis has brought greater opportunity for the expansion and elevation of human consciousness. This would seem to align with Hegel’s view of history having a teleological purpose. Yet if we are to truly follow Hegel’s premise, then the metamodern synthesis will ultimately become a new thesis that sparks the progression of history anew.

The nature of the next metaphysical antithesis is hard to predict. Yet most likely it will be rooted in the human mind’s attempt to find a bit of certainty amid failing political systems, late stage capitalism, digital atomization, the search for true meaning, and technological advancements. If this attempt were to move in a positive direction, it could lead to new economic, social, and political paradigms. If it were to move in a negative direction, we might see the faltering of democracy, the rise of authoritarianism, the widespread appeal of cult-like ideologies, and increased social decay. The metamodern synthesis is a time of new metaphysical construction. And it is the nature of what’s constructed that will determine what comes next in the unfolding dialectic of history.

An Assessment of Our Situation

As human beings, in this reality we navigate everyday, what is our true existence? What is the true nature of the world around us, and how do we relate to it? Do we operate on a daily basis as masters of our reality, or do we function as objects controlled by larger forces? Are we singular selves (independent operators) making our way through life? Or are we persons embedded in a wide, and ever changing casual matrix? These questions are some of the most profound and difficult we as a species can ask ourselves. There are no one hundred percent correct answers that can be written in stone. In fact, some of the answers might even be beyond the capabilities of our consciousness.

So far be it from me to claim any answers to these questions; at the end of the day I just have ideas. But what does seem clear to me in the year 2023, is that most of our problems as a species come from an inaccurate understanding of who we are; and what our situation is in this reality. Whether it’s war, racial hatred, violence, economic injustice, or personal mental anguish; much of our suffering comes from being subsumed into a paradigm about reality that is likely false. If we as human beings are to truly evolve to a higher level of consciousness one day, we will probably first have to gain some insight (and acceptance) about our current state. We will not be able to move forward unless we realize where we are starting from.

The following assessment of our situation in this reality draws primarily upon ideas from University of California professor Donald Hoffman, journalist Robert Wright, Smith College professor Jay Garfield, and the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna. It also goes without saying that my own personal observations are also considered.

---

Our situation begins as biological creatures that have evolved to a certain point. Like a computer program with certain constraints and rules, our nature as a species determines how we operate. In Robert Wright’s 1994 book, ‘The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are’, he writes that ‘we are built to be effective animals, not happy ones’. Natural selection and evolution work to make us effective at surviving for as long as possible in order to spread our genes into the next generation. Over hundreds of thousands of years we evolved to inherently fear things like fire and snakes. We didn’t evolve to fear these things because they are inherently bad, but because they have the ability to cut short our evolutionary, gene spreading goals. We evolved to love and protect our children not out of simple virtue, but out of necessity. For our children are the physical embodiment of what natural selection has molded us to accomplish.

Our evolutionary purpose shapes our behavior. We are bent towards self interest because self interested creatures are more likely to survive than others. Yet we also have the capacity for what is described as ‘reciprocal altruism’. This basically means our evolutionary need for self interest can evolve into self interested cooperation. Over many millennia, our ancestors learned that their needs for survival and reproduction could be met through beneficial relationships with others. It should also be noted that our ancestors learned their needs could also be met by killing and dominating each other as well.

One way to look at all these evolutionary pressures within us are like dials on a switchboard. Depending on our external environment, one dial might get switched to level ten, while another might remain at zero. A human being that grows up in a threatening environment might have their cooperation dial conditioned to a lower level than their fight or flight dial. Someone who grows up in a crowded city might have their ‘status seeking’ dial turned to level ten, as this would be important to their survival and their ability to gain resources. While someone who grew up in a sparsely populated rural environment might never see their status seeking dial turned past level one. With little immediate competition for resources, their status seeking potential would find little application.

The point of all this is to recognize that everything we do in modern life flows from our evolutionary journey. This is our primary quality, our human nature. All our other qualities are secondary. There are many that deny our evolutionary, human nature exists. Yet it seems like an apparent, undeniable fact that as a human species, we have evolutionary based modes of behavior.

Part of our modern predicament begins with the fact that many of the things that have been embedded within us over millennia, aren’t very useful in a time of smartphones, processed food, and digitally addictive stimuli. It might have been useful tens of thousands of years ago for our ancestors to develop the proverbial ‘sweet tooth’. Back then, sweet fruits or berries might have provided nutritional benefits when nutrients were hard to come by. Yet in modern times, our yearning for sweet foods does us little good when we have easy access to massive amounts of disease causing, processed treats. Treats that are ironically manufactured to stir the evolutionary ‘sweet seeking dial’ in all of us to addictive levels.

Long ago, natural selection probably began to favor groups of our ancestors whose male counterparts acted regularly on their reproductive impulses. The more of your species you create, the more likely your species is to survive. Yet this reproductive impulse does the male mind no good in a modern time of abundant digital pornography. It also runs counter to the moral, ethical, and social modes of being we now understand to be correct. That women are to be respected and treated as equal human beings; not dehumanized objects of male sexual desire.

Whether it’s interpersonal conflict, capitalistic greed, addiction, racial prejudice, war, political division, love, or cooperation; it all operates on top of a deep evolutionary causal network. A network that exists within all human beings, and throughout their interactions. And as much as we would like to think that we are in sole control of our actions that take place above this network. The closer we look, the more we will see that the network seems to be more in the driver's seat than we are.

Imagine for a moment you are walking down a busy city street. In your mind you might have a predetermined idea or goal of where you are headed. Maybe you are headed to work, or to meet a friend. Yet as you walk, your mind is flooded with impulses and ideas whose origination you have little control over. You might lock eyes for a brief passing moment with someone you are attracted to. This feeling of attraction enters your mind completely free of your individual decision making. You might then catch a whiff, then a glimpse of fresh pizza through a restaurant door. Then immediately your mind and body begin to crave the sensations that would come from eating a fresh slice. Finally, out of the corner of your eye, you might see someone walking towards you that you know and dislike. Immediately, your body tenses up, anxiety might fill your mind, and you move past them with your eyes locked straight ahead. All of the feelings, emotions, and desires described here would have been imposed on you. Determined by things outside of your control.

The idea that we as humans have maximal free will seems to suffer when the mechanism concerning our sentiments and emotions is considered. A creature cannot be ‘free’ if its actions and behaviors are frequently prompted by a preprogrammed evolutionary system. Yet when we consider the broad view of our situation in this reality, the idea of maximal free will seems to lose all of its rationality.

We do not choose when, where, or how we enter this existence. We do not choose the nature of the environment we grow up in, which determines which evolutionary dials are turned within us. As we move through life we are bombarded with forces beyond our control, which in turn cause behavioral states that simply emerge into our consciousness. We are causally determined creatures within a causally determined network of reality. Even our mental reasoning, where we seem to be in total control, is ultimately a ‘slave to our passions’ as 18th century philosopher David Hume put it. If we deconstruct our methods of mental reasoning, we ultimately find ourselves arriving at the same evolutionary pressures that emerge without our consent.

Despite being thrown into this sea of determinism, we are capable of developing measures of control over our situation. Through things like psychotherapy, meditation, psychedelic drugs, or simple aged wisdom, our minds can gain a bit of distance between the thoughts that emerge, and the actions that evolution has intended to come next. The greater the distance, the more control we have. A similar notion was described almost 2000 years ago by the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna in his seminal work, ‘The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way’ (known as The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā or ‘MMK’). In it, Nāgārjuna states:

‘With the cessation of ignorance, action will not arise. The cessation of ignorance occurs through meditation and wisdom. Through the cessation of this or that, this or that will not be manifest. The entire mass of suffering indeed, thereby completely ceases’.

‘Ignorance’ in this case could mean our uncontrolled passions or desires that pop into our minds without our say. ‘Action’ in this case could mean uncontrolled rage, greed, or hedonism directed by the uncontrolled passions. In Nāgārjuna’s time, he must have had access to a much quieter mental space than we have today. His mental landscape and processes were completely aligned with their evolutionary roots. That is to say, the world around Nāgārjuna was aligned with his biological nature as a human being. There were no technological advancements that had outpaced his ability to adjust and adapt. There was only his mind, and the external natural world. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for where we find ourselves in our current situation.

Our reality now isn’t just made up of our minds and the external world. A third realm has been with us since the birth of the internet, or most certainly since the birth of the smartphone. The digital realm, including social media, has functioned like an electromagnetic pulse to our collective consciousness. Now, instead of just our external environments affecting our evolutionary dials, we have our digital environments affecting them as well. The problem is that our digital environments don’t just gradually turn, or nudge our evolutionary dials. The problem is that they seem to violently torque them from minimum force to maximum in an instant. Our evolutionary system becomes short circuited as it is digitally stimulated with instantaneous feelings of lust, anger, jealousy, greed, or tribalism. The digital pulsing of these evolutionary pressures becomes an addictive, slot machine type act. We scroll, swipe, and click our way to artificial dopamine hits that evolution originally engineered to aid our survival as a species.

This digital warping of our senses, and our nature, has exacerbated another problem that evolution and natural selection have left us. The simple, but undeniably powerful fact that we evolved as a species to survive, not to observe objective reality. Think of it this way: there are colors we cannot see, sounds we cannot hear, and spectrums of light that lay beyond our natural senses. So even without the warping of our secondary social reality by our digital mediums; our natural senses don’t even allow us access to the nature of our primary base reality (whatever that may be).

Donald Hoffman has developed a theorem called ‘Fitness Beats Truth (FBT)’. The basic concept being that over time, the long hand of evolution favors organisms that develop ‘internal models of reality that maximize fitness payoffs’ - rather than organisms that develop accurate perceptions of objective reality. Hoffman’s theorem has been bolstered through experiments enabled by computer simulations. These tests have shown that the more complex an objective reality, or a creature’s sensory perception becomes, the less natural selection sees an accurate perception of reality as a benefit. It does seem to make sense that natural selection would favor efficient modes of gaining nutrients and finding mates, rather than accurate perceptions. A creature overloaded with perceptual stimulation would be sure to lose to a creature whose perception has been narrowly focused on essential aspects of survival.

This has resulted in our current perceptual situation being analogous to what Hoffman likes to describe as a friendly ‘user interface’. Like a desktop on a computer, all the objects and things we encounter every day are like icons on the desktop. We perceive them in ways so we can interact with them and use them. Yet their appearance doesn’t represent the true reality underneath. When we move an icon on our computer desktop, we are not actually moving it. There are electrical volts, bits of code, and computer processes taking place that make it seem like we are moving the icon. Yet for us, efficiency is all that matters, for it is what makes the computer useful. If we had to physically manipulate computer code and electrical charges everytime we wanted the computer to do something, its function would quickly become useless.

Considering that on this planet there are a multitude of creatures with various types of sensory perceptions; or various ‘user interfaces’ - it becomes clear that our version of reality is created by our consciousness. Our intelligence might give us greater insight into objective reality than say an elephant or a dolphin. But we certainly have not evolved to naturally experience objective reality. Our physical, perceptual illusion aligns with our psychological illusion that we are in total control of our thoughts and actions. Most of us maneuver everyday believing we are independent, free actors. Or as Robert Wright wrote in ‘Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment’, we like to think of ourselves as ‘CEO selves’. We like to think of ourselves as the independent masters of our domains. Yet what if our evolutionary programming, and our false perceptions of reality led us to a complete misunderstanding of who (or what) we actually are? What if, instead of our standard belief in the existence of our independent selves, what if we actually had no ‘self’ at all?

---

In Jay Garfield’s book, ‘Losing Ourselves: Learning to Live without a Self’, he notes how we can all imagine what it would be like to be someone else. For Garfield, he mentions how he would like to experience what it would be like to be legendary track and field runner, Usain Bolt. Garfield would want to experience what it would feel like to run as the fastest man alive. Yet for Garfield, and for all of us who can imagine what it would be like to be another human being, we wouldn’t want to actually be the person of our imagination. We would want our ‘self’ or essence to be transported into the other person's body. This is how we think of having a self. As a kind of singular thing that exists separate from our body, but contained by our mind.

Yet when this idea of the self is examined, it begins to fade as a coherent idea. The thoughts that enter our mind on a daily basis cannot constitute a self. They are caused by external and internal processes; they do not self originate. That is to say, they do not exist in some other place, separate from causation. Even if they did, they contain a multitude of possibilities and experiences. They are not a constant, controlled, or singular thing we can think of as a self.

Even if we look at our minds which contain all of our thoughts, we do not find a singular self. Our brains process information and are causally dependent. They are not standalone originators of our identities. To be sure, our minds, and even our bodies convey elements of selfhood. Yet if we were able to upload our minds into robotic avatars, we would be creating something new. We wouldn’t be taking our independent self and transporting it into a new body. Who we are, and what we are would instantly change. Our identity would be as much defined by our new robotic parts as it would be our transported consciousness. Our true identity in this reality is one where we are neither identical to, nor separate from our bodies or minds. We exist in a conventional sense; not as independent, uncaused selves. As Jay Garfield likes to put it, we exist as persons. Persons embedded in a wide causal network where our identities are dependent on a multitude of things.

In his previously mentioned book, Garfield shares the example of an early Buddhist thought experiment that illustrates the concept of ‘non self’. In the example, the idea of a chariot is considered. A chariot is composed of various parts like wheels, axels, rivets, seats, straps, etc. None of the parts on their own can be considered a ‘chariot’. Yet when they are combined, they form the conventional idea of a chariot. The idea of the chariot is ultimately defined by the society in which it resides, the customs surrounding it, and the people it comes into contact with. The chariot has no intrinsic identity.

The chariot itself is neither identical to, nor separate from its individual parts. There is no separate ‘essence of chariot’ (or self) that arises when the parts are combined. The idea of the chariot is only a conventional label for the particular arrangement of all the individual parts. The same kind of thinking can be applied to our notion of a self. Our idea of a singular, coherent self is only a conventional label that derives from the perception of various parts. Our physical bodies, our evolutionary programming, and our limited perceptions have combined to create the false notion that we are singular, independent actors navigating this reality.

Yet the reality of our situation is that we are embedded persons. Embedded within a great causal network that is conventional, not a ground, or essential reality. Who we are is as much defined by our individual parts, as it is by what (and who) is around us. That is to say part of how we are defined in this conventional reality is through contrasts with other objects or persons. We are ever changing, dependent beings that spend much of our waking moments led astray by our evolutionary programming and false perceptions.

In Buddhist thought, a general principle is that much of our suffering in this reality comes from an unhealthy attachment to things and emotions. ‘Things’ that are illusionary products of our perceptions - which we now know were designed for fitness, not to see reality. ‘Emotions’ that are mostly uncontrolled products of our evolutionary programming. Programming which evolved to enable us to survive and reproduce, not to be happy and existentially satisfied. When you consider all of this in coordination with our egocentric, false concept of ‘the self’, it starts to make sense why the systems and institutions we create end up failing. We attach ourselves to, and reify things that are non essential or fundamental.

Take our economic systems for example. In the language surrounding capitalism we hear things like ‘free market’ or ‘free trade’. We focus on things like ‘stocks’, ‘interest rates’, or ‘inflation’. We even have ‘rules’ or ‘values’ surrounding the ideas behind capitalism. Yet all of these things are conventional in nature. They are essentially non-existent. They are products of our evolutionary drives for reciprocal altruism, self interested survival, and status seeking. Yet in our current reality, we’ve allowed capitalism to define and control almost every aspect of our life. In doing so, we’ve created a massive attachment to something that is not worthy of attachment. We’ve attached ourselves to a conventional product of our false perceptions. Which in turn, has stirred more false evolutionary desires within us like greed and hedonism. This kind of nasty feedback loop is the predicament we find ourselves in today.

As a species we are still controlled by tribal impulses which lead to conflict and suffering. We reify our differences whether they be racial, ethnic, national, gender based, or religious. Yet these differences are products of an outdated evolutionary programming to be wary of the ‘other’. They flow from a false sense of self that leads individuals to see themselves as singular, and to see other people as separate entities acting with free will. We attach ourselves to the false perception that we must compete and conflict with those that are different from us. And we become seduced by the evolutionary safe space of being part of a ‘mutually aligned group’ - whether that’s a nation, or a race, or a religion. All of our prejudices, all of our conflicts, and all of our war; it all rests upon a false attachment to feelings and perceptions. Feelings and perceptions that were designed to allow us to survive in times of scarce resources. Designed to create a false perception of ‘us’ and ‘them’.

Much of our conflict flows from human attachment to ideology. This is kind of a double attachment problem. For when we attach ourselves to ideologies that are themselves essentially false products of our false perceptions, we are attaching ourselves to one false house built on top of another. Many ideologies are created by individuals who are simply subsumed by their evolutionary desire to seek status. Or their greatly inflated, yet false belief in the nature of their own selves. Or maybe their false perception of one group of humans has prompted them to create an ideology designed to buttress that false perception. Our propensity to have our minds ideologically captured aligns with our false evolutionary perception of ‘us’ and ‘them’. The ideology functions as a synonym for our group oriented, resource competition programming. When we join ideological brethren, we become immersed in a giant, status seeking tribe. Yet this doubly false attachment ultimately leads to suffering for ourselves, or for others.

Similar to ideological conflict, religious conflict flows from misguided attachment. However, religious attachment is a bit different from pure ideological attachment. Religions order the world for us. They tell us what is real, the origins of the universe, and how we should behave in life. Yet as much as it might be uncomfortable to think about, the truth of the matter is most likely that all of the religions created by humans have been built, and reified on false perceptions about reality. This is not to say that some of the original core tenets of the world’s major religions did not touch upon the true nature of our situation in this reality. But it does seem that over thousands of years, human religion has devolved into a structure that ratchets up our tribalistic instincts instead of breeding peace and happiness.

As humans built up the structures and rules for each religion, they did so via their evolutionary drive for status and survival. Gaining resources by climbing a hierarchy and controlling others is a viable means of evolutionary behavior. In other words, ‘it’s good to be the king’. Like other human institutions, religion devolved into a top heavy hierarchy. A hierarchy where those at the top became focused on self serving resource accumulation. While the followers of religion saw their self interests being served by being part of a larger group. But of course this group attachment leads again to the false perception of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, human conflict, and war.

Yet there might be something unique about religion that plays on our evolutionary psyche. I imagine for our hunter gatherer ancestors, the world around them was full of wonder and mystery. Free from light pollution, their skies were full of stars, and the ways of nature dominated their everyday lives. It would seem to make sense that if one group of early humans developed rituals or beliefs that seemed to order this mysterious world, and forge close bonds between them; that this group would do better than its rivals. For a group of humans that seems to know how reality works, and can convince other humans as such, will be able to grow its power and resource gaining capability. Natural selection might have favored this sort of ‘religious’ behavior and outcome.

There does seem to be something deep within us that yearns for a deep understanding of the universe and its origin or purpose. However, this yearning might be a false perception. For if we do not have a singular ‘self’, and we are actually embedded persons within a great universal causal matrix; how can we yearn for something that is not separate from us? Again, our yearning for an answer to the deepest questions might be an evolutionary prompt. The more we can know and learn about the world around us, the more likely we are to be able to survive and reproduce. A confident, ‘in control’ being is more likely to find a mate than a being who is totally confused and disoriented about the nature of their reality.

Yet the ‘first cause’ of this reality, or the ‘unmoved mover’ (as the Greek philosopher Aristotle called it) might be totally beyond our comprehension. It most certainly lies beyond our perceptions that don’t even give us access to basic reality. And it probably even exists beyond the nature of our consciousness. It might exist in a higher dimensional form that our consciousness doesn’t even have access to. Yet we might be able to imagine it in our three dimensional world, like we can a four dimensional tesseract. In any case, the very nature of the first cause of our reality is a mystery. Therefore, any human groups or structures that claim to have certain knowledge about the true nature of the first cause are most likely mistaken. Their actions and modes of operation can be deconstructed to faulty human perceptions and evolutionary programming. There is a reason their information structures are not based on science or philosophical proofs; but rather stories, belief, power, and human commands.

---

So here we sit - creatures whose lives are greatly determined by a pre-written evolutionary script, false perceptions about ourselves, and even reality itself. This sort of realization can lead one to an almost nihilist viewpoint. If nothing is ‘actually real’, and our actions are largely predetermined, what’s the point? How can there be any true meaning in life? If things that make life worth living like love, friendship, family, or purposeful work are just products of evolutionary prompts and false perceptions, how can we derive true meaning from them? If, as the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna described, that everything in our reality is inherently ‘empty’; what then is the point of being alive?

It first should be noted that a nihilistic outlook in itself is a false perception. When one attaches themselves to feelings or emotions related to nihilistic viewpoints, they are reifying sentiments that are in themselves ‘empty’. That is to say these sentiments are caused by internal and external forces, not true insights into (or descriptions of) our base reality. Nihilistic feelings related to the concept of emptiness, flow from a misunderstanding. ‘Emptiness’ in this case is not equal to ‘nothing’. Rather it simply means the lack of essence. Therefore it is not a destructor of everything we experience in life. Rather it is part of an accurate description of our circumstance. A recognition that everything is interdependent, and arises due to causes and conditions.

In Buddhist thought, this framing is known as the ‘Two Truths Doctrine’. With the two truths being our conventional reality that is determined by our perceptions, and the ultimate truth that shows our conventional reality is free of inherent essence. In recognizing these two truths, we can begin to recognize reality for what it is. And once we start to recognize reality for what it is, we can begin to function in ways that alleviate suffering for ourselves and others.

In modern times, on a psychological level, many individuals have become victims of anxiety, depression, or addiction. Political discourse has become toxic, fueled by anger and division. Tribal disputes still devolve into war and violence, even though we possess the ability to destroy all life on the planet. Our economic systems define the totality of our lives, and cause anguish and suffering. We give ourselves away to ideologies and religions that turn us against each other, and poison our minds. All the while we foolishly obsess and fight over secondary human qualities rather than seeking common ground based on the universal quality of human consciousness. And like a demon overseeing all of it, our digital communications and social media fuel our perceptual disorientations and falsehoods.

All of this, our modern predicament, can be boiled down to a simple idea: we reify and attach ourselves to things in our conventional reality that are deserving of neither reification or attachment. In doing so, we become mis-aligned with the true nature of reality, and we cause ourselves misery and discontent. The question then becomes, how are we as individuals supposed to correctly navigate these two realities? One that is conventional, and one that is ultimate. How are we supposed to live meaningful lives amid our perceptual mess?

In probing this question I suppose it would help to identify a mode of being for humans that allowed us to be in closer alignment with the true nature of our reality. A psychological state that allowed us to be in a place of non attachment, yet entirely present. This would be a place where we lose our sense of self, yet we remain aware of our conventional reality. A place where we are truly embedded between the conventional, and the ultimate. In this kind of state, our perceptions would be less deceitful. Because we would be perceiving from a perspective that is not defined by simple evolutionary prompts or cravings. Rather we would be perceiving from a perspective of total immersion. A total immersion that aligns with the interconnected and interdependent structure of conventional and ultimate reality.

This mode of being or total immersion could be known as a ‘flow state’. Mentioned implicitly by various Buddhist philosophical concepts, and explicitly by Jay Garfield, ‘flow state’ is something most humans have experienced. Artists know this state well as it usually accompanies their work. As a painter or sculptor engages in their creative undertakings, their mind seems to go to a different place. Time seems to take on a different feeling, as hours go by unnoticed. They are in control of their actions, but are also not totally aware of them. They are present in the moment of creative activity; embedded within reality. Their false perceptions of self have faded away, and they find themselves situated between conventional, and ultimate reality. This is one version of ‘flow state’. And most importantly, from this flow state comes tremendous meaning and purpose.

Other flow states can be evoked through meditation, musical undertakings, athletics, exercise, or certain types of work. Each of these is different in their own right, but the broader point is that each results in a certain type of meaning and purpose. Thus rendering any nihilistic thinking about our reality as wrong. It is possible to get meaning and purpose out of an inherently ‘empty’ reality.

And even though our emotional states of love and friendship can be deconstructed at some level to evolutionary motivation, they can move us to flow states where our sense of self fades away. Anyone who has been truly in love with another human being, or had children, knows their feelings of love have risen to certain flow states. A feeling of connection and caring that reflects the true nature of our interdependent reality. A place where we are completely present and unattached, yet intertwined with another human consciousness. Authentic friendship seems to be able to do this as well. Regardless, the ability of love and friendship to propel us into states that align with our true reality should give them authenticity. That is to say, strike another blow against any nihilistic arguments against them.

So as we sit in this reality amid our false perceptions and evolutionary control, we have hope. We have avenues of philosophical thought that give us insight into the true nature of reality. We have modes of being that all of us have experienced, and that we can aim towards. This allows the average person, living day to day, to have an intuitive idea about all of this. We are stuck however, amid structures built, and reified on false perceptions and evolutionary prompts. If we are to truly elevate ourselves and our consciousness as a species we will one day have to recognize the true nature of our predicament. We see ourselves as separate from one another, but we are not. We see everything in our reality as inherently existing, but it does not. We are immersed, within a great causal matrix, where our perceptions create the illusion of permanence and importance.

---

In July of 2023, two scientists from Hiroshima University published a paper called ‘Dependence of measurement outcomes on the dynamics of quantum coherent interactions between the system and the meter’. The subject of the paper was the scientists efforts to come up with a solution to the problem of quantum level measurements. The problem being that when one tries to measure something at the quantum level, the measuring device itself affects the nature of the thing being measured. This is kind of like trying to measure an object with a tape measure that changes shape every time the tape measure is extended in its direction. In this kind of situation getting an accurate measurement can prove difficult to say the least.

The scientists believed they made progress on addressing this problem by coming up with a measurement that is not a simple ‘look and see’ approach. Instead they came up with a measurement theory that uses the potential states of the quantum system before measurement, the nature of the measurement device itself, and the possible quantum states after the measurement has taken place. This inclusion of what might be considered ‘the past’ (before the measurement), ‘the future’ (after the measurement), and the effect of the measuring device itself raises interesting notions about our reality. Of this approach, one of the scientists said:

‘Our results show that the physical reality of an object cannot be separated from the context of all its interactions with the environment, past, present, and future, providing strong evidence against the widespread belief that our world can be reduced to a mere configuration of material building blocks.’

An interesting concept isn’t it? The idea that our reality has no inherent essence, everything is interdependent, and that our perceptions shield us from objective reality. Sounds like Nāgārjuna might have been on to something.