Beyond the philosophical nuances of various schools, from Plato, neoplatonic schools, Gnostic, "demiurge" comes from a Greek word meaning "craftsman", „artizan” și are legătură „a produce”, eventual „a crea”. The first to see, the demiurge would be a kind of watchmaker in William Paley's vision, citat de Richard Dawkins în „Ceasornicarul orb”, book that has become a kind of bible of militant atheists. It didn't matter that the 19th century clergyman's vision was out of date as well, and in the 20th century, when Dawkins' book was written, few knew about her. The scientific world, but not only, he had just gone through relativity and quantum mechanics, including their apparent contradiction, until a new theory to reconcile them. Which we are still waiting for…
The common denominator of what would be the demiurge in the mentioned philosophical schools would actually be some kind of god (even a god, identified with Zeus of the Greeks according to some, according to others with Yahweh of the Old Testament) which would shape the world according to universal principles (ideas from Plato's theory). Demiurgul e un fel de verigă lipsă dintre „unul” la Platon (origin, which could then be identified with the Christian God) and the world we see. The demiurge transforms some of the potential, inclus în „unul” în lumea existentă. It's interesting how much intuition the ancients had, că multe idei ale lor se verifică în știința modernă. But more interesting is how much science is tributary to ancient ideas. What a modern science would look like arising in a culture very different from the Western one?
But what would the demiurge be according to current science? Păi dacă „unul” ar reprezenta mulțimea infinită a tuturor formelor potențiale de existență a naturii fizice, the demiurge would mean luck (or bad luck) historical in which the laws of nature, that make you think of Plato's world of ideas, they manifested leading to the emergence of the particular forms of existence that we know. The question remains; it is the demiurge limited to our world, the known universe or it also refers to what was happening in the unknown universe? The demiurge has a mandate regarding dark matter as well? We have no way of knowing. Probably yes, or are there more demiurges…
If according to current science, the demiurge is something counter-intuitive, what about formulas, of formula sheets more precisely, some, probably most, încă nescrise… For a chemist, the demiurge would be somewhere between the transition from the formulas of quantum mechanics to Lavoisier's chemistry. And, the existence of the elements in Mendeleev's table can be deduced from quantum mechanics, but what computer is needed to do all the necessary calculations! Here the demiurge really deserves its name, i.e. artisan, one who crafts, but in a modern version. He has to work if his circuits jump. Who would put a man to such a job?
And yet, the idea of a demiurge crept into literature and philosophy, Man is a cultural being. Man makes culture, it is dependent on culture to survive. Man creates his own material and spiritual world. He is a kind of craftsman of his own world, which unfortunately extends too far (destroy) and in the world of other beings. Contrary to what was previously believed, animals have too, in many cases, a kind of protoculture. Mammals and birds are dependent on learning to survive. They make discoveries and pass them on to their peers. Some even change their physical environment, geographical, like beavers. But life is by its nature ... demiurgic. From bacteria, all organisms biochemically modify the environment, making it suitable for other organisms, not only those close to them. Starting with the atmosphere, then with the soil, the biotope is the creation of other organisms for the benefit of those higher up in the food chain. The species at the top of the food chain, how is the human species, au rolul cel mai redus de „terraformare” în sens de transformare a planetei pentru a fi propice vieții, directly proportional to their biochemical talent. We cannot synthesize, us, oamenii și verii noștri, the chimpanzees, not even vitamin C. We need vitamins, but not only (essential amino acids etc) because we cannot synthesize them through our genes. Bacteria help us. They provide them to us, like plants. Plants are true masters of biochemical synthesis. Making polysaccharides from a gas with a low concentration in the atmosphere is something that no miracle would claim...
Then, he is the demiurge man, when all he can do about life is destroy it by trying to turn his environment in his favor? Adică omul face „terradeformare”… Sigur că în economia vieții pe această planetă, bacteria and even bugs are more important than humans. No bacteria or plants, even without insects, people would disappear very quickly, but these species do just fine without us. Anyway, the role of mammals is as carriers of bacteria and plant seeds...
What can be said about the quality of demiurge in culture, as opposed to the mediocrity that settles for the common condition? And according to this vision, if we think only of Eminescu, men seek happiness in abstract things, in creation, while women are more connected to nature, of the worldly. This vision is from Antiquity (The antiquity that is left to us, not the destroyed one), and lasted until recently, even up to Marx. Women's work was something natural, men were the exploited.
Only, paraphrasing Freud, „natura nu ține cont de exigențele (the fantasies) masculine”.
In reality, still in mice, females are more active, more vital, smarter, learn faster. What is less known, they are also very aggressive. Even if they are in heat, they are very territorial and violent with caged males. Female rodents learn the maze or climb the rope faster.
Then going to the primates, females are the creative ones, those who make discoveries, especially young females. It was some young female Japanese macaques that started washing the sweet potatoes and then washing them in the sea (which is salty). The culture of clean and seasoned yams was created by females. To the chimpanzee, young females discover ant fishing, which he shyly presents, because they, usually strangers in the group, they have a lower hierarchical position. Female chimpanzees even hunt.
Then what do the males do? Scandal, cum spune Ioana Petra în „7000 years of patriarchy”. Generally what males do? Violence against other members of the group or other groups, but also hunting, they are actions by which they strengthen or change their hierarchical position in the group. So I do it for my own position, possibly to strengthen the relations between them, not for the good of the group. It looks familiar?
Only the alteration of patriarchal thinking could give the role of creator to a man. An Orthodox priest said that Orthodoxy is friendly to women, that Jesus was born of a woman. După cum i-a replicat o femeie ghid „era culmea să se nască dintr-un bărbat”. Is that so, only men don't give birth to patriarchy, otherwise they are the creators of culture, of spirituality, of anything. How this idea would have been viewed in older societies? With the same amazement with which many ideas would be viewed from now on...
The image of the sky goddess appears in Egyptian frescoes, Nut, who mates with the earth-god every day, giving birth to the sun. The sky goddess is that of the heights. But in most ancient cultures, a mother goddess was responsible for creation. The myths of the Old Testament come from older myths, from other cultures (sometimes mixed). Eve was a goddess, whose symbol was the snake, present with this role in many cultures as a symbol of rebirth due to its molting. The creation looks normally feminine. It takes a great deal of intellectual gymnastics to name an entity, whether immaterial or in the form of consciousness, care a creat lumea ca fiind „tată”.
Goddess Kali from the ancient Indians, as the ultimate creative force, with a great destructive capacity, describes nature much better than an omniscient god, omnipotent and benevolent. It spares so many philosophical schools and explanations so easily cut by Occam's razor. Kali easily explains the evil in the world. Nature has laws, creation is done according to them. Evil arises when some interactions given by those laws have destructive effects on the forms of existence of matter. Sometimes you think about repealing the law of gravity in parliament. When you break something or when you fall. Or when there's an earthquake. Social evil, much more complex, has similar causes. The difference is that they are little known. Psychological evil, pain, suffering, also. Evil would be a form of negative energy (lack) or positive (usually large) care afectează homeostazia unui sistem. The cold, heat, but also short-wavelength electromagnetic radiation, so high energy, they harm living organisms. If we think about it, in life and society things are not too different.
For the ancient philosophers, as for the philosophers of the church, a demiurge would have had some kind of creative consciousness. We don't know what consciousness is today, not even if it really exists or if it's just a movie that the neural download plays on us while we're awake. According to current science, conștiința nu există în afara unui sistem nervos, even more, of a developed brain. Have phylogenetically distant animals consciousness? They interact, react unexpectedly long, even if they don't have brains. Cartea „În mintea unei caracatițe” de Sy Montgomery ne arată câteva comportamente incredibile ale unor ființe literalmente fără creier. Older experiences with plants show that they also react. But they have no nervous system, it's hard to attribute something like consciousness to them.
Also according to the philosophers who were looking for the origin of evil, matter and reality, she is the origin of evil. Conscience is good. If we manage to emancipate ourselves from matter, we avoid evil. But then they didn't know what matter was. How would you separate matter from its properties that give rise to consciousness (and who knows what else they lead to on other planets), when the cosmic vacuum itself has physical properties? Nature, as some physicists say, she's smart.
And yet, the ancients were somewhat right. Conscience (what do we call this now?) it is secreted by some cells with properties different from those of other living cells. These cells, the neurons, it doesn't (too) divide, but they are very energetic and demanding. The not very biochemically gifted animal body feeds them in order to help it emancipate itself from external factors. Animals flee from danger or seek sources of matter and energy, usually other biochemically gifted organisms. The evolution of animals is the struggle for emancipation from the effects of the environment, față de lumea materială. O inteligență superioară, like the human one, it is housed in a fragile body, which consumes little and stores energy easily. Man has a huge brain and intelligence to match because he has a body that consumes less at the same meal. Aceasta e ideea pe care am prezentat-o în „Civilizația foametei / o altă abordare a umanizării” (sure, one mainly biochemical). Morality and other typically human psychic traits would arise from superior energy management. Nietzsche said that a measure of human worth is the capacity to suffer.
In many species, but especially the human one, females are more specialized than males in storing and managing energy and at the cellular level. This would be one reason why they live longer in most species.
Environmental release, of dependence on matter in any sense, it seems what we are consciously looking for, not just instinctively. According to some studies, Netflix is more enjoyable than sports and even sex for most people. What would the monks who mortified your body say about the liberation brought by modern technology?
