IN GOD WE TRUST
The Pitched Battle for the Soul of
Copyright © 2007 Victor Shane, all
UNDERSTANDING THE URGE TO MERGE
to some postmodern interpretations of “sexuality,” we are led
to believe that unless a person commits fornication on a regular basis he
or she must be “sexually repressed.” The apostate media and
Hollywood seem obsessed with nudity and fornication, sparing no effort to
whitewash immorality and dignify perversion.
is this obsession all about? Whence the source, origin and provenance of
this urge to merge sexually? Is it genetic? Is it solely a function of
procreation? If it were, it would not be found among homosexuals. What
then? If not solely reproductive in source and origin, what else could be
driving it? Is there a rational scientific explanation? Indeed there is!
us go back to basics. According to the Bible, God formed us from the
“dust of the earth” (physics of this universe, oriented toward
higher probability states). Contrary to all appearances, we human beings
are not detached from the behavioral field of the cosmos,
the physical constitution of all of us is “wired” together into
the behavioral field of the cosmos in subtle ways that may yet take another
century to fully understand. The nature of this “wiring” may
not be Newtonian or deterministic, but it most certainly could be
statistical and probabilistic (noticeable in sufficiently large samples).
cosmos into which our physical constitution (our flesh) is
“wired” has a property that makes statistical selections in
favor of more probable states, a property that feeds back into human
nature to produce a subtle bias, inclination or tendency. What then? Can
the urge to merge be a
subconscious expression or unconscious affirmation of this “wiring”?
Can it be a particular instance of general physical law? Put simply, can it
be the urge to move toward more probable states?
answer the question we must be willing to swallow our pride, smash the last
pedestal of anthropocentric arrogance, come out of denial and view our
material selves in terms of physical systems. Let us refer to
scientists David Halliday and Robert Resnick’s Fundamentals
analyzing physical situations we usually focus our attention on some
portion of matter which we separate, in our minds, from the environment
external to it. We call such a portion the system. Everything outside the system which has a direct
bearing on its behavior we call the environment.
We then seek to determine the behavior of the system by finding how it interacts
with its environment.1
might venture to say that science investigates the behavior of physical
systems in terms of the initial and final states of their intercourse with their
as the environment of the earth’s magnetic field orients a compass
needle toward north, it would be accurate to describe the environment of
the cosmos as a gigantic behavioral field that orients physical systems
toward more probable states. Granted, the earth may orient the compass
needle through a deterministic mechanism, whereas the cosmos may orient
physical systems through a statistical mechanism, but the principle of
non-separation and feedback would be similar in both cases.
systems are a part of the operational matrix of the behavioral field of the cosmos. Physical systems receive feedback from the cosmos, just as the compass needle
receives feedback from the earth’s magnetic field. And just as the
compass needle would “feel the urge” to point northward when
exposed to the environment of the earth’s magnetic field, physical
systems would “feel the urge” to move toward more probable
states when exposed to the environment of the cosmos. And since physical
systems are always exposed to the
environment of the cosmos, they would always “feel” that urge.
There are no zones of exclusion in the cosmos. In the entire universe you
will not find a physical system that does not “feel” the common
urge to move toward more probable states.
it would help to anthropomorphize and describe the universe as a gigantic
behavioral field with a “desire” to move toward higher
probability (entropy) states, a non-local behavioral field that invests all
physical systems with similar local “desires.” One might then
describe the cosmos as the aggregate of physical systems united by a common
“desire” to move toward more probable states. And how
could they actually “fulfill” or “consummate” that
desire? Well, one way would be to merge with their environments.
Fundamentals of Physics,
scientists Halliday and Resnick
state the generalization of experience described by the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in this way:
natural process that starts in one equilibrium state and ends in another
will go in the direction that causes the entropy of the system plus
environment to increase.2
one defines entropy as a measure of probability, or as “proportional
to the statistical probability of a system’s state,”3
the generalization can be stated in another way:
natural process that starts in one probability state and ends in another
will behave in such a way as to cause the combined probability state of the
system plus environment to increase.
does this mean? Simply this: “Wired” into the behavioral field
of the cosmos, physical systems “feel the urge” to merge with
their environments in a general effort to move toward higher probability states and an eventual equilibrium state in which they become indistinguishable from their environments ("death" in the language of man.)
In this way, the urge to merge
would be a natural (derivative) tendency on the part of all physical systems. Granted,
this urge would be held in check by the four major forces (gravity,
electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces), and granted also that
under the right conditions it could be suppressed in open systems.
Nevertheless, it would exist as a generalization
of experience known to science.
universal systems are oriented toward more probable states, you would
expect to find a generalization of
experience associated with that orientation.
then? Is this the provenance of mankind’s “desire” for
illicit sex? Is the “lust” for sex a particular instance of
general physical law? Ignoring the reproductive urge for the time being, is
the sexual urge to merge
traceable back to the physical urge on the parts of systems to merge with
their environments? Simply put, is it the urge to move toward higher
probability states and eventual equilibrium?
what about all the other occurrences of the urge that we see in history?
Are movements toward such things as “conquest,”
“expansion,” “empire” and “globalism”
also particular instances of general physical law? What about Wall
Street’s “mergers and acquisitions”? Are these urges, and the associated feelings of
“power,” “pleasure” and “satisfaction”
that they provide for the Caesars and tycoons of this world, local
expressions of the universal movement towards higher probability states?
the Ten Commandments say, You shall
not kill, or You shall not steal,
or You shall not commit adultery,
or You shall not covet, we can
only infer the existence of a tendency to the contrary—something in
human nature that would tend to encourage these disordered states. That
“something” in human nature is the unconscious urge to move
toward higher probability (entropy) states. And who would be in a better position to
know this and to warn mankind about its consequences, if not the Creator
Himself? If anyone should know the natural inclination of man, it would
have to be the God who formed man from the physics of the universe, would
us anthropomorphize even further and try to understand the derivative behavior of man in terms of the
behavior of physical systems:
Physical systems are oriented toward more probable states;
they lust for more probable states;
they merge with their environments to fulfill that lust;
they sense “pleasure,”
“satisfaction,” and “affirmation” in doing.
let us apply the principle to the behavior of what the Bible calls
“the natural man” in 1 Corinthians 2:14. By “natural” is meant “derivative,” i.e., deriving his
existence from nothing more than the nature, property and orientation of
the cosmos, ignoring for the time being any spiritual properties inherited
from the Creator. Let us remove all considerations of God, exclude the Ten
Commandments, strip the human condition of all divine law, spiritual
imperative, restraint, discipline and principle, and apply the
generalization to the behavior of an average human being called John
Doe. What do we have here?
PHYSICAL SYSTEM = John Doe (the self)
Everything apart from John Doe,
including other human beings
do physical systems behave? All things being equal, they tend to move from
less probable to more probable states in terms of mergers with their
environments. In other words, you would expect to find a general urge or
tendency on the part of John Doe (the system
or the self), to want to merge
with other human elements (the environment
or the non-self). Since John Doe
cannot chemically or physically “meld” with other human
elements, you would expect this urge to find “sexual”
someone may say, “If there is any truth in what you are saying, there
would also be a tendency on the part of John Doe to want to have intercourse
with the house or building in which he finds himself!” Well, while it
would not be possible for John Doe (system)
to merge himself with that house or building (environment) in “sexual” terms, the urge to merge
could nevertheless find outlets in terms of common vices—greed,
avarice, covetousness, iniquity, graft, corruption, theft, violence,
aggression, invasion, expansion, etc.
Doe might end up being a “rich man” obsessed with owning
houses, buildings, factories, lands, properties, servants and slaves. He
may end up being a Russian mafia boss in control of vast industries. He may
end up being a control freak like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein,
invading and seizing anything he desires by sword and Kalashnikov.
to say, there would be many other ways and means for John & Jane Doe to
try to move towards more probable states, ways and means that would
span the whole spectrum of derivative behavior from the mundane to the internecine. To give a relatively
mundane example, John & Jane Doe could be postmodern teenagers
“hanging out,” or perpetually “wired” to their friends
and their environments by means of cell phones, electronic gadgets,
computers and websites like myspace. To give another mundane example, John Doe could
be the in-your-face idiot who uses loud noise to merge his sphere of existence
with that of his local environment—everyone unfortunate enough to be within
earshot of his blaring “boom box.”
give an internecine example at the other end of the spectrum, John Doe
could be a “suicide bomber” who blows himself up, physically
merging the elements of his body (the system)
with the elements of the cosmos (the ultimate environment) through diffusion, natural corruption and
John Doe were Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon or Hitler, he could make a
grandiose move towards higher probability (entropy) states through conquest,
expansion and empire, in effect merging his own sphere of dominion and
control (the system) with that of
the world (the environment)
through military means. If John Doe were a Wall Street tycoon, he could
move towards higher probability states through “mergers and
acquisitions,” in effect merging his own holdings (the system) with that of others (the environment) through such things as
leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers and currency speculation. Granted, all
these urges would be held in check by various religious, moral, civil and
national laws, but they would exist as generalizations
of experience nevertheless.
if John Doe were an average human being, incapable of terrorizing the
environment like a suicide bomber, or vandalizing it like a computer
hacker, or conquering it like Caesar, or dominating it like Alexander, or
owning it like Rockefeller, then you would expect to find the main outlet
for the urge to take on the outward forms of “sexuality.” You
would expect to find exactly what we find in the derivative world today—a psychotic,
neurotic and increasingly sadistic and morbid addiction to such things as
fornication, pornography, obscenity and perversion. You would expect
to find the derivative media and apostate Hollywood feeding on the ideas of
“openness,” “lack of inhibitions,”
“nudity,” “sensuality,” “fantasy,” “eroticism”
the pages of In God We Trust you
will learn how to affirm the necessity of Judeo-Christian morality, stem the tide of
immorality, reinstate decency and restore America to the dignity of her
origins in God.
1. D. Halliday and R. Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1970), 343.
2. Ibid., 415.
Oxford Companion to Philosophy
(London: Oxford University Press, 1995), 238.
Back to top
- Back to Home