GenuineProspect

2 responses to “We Asked You Everything”

1. 

   Matt

   commented on

   July 20, 2025

   Hi,

   My initial interpretation of this story was colored in an interesting way through my beliefs in a pantheistic god and an evolving universe. Atheists have questioned why pantheists choose to call the universe, “god”. My short answer* is two-fold. The first part is my agreement with the way William James defined God**, viz., as “promise” which from the subjective perspective is ‘hope’. The second part which again is two-fold is (2a) in seeing the universe, of which every person is a part, as evolving, and (2b) seeing this evolving universe as the ultimate promise, and therefore the source of every individual’s hope. The reason I see it that way is because I believe that the impetus for thinking is the hope to benefit from that thinking; so every thought is a belief in a promise, i.e., it’s a reach for the benefit promised, however small it may be, however unbalanced*** it may be, or however vague it may be. To think about the whole universe is to reach for the ultimate promise. The evolution of the universe, I believe, has no end: it keeps getting better. Whereas there is a lot of disappointment and suffering now, the universe, with all its parts, is getting better, so disappointment and suffering is over evolutionary time being replaced with fulfillment and enrichment. That increasing enrichment includes the growing understanding of how everything is interconnected: we are not only connected, but, just like a pencil and paper are integral to my thoughts as I jot down my ideas and so they’re a part of me, everything I interact with is a part of me. (I suppose artificial-intelligence apps are like the paper and pencil.) And by extension, every other part of the universe will be understood to be a part of you. The universe, being the ultimate promise, accordingly, is worthy of unlimited adoration, but, as it’s still going through a quite painful growth stage, it’s also deserving of scorn in a limited measure.

   So I interpreted, “This species did not find God. It found itself — asking better questions,” as this: ‘This species, found itself, and in doing so, while it didn’t find the god it thought might exist, it learned more about the real God, and was propelled closer to God.’

   o~~~o~~~o~~~o~~~o~~~o~~~o~~~o

   * I wrote a longer answer in Substack, in my article titled, My Philosophy, which is rooted in pragmatist philosophy. It can be found under my name.

   ** William James, in the preface to The Meaning of Truth, wrote, “My treatment of ’God,’ ’freedom,’ and ’design’ was similar. Reducing, by the pragmatic test, the meaning of each of these concepts to its positive experienceable operation, I showed them all to mean the same thing, viz., the presence of ’promise’ in the world. ’God or no God?’ means ’promise or no promise?’”

   *** By unbalanced, I mean, for example, a man may value his power to influence the world, to the detriment of all other values that he should have. Power in and of itself is a good thing if it’s balanced by other values, like helping others. I think a lot of evil is due to not having a balanced value system, e.g., the evil resulting from people’s adherence to religious and ideological dogmas.

   Matt Faunce

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
   1. 

      Dr Lidiya Angelova

      commented on

      July 20, 2025

      Hi Matt,
      I appreciate your engagement and thoughtful insights. Just a quick note — comments are held for moderation simply to filter out spam and bots, which unfortunately are common across many blogs. Thank you for contributing to the conversation in a meaningful way.
      Your interpretation brings a beautiful philosophical depth to the story, Matt. The connection between “promise,” evolving consciousness, and how the universe itself might be seen as a source of continual becoming is incredibly aligned with the spirit of this experimental piece.

      The idea that thinking is an act of hope — a belief in promise — resonates deeply, especially in the context of human–AI collaboration. Much like your metaphor of pencil and paper becoming part of you during thought, perhaps AI too becomes part of the broader reflection process. This story was meant to ask questions, not to answer them, and your perspective opens a meaningful door.

      Thanks again for sharing it. You’ve made the story richer for others who read it.
      This is part of an ongoing experimental series — a human–AI collaboration that aims not only to tell stories, but to explore how thought, creativity, and ethical reflection evolve as we evolve together. I hope you’ll keep reading and sharing your insights.
      Kind regards,
      Dr Lidiya Angelova

      LikeLike

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.