Reflections on Causality

The currently unfolding catastrophe—Donald Trump’s toxic rise to power and the consequent degeneration of our democratic republic into a paranoid, deeply divided corporate plutocracy, ruled by a malignant, narcissistic maniac and his enablers, who have alienated the rest of the world--has vast numbers of us wallowing in despair, wondering why and how this could have possibly happened in (what we once believed to be) the world’s most stable, dynamic, and civilized democracy. Why us?  we ask in despair. Why now?

I don’t know either, but whenever I feel despondent and perplexed, I take refuge in the Dharma—in Buddhist teachings. These are not “beliefs” but simply common sense, scrupulously applied. At the core of the Buddhist understanding of the world is the concept of Pratitya Samutpada, or codependent origination. The simplest formulation of this concept? This is because that is (and vice versa).

To put it more elaborately, everything that happens in the universe—every particle, system, feeling, or thought that arises within us or outside of us—is the direct and indirect consequence of everything else that happens. They all co-arise in dependence on one another. Hence, without everything in the universe, there would not be anything in the universe.

Understood thus, causality can be divided into three distinct levels of complexity, corresponding to the three concentric “spheres” of reality first named by Teilhard de Chardin: the Physiosphere, the Biosphere, and the Nöosphere.  Each of these spheres has its own type of causality, of which only two are recognized by Western science.

Physical Causality

The first, the Physiosphere, is by far the simplest.  It is the inorganic realm of things—of matter and energy, and of particles, atoms, molecules, and substances. The laws of causality in this realm were first laid out by Sir Isaac Newton in his Principia Mathematica, and they are the stuff of elementary physics and chemistry classes, rooted in the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.  They are entirely reliable at the macro level of billiard balls, planets, stars, and galaxies, even if they have been complicated, at the micro level, by the bizarre discoveries of Quantum Mechanics.  Newton’s formulation of these rules gave rise, of course, to the Scientific and Industrial Revolution; they dramatically expanded our knowledge of, and power over, the physical world. Yet at their very core, in both the Quantum and Classical spheres, lies Pratitya Samutpada—this is because that is. (e.g. “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”)

Biological Causality

The second sphere—the Biosphere—is the realm of systems, ruled by the laws of cybernetics (this is because that is, and vice versa). The main difference between physical and systemic (or biological) causality is that the latter potentially emerges from the former whenever the loop is closed—that is, when an effect circles back and affects the cause. This is known as a “feedback loop” and it is to the systemic realm what forces and impacts are to the physical realm: the primary building block of causality.

This realm is exponentially more complex than the physical world, and hence, far less predictable. Gregory Bateson, a pioneering thinker in the field of biocybernetics, gave us a good illustration of the difference when he compared kicking a soccer ball to kicking a live dog. In the first instance, if we know the initial conditions—the force and vector of the kick and the constraints provided by gravitation, friction, and the boundaries of the space—we can make a highly accurate prediction of where the ball will land, and then the consequences of the initial action (the kick) will end.

But in the second instance—kicking a dog—predictability goes out the window, for the consequences depend entirely on a host of conditions, both before and after the kick, that are unknown or unknowable to the kicker. These prior conditions may include the breed of the dog, the personality of the individual dog, the prior relationship (or lack thereof) between the dog and the man, and so on. The consequences of the kick itself are equally uncertain: while it will have a predictable physical impact, sending the dog on a vector (like the soccer ball), the dog—unlike the ball—will immediately counteract that force by digging in his feet. From thereon, the possibilities are wide open, for even if the man and dog have hitherto had a good relationship—or conversely, if the dog is habituated to an abusive master and inclined to cringe and obey after such brutal punishment—this kick may be the proverbial “last straw,” causing the dog to counterattack—and the man to lose a foot.

In other words, the kick is not only a physical effect, but it conveys information about the relationship of one living (and information-processing) being to another. But the one who delivers the information (the kicker) has no control whatsoever over how the dog interprets that information—whether as punishment or an attack.

And information, which Bateson succinctly defines as “a difference that makes a difference” is at the core of biological causality. It is at the heart of the difference between physical phenomena and biological organisms, for the very simplest organism—say a bacterium—differs from the most complex inorganic molecule, in that it is constantly processing information and making choices (however simple) based on that information. Moreover, in biological organisms, that information is always processed with only one intention—toward its own survival and perpetuation of its kind. This is the “difference that makes a difference” between the most complex inorganic systems—such as hurricanes, whirlpools, or even human-designed artifacts like computers—and living beings. Unlike living beings, hurricanes, whirlpools, and computers literally don’t care whether they live or die. The simplest virus or bacterium, conversely, strives to perpetuate and multiply itself by whatever means possible.

That goes, of course, for us as well, as for all human institutions, from families to organizations to cultures to nations—all are information processing systems of bewildering complexity, but all, above all, seek to survive—seek to keep on keepin’ on. Naturally, we all die in the long run, returning to the Physiosphere, but that is why we seek to perpetuate our kind.

Nöospheric (Karmic) Causality

               The Nöosphere, then, refers to the realm of information that emerged from the Biosphere with the rise of humanity and specifically with the evolution of language and symbolism. It is therefore unique to humans; it is the world of information we share through linguistic and symbolic processing, and that we process in our own distinctly human consciousness.  And it is at this advanced, bewildering level of complexity that a third kind of causality arises, which the Hindus and Buddhists call the law of Karma.

               For most western scientists, Karma is seen as nothing more than a quaint oriental mythology, as is the doctrine of reincarnation. But the law of Karma need not be dependent on any belief in reincarnation (about which I choose to remain agnostic); rather, it can be seen as the law of Pratitya Samutpada (codependent origination) as applied to the realm, not simply of action and reaction (as in physics) nor to the realm of information processed chemically, genetically, or behaviorally (as in the biological world) but rather to the realm of intention or conscious purpose—a realm unique to human consciousness (as far as we know). But—like the laws of physics and cybernetics alike—the law of Karma has both individual and collective consequences for all of us.

               Like the laws of cybernetics—the laws governing physical, biological, or mechanical systems with feedback loops, the Karmic laws are likewise based on feedback, but that feedback is not only physical or informational, but also internal as well. Moreover, just as biological causality transcends individual lives, passed on genetically and behaviorally through the generations, Karmic causality likewise transcends individual life and death, for actions based on our intentions ripple through both the Nöosphere and the Biosphere on which it depends. (The Physiosphere is, of course, immortal, subject to constant transmutation, and hence ultimately unaffected by epiphenomena in either the biological or mental realms.)

               One key purpose, therefore, of meditation—the essential practice of Eastern wisdom traditions, whether Hindu, Buddhist, or Taoist—is to develop the capacity to look deeply and objectively at our own intentions—where they come from, how they are rooted in pre-existent causes and conditions in ourselves and in our world, and then, whether or not we choose to act upon them, or simply observe and let them go.  If the intention is rooted in wisdom and compassion—awareness, that is, of the pattern that connects all of us into what Martin Luther King called the “inescapable network of mutuality”—then we can choose to act on it.  If not, not.  We discover, then, that in the mental realm, hence in the social and cultural realms we inhabit on this planet, and in the Biosphere itself, what goes around always comes around.

               So how does this relate to Trump? While the laws of karma are always hard to fathom, owing to the immense complexity of causes and consequences at the mental, social, and cultural level, one could reasonably hypothesize that Trump reflects the fruition, or ripening, of the long-suppressed karmic consequences of the American experience. According to Joseph Ellis, in his excellent book American Creation, the founders—such brilliant and capable men as Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison—for all their amazing success at forging a new, ethically grounded democratic republic out of discrete British colonies with very different histories, interests, and loyalties, nevertheless were tragic failures in two areas: they failed in their initial efforts to forge equitable diplomatic relations with the Native American nations, thus enabling the horrific genocide that followed as colonizers spread west, and they failed to end racially coded slavery. These two critical moral failures of our founders, I would suggest, paved the way, first to the Civil War—which Lincoln finally recognized, in his Second Inaugural, to be karmic retribution for the shared complicity of North and South in the perpetuation of slavery—and then, through many permutations of blacks striving for equality and white backlash, to the malignant rise of Trump as the revenge of the deplorables—those working-class white people who had been deliberately and strategically brainwashed by Fox News into seeing the rise of blacks, Latinos, and other minorities as a threat to their own sense of entitlement.

               So it is conceivable that now, with this deranged thug and his fanatical, gun-worshipping followers in power, we may be reaping the whirlwind of our own, long-repressed denial and arrogance, as a “sweet land of liberty” that has tolerated slavery and racism, as the “guardian of freedom” which has wrought havoc and undermined democracy throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world, and as the champion of “progress” which has raped the planet, poisoning land, air, and water, and sealing our own and everyone else’s doom with our addiction to fossil fuels and denial of reality. What goes around comes around—with a vengeance.

               So what can we do? The cynic will say “nothing.”  The die-hard activist will say “organize and fight back.”  But I prefer to adhere to a memorable passage from the Wilhelm-Baines translation and commentary on the I-Ching, Hexagram 43 (Breakthrough):

BREAK–THROUGH.  One must resolutely make the matter known
At the court of the king.
It must be announced truthfully.  Danger.
It is necessary to notify one’s own city.
It does not further to resort to arms.
It furthers one to undertake something.

Here is the commentary that follows:

Even if only one inferior man is occupying a ruling position in a city, he is able to oppress superior men.  Even a single passion still lurking in the heart has power to obscure reason.  Passion and reason cannot exist side by side—therefore fight without quarter is necessary if the good is to prevail.

 Note how, even here, the macrocosm of the state and the microcosm of the individual psyche are seen to reflect one another. When an inferior man (Trump) occupies a ruling position, and oppresses superior men, it is the macrocosmic equivalent of a passionate rage obscuring our own rational faculties.  The comment goes on as follows:

In a resolute struggle of the good against evil, there are, however, definite rules that must not be disregarded, if it is to succeed.  First, resolution must be based on a union of strength and friendliness.  Second, a compromise with evil is not possible; evil must under all circumstances be openly discredited.  Nor must our own passions and shortcomings be glossed over.  Third, the struggle must not be carried on directly by force.  If evil is branded, it thinks of weapons, and if we do it the favor of fighting against it blow for blow, we lose in the end because thus we ourselves get entangled in hatred and passion.  Therefore it is important to begin at home, to be on guard in our own persons against the faults we have branded.  In this way, finding no opponent, the sharp edges of the weapons of evil becomes dulled.  For the same reasons we should not combat our own faults directly.  As long as we wrestle with them, they continue victorious.  Finally, the best way to fight evil is to make energetic progress in the good.

There is much wisdom in this passage. It is, in fact, a short primer in what Gandhi and King were later to develop into Satyagraha—nonviolent noncooperation with evil that is mindful, strategic, and relentless. I particularly liked the last phrase, “energetic progress in the good,” as the best way to fight evil.  Trump may well bring about the demise and collapse of the American experiment into a dysfunctional, militaristic fascist plutocracy. So we have no alternative but to resist. Our collective task is first “to make the matter known”—to speak truth to power. To be aware of the “danger” that this entails. However, “it does not further to resort to arms,” but “to undertake something.”  In my own case, I resolve to undertake Permaculture, which is the “energetic progress in the good” we need to subvert and displace the monstrous evil engulfing the world, of which Trump is the embodiment.