In the earlier article “The Good Ship Morality” we considered the idea of a moral universe, or rather a natural or innate morality at the heart of all things, concluding that the evidence was quite mixed at best and that we could not rely on a natural cosmic goodness but rather would need to invent our own and should follow Camus and create hope where there may be none to be found.  This article seeks to explore the sources of humanity’s projection of reason and morality on the universe. 

Humans: Desperately Seeking Significance Since 10,000 BC

In the human centric view, the world was interpreted in human terms and meaning came from the skies and high places where the Gods lived - think Mount Olympus, Asgard, Heaven.   Humanity took the lessons from these Gods in the form of visions or visitations or tablets of stone and the universe was in some ways small: the earth and the heavens beyond the clouds.  The Gods and their angelic emissaries visited via chariots, or were carried to us on their wings but they looked like us or versions of us – for example the Egyptians imagined them as hybrids of humans and animals; think Osiris or Anubis.  Man was made in God’s image after all (He was obviously having a really tough day creativity wise).  A whole profession grew into divining often ambiguous signs with the help of entrails, sacrifice, drugs, incense and ritual – it was a good time to be a priest and get the party started.  And even where not specifically looking to Gods, humanity remained convinced of some kind of order and sense in the articulation of ideas such as karma, fate and everything happening for a reason – although the Trump re-election has now put an end to all that nonsense. 

Only relatively recently has there been an opposing view that the universe is vast, silent, and seemingly indifferent to our existence.  So why have humans have always sought patterns, purpose, and morality in nature and is this search for meaning an objective truth or a psychological necessity in order to live with the human condition?

The Man in the Moon and the Conquistadors

If we look to the origins of projection it seems natural for humans to project their human centric view on the world.  In evolutionary psychology humans had to evolve to assess and recognise patterns for survival:  where to find the best berries, avoid the predators, distinguish the friendly face of a tribe member from a deadly insurgent from a rival group.  This pattern forming looked for the human in areas even where none existed and persists to this day (e.g. the man in the moon, seeing faces in clouds or in rock formations, imagining our animal friends to be exhibiting human behaviour). 

 But humanity went further than simply seeing these human images in the natural world, also creating ancient myths, religions and belief systems which projected the human on to elements of nature in order to rationalise them.  Early civilisations assigned gods and spirits to natural phenomena (thunder and lightning, the sun, the sea) and made them all too human, with their own hierarchies, chief gods and political intrigue.   Some of this is hugely imaginative and fantastic to explore, some much more mundane as the Gods fight amongst themselves, are beset with petty jealousies, or interested in sex with humans - Zeus becoming a swan for example to seduce the queen of Sparta and starting the practice of catfishing in an original way at least.

This projection continued in a more localised form as civilisations travelled and explored and science began to enable quests to new world; the projection this time being more of a cultural one.  The age of exploration as European travellers from Spain and Portugal sailed forth around the world was driven by a mix of religion, economic ambition and scientific curiosity.  But the justification was often shrouded less in the economics of gold and riches (albeit this was no doubt the main purpose for most) but more in divine purpose - bringing civilisation and Christianity to new lands - just as the missionary must convert the primitive in order that he might be “saved” from his ignorance.  For these explorers there was a narrative of destiny and superiority projected on to a new world which was not at all waiting for them and would have quite possibly fared better had they never arrived given the enslavement and sickness they brought with them.

This habit of cultural and projection has had its thinkers who have attempted to rationalise the universe and the human experience.   From Plato and his “cave shadows” versus ideal forms to Cartesian rationalism of the brain in a vat, to Kant and his categorical imperatives (and his Monty Python “pissant” take), the world has been subject to metaphysical explanation for thousands of years.   

Science vs. Meaning: An Indifferent Reality?  Or Does 1+1 = God?

Science proposes that the universe operates on laws of physics, not morality or intention.   These laws, at least based on current scientific understanding, operate at the level of mechanics rather than sentiment or morality.    There is no moral system in play but rather a set of equations and mathematics - but which nevertheless seeks to explain in human terms - indeed how else could we do this?   Yet the Biblical sense of man being the essential heart of the cosmos persisted until relatively recent times; the Copernican principle that we are not this centre dates from the 16th century and was the subject of heretical criticism by the church.   Ultimately humanity was trying to not simply explain (maths and equations seek to explain however we have yet to have a religion based on mathematics but perhaps it will come with AI and its potentially ultimate loneliness) but rather to find meaning, sense, a divine master plan.

However, if we take the Anthropic principle and insist that we are special, an intellectual centre of the Universe then, whilst we can envisage a universe that allows for our existence, it does not necessarily imply meaning or at least any meaning in human terms.  

The Human Imposition of Morality and Order

If there is either no innate sense to the universe or fundamental plan that we are part of rather than a footnote, never mind an essential morality, then are we part of a cosmic joke with everything set to random after our creator bumped into the “meaning machine” by mistake and changed the setting?  Are we simply ants on the shore, building sandcastles but unaware of the well-nourished tourist about to thrown down his towel on top of us and top up his tan?   Where does that leave us?  Inventing new Gods, “American Gods” such as the internet in order to stave off our boredom and fear and spend our days looking at screens in an empty daze?   Do we reconnect with our environment and get in touch with a green, pagan God and go hug a tree?  With Nietzsche’s “death of God” comes the challenge of inventing new ones and defining ethics without a cosmic moral authority.  Existentialists lead by Sartre will argue that meaning is something we must create, not discover.  To do is to be rather than to be is to do.   Or perhaps more attractive still is Sinatra’s Do Be Do Be Do.

But even rationalists and secular thinkers still rely on constructed ethical systems—and surely this is this just another projection?   How can we know that we are right or indeed that our hypothesis makes sense?   Descartes’ brain escaped the VAT by forming a foundational position of cogito ergo sum, but what if even our thinking is triggered by an electrode attached to our brains by an evil genius - or the Matrix’s agent Smith?   There seem to be few foundations we can count on unless we project.   The bush is burning and we decide to see a sign of God’s work rather than go insane contemplating the absurd and our cosmic loneliness.  After all, what else can we do while hurtling through space on a rock at 67,000 mph?

 Does Projection Make It Less Real?

However, instead of considering this moral and rational projection as a weakness, perhaps we should embrace a more pragmatic view.   Even if meaning is an invention, does that make it any less valuable?  If you nurture, if you love - these can be deep and satisfying experiences in their own right and are no less good even if we explain them through a chemical change in the brain or a hormonal imbalance.  Embrace the natural drugs and enjoy them for what they are just like the ancient priests.   Essential human constructs such as art, cinema, literature, and philosophy are important in shaping human experience and giving meaning to our lives, often through a shared act of the imagination.  To stand in awe before a Hopper or Turner or share the stories of Dostoyevsky and Roth or be part of the audience watching The Wings of Desire or Days of Heaven. 

 It's Only Rock and Roll But I like It

In conclusion, do we embrace absurdity and accept that there is gulf between the rational human and the world, or do we continue to impose meaning, however arbitrary or temporary until the next imposition strikes us?  Redefining the absurd on our own terms, recognising that we are quite probably only glimpsing a tiny part of the universal vista in front of us.  Accepting that the world may be beyond human imagination is an impossible task as we seek the eternal due to an inherent psychological need for the universe to behave to a human narrative. 

Is reason a human limitation or our greatest tool for navigating the void?  Ultimately, does it matter if the universe is indifferent, as long as we are not?   If an indifferent universe provides no innate meaning that we can thus far divine, are we not free to define our own?  A meaning that may be more satisfying than the rational in its humanity. 

In the meaningless life, in an indifferent universe, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.  So get out there and dance.  Do Be Do Be Do.

Steve Robson is a lapsed academic, sometime transaction banker and existential son who spends his time between Canary Wharf towers, arthouse cinemas and French cafes. A true believer that the unexamined life is not worth living and living proof that there is never an angst too far, he somehow manages to believe in nothing aside from a Camus inspired philosophy of human salvation and love, his hero’s passion for the beauty of an indifferent earth and more personally the élan and elegance of the Roger Federer backhand