Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Consider Again That Pale Blue Dot

By Gregon

The wonderful rhetoric of Carl Sagan, mixed with cosmic imagery and the achingly-beautiful music of Clint Mansell:

Philosophically speaking, I have some arguments against the whole “we are insignificant against the size of the cosmos” meme (depends whether you consider physical space or consciousness of primary importance in my opinion). But there are still many heartfelt insights in there that we could all take time to consider.

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

7 Comments

  1. thoughts of no consequence concerning insignicance
    Evolutionary theory: people who are insignificant but have an ego that prevents them from believing they are insignificant are more likely to survive and have children. It is important that they continue themselves.

    Gestalt theory: insignificance is the background upon which significance gains its significance.

    Identity theory: people who consider themselves insignificant act in such a way as to be insignificant.

    Relating…

    Psychoanalytic theory: size isn’t everything.

    Epistemological theory: solipsism – there is only me.

    Father Dougal McGuire theory: perspective.

  2. Insignificance
    Anthony North (a friend & former Grailer) made me realize that the fact we are aware of our own insignificance, is precisely what makes us significant.

    1. guilty
      Indeed, what makes us significant is that we are the only beings on this planet who consider whether we are significant or not, whether we have a moral right to do what we do.

      We are the only beings on the planet that are even aware of the question.

      1. I think we’re playing with
        I think we’re playing with words really. We definitely get to define ourselves as significant; it is easy to do after all, especially if we are not really concerned with the criteria. It might be the ability to do so that is the reason why, it is as good as any.

        Personally I think people are of very high significance, but I guess the question really is not whether they are to me, but whether they ‘are’. I don’t know of any external criteria to cross check against that isn’t me, or another person.

        We can call significance on many things though. Especially if we look at evolution and geology. Millions of events that have nothing to do with consciousness in how it is referred to in the human brain have shaped life. Continental drift and the physics and chemistry of melting above subduction zones is one that comes to mind. How the continents have moved, connected, split and the related volcanism has had quite an affect on evolution. Obviously that is highly significant to us, but it is not conscious slightly mingling the distinction between significance in physical or conscious reality.

        Then we have the philosophical issue of the fact of extinction (and maybe even of the extinction of this universe in trillions of years time) – primarily the extinction of conscious sentient species. Admittedly we do not know of any yet, but you can bet it has happened. Whether we are significant using the entire external universe as a reference point (which I think is the typical reference point) is difficult to judge when it may wipe us out with apparent indifference. That should also be one of the standards of significance, surely, especially if we are going to allow our own opinions in as a valid external reference.

  3. Also as a side note I’d be
    Also as a side note I’d be interested in how we’d differentiate between a soul and a consciousness in this sense. It seems that consciousness might just be becoming the new language to swap out a few outdated ideas and pour a few new ones into under a more modern noun.

    If we can differentiate between soul and consciousness as items then it must mean we know something about them and since we know nothing of the working of the soul and we are differentiating between the easy problem and hard problem of consciousness (and I expect that here we are not really referring to the easy problem) we are affectively comparing soul vs hard problem and I think really we are close to just using consciousness as a more palatable noun than soul.

  4. hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm
    that video was really cool. i wish more people in this world would take a break from the rat race, step back, and look at the big picture.

    I should really get around to reading that book I have by Sagan at some point here…

  5. from the Nuff-Said-Dept.
    We are universe exploring itself.

    Each of us, a cosm unto themselves. Engaged in an endless agape (unconditional and voluntary) with everything.

    To unfurl the sails and to boldly sail beyond the sunset, going “Hey, that’s interesting…”

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

Mobile menu - fractal