Dispatch from the Center of the Universe

by Mandira Pattnaik

Mandira Pattnaik

Recently, I went to an automobile workshop for the first time. I don’t drive and the family car and its upkeep and repair are my husband’s responsibility. I’ve never had any interest except for this time when I decided to accompany him. The waiting lounge was tastefully decorated with comfy sofas and a center table, newspapers and magazines, a wide TV beaming a popular Hindi comedy movie, a beverage vending machine, and a suggestion box. The picture above is that of one of its walls. I wondered who thought of painting the wall in the manner that reading and pondering over the quotes would easily consume several minutes of anyone waiting at the place. It also amazed me that here I was, relating to the knowledge and awareness of someone like Henry Ford, with whom I share absolutely nothing — not the era, age or gender, nor nationality, nor the profession, nor his religion or race. And yet, words connect us to a level of consciousness from where I find a lot to examine, gather and imbibe.

Later, it was curious that I remembered both the décor of the lounge with considerable precision, and the quotes on the wall I had photographed. As a writer, both could come to my aid in the future, as all writers practice this exciting game of osmotic flow: exacting and borrowing from surroundings and creating something new, thus returning a newer form to the existence one belongs to.

As an observer-creator, the realization that one has the unique opportunity to absorb what the world has to offer, and at the same time, be in the shoes of the Supreme Creator, even if it is for a miniscule scope, is both powerful and humbling. This idea is almost like a paradox: that one knows everything and that one knows nothing and must need to observe, absorb and learn. According to Plato’s account of Socrates, Socrates was completely convinced that he knew nothing, and was said to have concluded that nobody knew anything, and that he was only wiser than others because he was the only person who recognized his own ignorance.

It is funny how one thing leads to another in this quest for Mimesis and reflection; the former was the subject of a previous column. I’m also drawn to what the shape and form of that re-creation should be, at least what the theme or subject matter of contemporary writing, and by extension, popular reading, should be. It is evident that writers are actually dealing in — either ideas imprinted on the senses; or such things as are perceived by attending to the passions and operations of the imaginative mind; or lastly, a collage formed with the help of experience and knowledge. Human knowledge again is, at best, severely limited, because it is either multiplying, dividing, or barely representing those that already originally exist in the aforementioned ways.

In this context, perhaps in a vulgar sense, the philosophical thought school that each and every living person is an observer at the center of the cosmic universe surprises me. As writer, artist or poet, humans can see and record, merely by virtue of their journey through it. I reckon, it is, in the least, a hugely flattering one, however, not necessarily outlandish or egoistic. The universe is expanding in all directions, and therefore there is not even a hypothetical point of origin, and technically it is not wrong for each and every living person to think oneself at the center of it all. From a more pragmatic perspective, it has also been argued that for the person the universe exists because they are at its center to observe it. Interestingly, according to the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) and the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) the great spokes of the cosmic cartwheel emerge from us and merge back into us.

A realization of this perhaps delivers additional responsibility to humans, and particularly artist-writers, as regards what they leave behind in terms of new creations on the society surviving themselves. In the ongoing debate about Art created using Artificial Intelligence, this thought assumes increased gravitas.

“Studies have shown the brain has higher computational power efficiency than electronic computers by orders of magnitude. This has led to efforts to attempt to design computer architectures to better emulate the brain,” says Timothy J. Jorgensen in an article dated March 14, 2022. Likewise, information processing and generating output by using algorithms is not enough according to two milestone theorems — Godel’s theorem and Searle’s ‘Chinese Room’ experiment. It is far larger, wider and essential. And that is where the creativity of human mind exists. What then is the purpose of human mind and what is the purpose of creativity? The answer lies in the furtherance of physical and philosophical truths, and the concept of imagination and dreams, which by definition do not have any concrete evidence. And, perhaps in a comprehensive look towards personhood as a member of a complex, axiomatic set, and the inner Self as an entity that both draws and emits the light of understanding and knowledge.