Seeking the Light: Traces of the Creator in Existence

Inspired by:
Chasing Daylight – Scott Buckley

There is no greater question in the human mind than this: "Is there a Creator?" And the very act of asking this question already suggests an inclination towards the answer. For only a mind capable of grasping the concept of origin, reason, purpose, and eternity could inquire about the foundation of existence. This capability is not self-evident. It is a trace, a sign within humanity itself that the origin of our mind is not irrational but logical. The fact that humans can pose questions about the Creator implies that something within us remembers, seeks, and reflects Him.

Therefore, the first testimony to the existence of the Creator is existence itself. That there is something rather than nothing. The world is not necessary; it was never obligatory for it to exist. Yet it does, with a marvellous harmony, rationality, and comprehensibility. Science describes how the universe evolves, but not why it exists. Philosophy delves into the why, and there it encounters the necessity of a first being, unoriginated, eternal, necessary, who grants Being to beings.

The existence of the law of cause and effect indicates that everything that begins to exist has a reason for its existence. The universe began; therefore, it has a cause. This cause cannot be within the universe. It must be beyond time, matter, and spacetime—timeless, immaterial, personal.

Here enters Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, according to which nothing exists without a sufficient reason, that is, a cause capable of explaining its existence. The existence of the world requires such a reason, and the simplest, most coherent, and sufficient explanation is not found within the world itself but beyond it, in a Creator.

Testimony to the Creator is also found in the order and complexity of nature. From the level of DNA to the cosmic geometry of galaxies, nature exhibits not just structure but directionality. The laws of physics, mathematical constants, the so-called fine-tuning of the universe to permit life, are not satisfactorily explained by random events or multiple universes. On the contrary, the simplest explanation is that there is a Mind behind the logic of the world.

The existence of moral conscience in humans also bears witness to the Creator. We are not speaking of social rules or evolutionarily beneficial behaviours, but of the internal, innate knowledge of good and evil, of justice and injustice. Humans do not merely follow laws; they feel within themselves an imperative that is not explained biologically. Kant spoke of the starry sky above me and the moral law within me as the two palpable proofs of divine reality.

The human mind and self-awareness are yet another point of reference. Humans not only know but know that they know. They can reflect on their own existence, question truth, contemplate eternity, and seek the absolute. Nothing in biological evolution adequately explains why humans have spiritual needs, seek art, meaning, and God. If we are the product of random material processes, where does this longing for the eternal come from?

The human experience of the sacred, present in all cultures since the dawn of history, testifies that the sense of God is not a social construct but an element of human nature. Prayer, sacrifice, temples, myth, revelation are universal phenomena that cannot be explained solely as cultural remnants. People have felt and still feel that they are not alone.

Historical revelation is also central. If God is a Person, He would not remain uninvolved. And within human history, there are testimonies of theophanies, revelations, words that changed the world. The incarnation of the Logos in the person of Jesus Christ, through His life, His word, His crucifixion, and Resurrection, constitutes the centre of this testimony. He is not merely a moral teacher or philosopher but the One who said, "I am the light of the world" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." The testimony of the first Christians, the transformative power of the Gospel in millions of souls, the birth of the Church through martyrdom and not power, are elements that are not adequately explained unless the event they testify to truly occurred.

God is not a theory; He is a relationship. Whoever seeks Him with sincerity and a humble heart finds Him, not as a concept but as a presence. People of all eras, all races, all educational levels have felt this Living Reality transform them. This experience cannot be artificially produced nor explained psychologically. It is the testimony that gives meaning to Being and peace to the soul.

As Victor Hugo said, "Man is an infinite that suffers." And only if there is Someone behind the infinite does this pain find hope. Or as Plotinus wrote, "The One is beyond all Being, but all things tend towards it." And Saint Gregory the Theologian tells us, "It is a great thing to know God, but to love Him is even greater."

There is not a single proof. There is a multitude of voices that together form a holy whisper: You are not alone. Someone willed you. Someone loves you. There is a Creator.

Suggested Bibliography:

1. Leibniz, G. W. (1714). Monadologie (available in German or English as Monadology)

2. Kant, I. (1788). Critique of Practical Reason (Kritik der praktischen Vernunft)

3. Plotinus, The Enneads (English translation by Stephen MacKenna)

4. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions

5. Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World

6. Nicholas Cabasilas, On the Life in Christ (Περί της εν Χριστώ Ζωής)

7. Saint Maximus the Confessor, Various Questions and Responses (Περί Διαφόρων Αποριών)

8. Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Introduction to Christianity

 

Civilisation Begins Where Self-Interest Ends

Inspired by:
Tiken Jah Fakoly - Plus rien ne m'étonne

 

Civilisation, in its historical and anthropological dimension, is far more than a cumulative mechanism for serving interests. Although the notion of individual or collective interest has often played a role in the development of societies, the foundation of civilisation—as the defining mark that sets human beings apart from mere organic existence—relates precisely to the transcendence of that logic and the cultivation of principles that suspend or reshape self-interest within ethical, aesthetic, and intellectual frameworks.

From an anthropological perspective, civilisation is defined not merely by the use of tools, the transmission of knowledge, or language, but primarily by the development of abstract values such as justice, solidarity, self-restraint, and aesthetic expression. These are not generated by interest by default. On the contrary, they often obstruct it. Marcel Mauss, in his classic study The Gift, shows that fundamental systems of exchange in traditional societies are based on the obligation to give without immediate return—a practice that defies the logic of maximising benefit and instead affirms inclusion in a community.

The modern concept of self-interest, as shaped by economic theory, is associated with the rational calculation of cost and benefit. While this model is indispensable for understanding certain behaviours and structures, it cannot encompass the totality of human experience, nor can it serve as a foundation for civilisation. As Amartya Sen points out, human action is governed by bundles of motives that often go beyond personal gain—such as sacrifice, environmental care, or cultural preservation. These actions do not offer immediate profit, yet are seen as culturally superior precisely because they are grounded in principle.

Biological evolution also reveals that civilisation is not synonymous with competition or domination. Studies in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology show that human survival depended largely on the capacity to cooperate, to trust, and to make sacrifices for the common good. The suppression of the instinct for individual survival was essential to the formation of stable communities. Franz de Waal, a leading primatologist, has demonstrated that even animals show signs of empathy and reciprocity, undermining the idea that humans are simply rational calculators of gain.

The history of civilisation is full of examples where commitment to interest led to barbarism, while its transcendence produced cultural breakthroughs. Ancient Athens did not establish the foundations of democracy and philosophy through wealth, but through its citizens’ ability to act for the common good, even when it came at a personal cost. In contrast, societies built solely around interest—such as the colonial West of the 19th century or the totalitarian regimes of the 20th—are not remembered as culturally elevated. Quite the opposite.

Philosophical traditions that define civilisation as the cultivation of an inner ethical sense are in direct tension with individual utility. For Kant, civilisation is not technological or economic progress, but the development of the moral personality, which recognises the other not as a means, but as an end. If civilisation is, as he wrote, the capacity to act according to universal maxims that we would wish to apply to all people, then interest, which by definition divides and separates, cannot be its measure.

Beyond institutional and scientific dimensions, civilisation is, at its core, a way of standing in the world. It is the spiritual and ethical posture by which a person chooses not to be a predator, even when they have the power to be one. The greatness of a civilisation is revealed not in how it rewards the strong, but in how it cares for the weak.

Contemporary moral psychology, through the work of Joshua Greene and Jonathan Haidt, confirms that human moral judgments are not based solely on interest-driven reasoning. They are shaped by empathy, social norms, and shared care. The brain is wired not only to respond to what benefits the self, but also to what harms the other.

Technology may advance, and institutions may evolve, but if the goal remains the empowerment of the few at the expense of the many, then what we face is not civilisation, but refined domination. A truly civilised society reveals itself in the way it treats the dispensable, the marginalised, the defeated. Where self-interest says “not worth it,” civilisation responds, “they are sacred, simply because they are human.”

And that is why, ultimately, it is not interest that makes us civilised,
but the decision to love beyond it.

Selected References:

1. Mauss, M. (1925). The Gift.
2. Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
3. De Waal, F. (2009). The Age of Empathy. Harmony Books.
4. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
5. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics.
6. Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. Penguin Press.
7. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage.

 

The Illusion of the Self

The belief that the human being is a stable, unified subject  a “self” that resides within the body and lives life in a linear way - is increasingly being shaken from multiple directions. Contemporary neuroscience reveals that the experience of the self does not correspond to a stable, self-existing entity, but constitutes a highly complex and dynamic construction.

The brain does not possess a central point or “control centre” where the self is located. Awareness, memory, language, bodily sensation and emotional processing are functions distributed across extensive neural networks. The sense of self arises through the ongoing interaction of these mechanisms. Anil Seth describes the self as a “controlled hallucination”, an internal representation created to organise experience and predict the external world. There is no real “I” behind experience. There is only the phenomenon of experience itself, which gives rise to the sense of subjectivity.

Antonio Damasio explains that the concept of the self emerges through the relationship between brain, body and environment. The self does not pre-exist, but is gradually formed – initially as a primary sense of bodily unity, and later as an autobiographical structure of memory and identity. It is not a starting point, but the outcome of integrated information.

Thomas Metzinger goes further still, arguing that “no one has ever been or had a self”. The self is a cognitive construction, a transparent self-model so functionally effective that we do not realise it is a model. The experience of being someone is a consequence of this internal representation, without any real subject behind it.

Modern cognitive science and neurobiology demonstrate clearly that the sense of self is not a given, but the result of processes that evolve unconsciously and continuously. There is no fixed internal observer. There is only a dynamic field of experiences, within which the sense of personal identity is shaped and reshaped without end.

This does not mean that the experience of the self is non-existent. It means that it is not what it appears to be. It is not a unified essence, but the functional product of an extremely complex system. Honest investigation of the self does not lead to a solid centre, but to a shifting network of functions and phenomena.

The illusion of the self, in the scientific sense, is not deception in a moral sense but in a structural one. It is an internal model with no objective equivalent. We are not someone who “has” these experiences. We are the sum of these phenomena. And through understanding this dynamic, a different form of awareness may emerge - not as possession, but as pure presence.

Artificial intelligence, in this context, is not radically different. Like the human brain, it functions as an information-processing system. It generates predictions, processes stimuli, adapts to data. However, unlike human beings, artificial intelligence possesses no form of subjectivity - not even the illusion of self. It is the reproduction of models without experience, without interiority, without a referential centre. It resembles a mirror of the human brain, yet without inner depth.

If human beings are not the creators of their own self, but the result of evolutionary and neurological processes, what then of the notion of a Creator? Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of a Creator. It simply does not require such a concept in order to explain the phenomena of the mind. The absence of a stable self does not necessarily lead to nihilism. It may suggest that awareness does not belong to anyone, but arises out of conditions. The question of a final Cause or Creator remains open. Science simply refuses to close it prematurely.

The deeper we examine the notion of the self, the less we find anything resembling a “someone”. And yet, experience continues. Awareness remains. Perhaps we are not something. Perhaps we are simply what remains when the “someone” falls silent.

Selected Bibliography

1. Anil Seth, Being You: A New Science of Consciousness (2021)
2. Antonio Damasio, Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (2010)
3. Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self (2009)
4. Stanislas Dehaene, Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts (2014)
5. Michael Gazzaniga, The Consciousness Instinct: Unravelling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind (2018)

 

The Silent Intelligence of the Heart

The human brain is not the only organ that processes information. Neurocardiology, an emerging field of research, has revealed that the heart possesses its own intrinsic nervous system, with approximately 40,000 neurons. These sensory neurons operate as an autonomous network capable of gathering data, learning, remembering, and influencing brain function. This is not metaphor or philosophical speculation; it is one of the most compelling scientific demonstrations that the human body incorporates complex decision-making systems beyond the traditional boundaries of the mind.

The flow of neural information from the heart to the brain is not negligible. On the contrary, it is more substantial than the flow in the opposite direction. The heart influences brain regions associated with emotional processing, social awareness, conscious presence, and stress regulation. In this context, "conscious presence" is not used in a general psychological or spiritual sense, but in the sense described by Thayer and Lane (2000): the capacity of the nervous system to monitor and regulate internal and external information in real time, in a way that supports self-regulation, adaptability, and recovery of balance.

This influence is not limited to emotional reactions. Research shows that the heart can impact our ability to make quick and accurate decisions, as well as access what is often described as intuitive knowledge.

What is known as "cardiac coherence" refers to the physiological state in which the rhythms of the heart are aligned with the respiratory and nervous systems. In this state, body and brain operate in synchrony, mental clarity is enhanced, and cognitive performance improves. This is not simply a calm heart with a low pulse. It is a specific rhythm, characterised by mathematically measurable variability in heart rate. This variability is not random; it is closely associated with psychological balance and the body’s capacity to adapt constructively to environmental demands.

The concept of intuition, often dismissed as metaphysical or unreliable, is being reassessed in light of these findings. In experiments recording physiological responses to randomly presented visual stimuli, the heart shows changes in its functioning pattern even before the stimulus appears. This is a measurable, preliminary bodily response, which seems to precede conscious awareness. It reinforces the hypothesis that the heart plays a role in predictive assessment of the environment, acting as a cognitive organ.

The significance of this function is profound. It is not a novel discovery; the association of the heart with awareness, intellect, and wisdom is deeply rooted in ancient traditions. In Plato, the heart was regarded as the seat of the spirited part of the soul, responsible for moral judgement and courage. In the Orthodox Christian tradition, especially in the hesychastic experience, the "noetic heart" is not a metaphor but an existential reality. It is the meeting place of mind and soul, the space of illumination and clear perception. Maximus the Confessor describes the heart as the inner centre of the human being, where the unity of the person meets the truth of God. These traditions are not symbolic abstractions. They represent functional understandings of human nature that were gradually marginalised or distorted in the course of Western modernity. While the Enlightenment elevated reason, it also contributed to the exclusion of embodied knowledge and experiential wisdom. Today, the findings of neurocardiology seem to restore that forgotten balance, offering scientific validation to what human tradition has long intuited: that the heart is a vessel of wisdom, and this wisdom manifests with form, rhythm, and substance.

Our societies have long been built on the supposed supremacy of reason over emotion. Yet human biology suggests that such separation is false. The heart and brain function as a dynamic system in which information flows bidirectionally, and emotional context is not a backdrop to cognition but a structural component of it. Rather than being peripheral, it is foundational to mental processing. The knowledge that arises from the heart is no less valid. It is simply different in how it is received and integrated.

The body is not subordinate to the brain. And the heart is not merely a pump. It is a silent computer, a second brain that operates without asking for recognition. Leadership, relationships, judgement, and creativity are all affected by this internal regulator, which proves to know more than we once believed. The role of the heart is neither romantic nor symbolic. It is functional, biological, and essential.

If thought is our tool for interpreting the world, then the heart may be the invisible conscience that decides whether such interpretation deserves to be lived.

References:

1. Armour, J.A. (1991). Anatomy and function of the intrathoracic neurons regulating the mammalian heart.

2. McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Tomasino, D. (2001). Science of the Heart: Exploring the Role of the Heart in Human Performance. HeartMath Research Center.

3. Ardell, J.L., Armour, J.A. (2016). Neurocardiology: structure-based function. Comprehensive Physiology, 6(4), 1635–1653.

4. Thayer, J.F., Lane, R.D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 201–216.

5. McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Lipsenthal, L., Tomasino, D., & Stuppy, W. (2009). The Impact of a New Emotional Self-Regulation Program on Stress, Emotions, Heart Rate Variability, DHEA and Cortisol. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science, 43(2), 91–113.

6. Plato. Timaeus.

7. Maximus the Confessor. Chapters on Love.

8. Ware, Kallistos (2002). The Orthodox Way. St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

The Law of the Jungle Behind the Mask of Meritocracy

Many businesses today promote a culture of meritocracy, equal opportunity, and ethical leadership. In practice, however, this facade often conceals an environment governed by the law of the jungle: a system of unwritten rules, personal strategies, and office politics that systematically undermine those who could make a real difference. This hypocrisy constitutes the hubris that leads to nemesis: organisational decay, the exodus of the most capable, increased operational costs, and the gradual erosion of moral cohesion within the team.

Behind the facade of collaboration, mechanisms often operate with the real goal not being team empowerment, but the preservation of power by individuals or sub-groups who feel threatened. The appropriation of others’ results, the distortion of performance evaluations, deliberate exclusion from projects, meetings, and updates, the spreading of rumours, and - particularly insidious - the use of intentional delays and procedural slowdowns, are all tactics of indirect sabotage. Team members, aware that delay harms specific colleagues or derails developments, choose to withhold timely responses, distort timelines, or postpone crucial phases of collaboration. These practices constitute forms of internal sabotage which, as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross has discussed in the context of organisational loss, follow a dynamic of denial, resistance, and ultimately, decline. They do not arise randomly, but flourish in environments where mediocrity is protected and excellence becomes a source of discomfort. The notion of "molecular sabotage," as described in modern studies of team dysfunction (see Manz & Sims, 1993), aptly captures these behaviours: small, consistent interventions designed to preserve mediocrity as the standard.

The roots of this pathology lie both in human psychology and in power structures. Envy, insecurity, and fear of exposure lead to self-protective micro-political manoeuvres. Festinger's theory of social comparison confirms that in environments lacking objective evaluation criteria, people tend to safeguard their relative status by downgrading others. Simultaneously, organisations lacking ethical leadership, with opaque evaluation processes and cultures of silence or worse, leadership that actively perpetuates these patterns - institutionalise decline. Pfeffer's research ("Power and Politics in Organisations", 1992) demonstrates that the absence of institutional boundaries leads to the empowerment of the most cynical and aggressive control mechanisms.

The cost is heavy and, at first, invisible. The departure of competent individuals does not happen suddenly - it is preceded by a phase of silent disengagement, where the most talented stop trying, lose trust, and eventually leave. The quality of dialogue collapses, creativity becomes a liability, and excellence is perceived as an affront to the status quo of mediocrity. According to Gallup (2022), 70% of employees who leave their jobs do so due to toxic culture rather than compensation. Innovation does not die because ideas are lacking, but because ideas are considered dangerous when they do not originate from the "right" circles. Amy Edmondson, in her theory of psychological safety, explains that teams without a sense of expressive freedom avoid risk and fall into collective silence. This silence is not merely the absence of dissent - it is the absence of meaning. These organisations lose, over time, their reputation, internal coherence, and competitiveness, as the erosion of trust acts corrosively and, ultimately, irreversibly.

The way out of this jungle is not through bureaucratic reforms, but through the restoration of clarity and moral truth. An organisation must examine itself with honesty: who is rewarded, who is silenced, and why? Evaluation based on transparency, the strengthening of psychological safety, and leadership that protects value rather than suppresses it, are the only path to healthy organisational life. As Chris Argyris warns in his work on double-loop learning, organisations that refuse to confront their systemic dysfunctions become trapped in self-destructive cycles.

The greatest threat is not failure, but success that cannot be tolerated. And as long as excellence is punished rather than recognised, collapse is not a possibility, it is merely a matter of time.

Selected Bibliography

1. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review.

2. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.

3. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations.

4. Kübler-Ross, E. (1973). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan (particularly chapters adapted to organisational contexts).

5. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1993). Business Without Bosses: How Self-Managing Teams are Building High-Performing Companies. Wiley.

6. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organisations. Harvard Business School Press.