|
From Existential Anguish to Procedural Feedback Sartre and the Druid Finn on Meaning in a Random
Universe By Bodhangkur 1. Introduction: Two Realists Confronting the Void Jean-Paul
Sartre and the modern druid Finn begin from the same stark premise: the human
appears as a random event in an ocean of randomness. There is
no transcendent author, no divine plan, no metaphysical teleology. The human,
like every other emergent, finds itself cast into being without reason or
guarantee. Yet this ontological shock does not annihilate the possibility of
meaning; rather, it demands that meaning be made. For
Sartre, this necessity culminates in existentialism: man, abandoned in
a meaningless cosmos, must invent himself through free choice. For Finn, it
resolves into Procedure Monism: every emergent is a local iteration of
a universal set of rules—the Universal Procedure (UP)—that constrains random
energy into coherent form. Within this frame, “meaning” is not transcendental
but functional, a local strategy for equilibrium. Both
thinkers stand on the edge of absurdity; one responds with freedom,
the other with function. 2. The Ontological Field: Being and Procedure Sartre
inherits the metaphysical architecture of Western humanism, then detonates
it. In Being and Nothingness, he distinguishes between being-in-itself
(the inert being of things) and being-for-itself (consciousness). The
human, as for-itself, discovers itself as a hole in being—a
nothingness capable of negation and projection. It can ask “What shall I
become?” because there is no predetermined answer. Hence, existence
precedes essence. Finn
rejects the dualism implicit in Sartre’s ontology. There is no “nothingness,”
only discontinuity—a field of quantised energy differentials
continually stabilising and dissolving under procedural constraint. Existence
is not suspended above being; it is the rule-governed flash of being.
To “exist” is to operate temporarily as an identifiable configuration of
energy. Where Sartre defines man by his freedom from essence, Finn
defines him by his functionality within constraint. An
example clarifies the contrast: ·
For Sartre, a human choosing a vocation (say, a
scientist) invents himself ex nihilo, his decision a pure act of freedom. ·
For Finn, that same act is the system’s adaptive
recalibration—an emergent aligning with the constraints that ensure continued
viability (satisfaction, competence, social stability). Freedom,
for Sartre, is metaphysical; for Finn, procedural. 3. The Necessity of Invented Meaning Both
thinkers agree that the human cannot endure meaninglessness. A system without
teleological orientation decays; a consciousness without purpose
disintegrates. Thus, meaning must be invented, not discovered. Sartre’s
invention is existential project. One projects oneself toward a freely
chosen goal, thereby giving coherence to one’s life. A writer writes, a
revolutionary acts, a lover commits—each act a declaration that “I am
this.” Finn’s
invention is adaptive purpose. Every emergent, from bacterium to
mammal, constructs temporary aims that stabilise energy flow. The amoeba
moves toward nutrients; the mammal seeks shelter; the human devises
long-range goals—career, relationship, philosophy—to sustain systemic equilibrium. In both
systems, meaning is the by-product of functioning. Yet Sartre’s frame
privileges moral and self-defining commitment; Finn’s privileges procedural
and thermodynamic stability. 4. Anguish Reinterpreted: From Metaphysical Terror to
Functional Feedback Sartre’s anguish
is the dread of absolute freedom. When I choose, I choose not only for myself
but, symbolically, for all humankind. There is no external authority to
absolve me. The realization that every decision projects a universal image of
humanity produces vertigo—the feeling that one stands suspended over the
abyss of nothingness. Finn
translates this emotional topology into systems language. Anguish,
pain, anxiety, guilt—these are not metaphysical revelations but feedback
signals, indicating that the emergent has drifted out of equilibrium.
Suffering is not proof of cosmic abandonment but of procedural
misalignment. It compels focus, concentration, and renewed engagement in
the survival task. For
instance, Sartre’s soldier, paralysed by the horror of choice—should he join
the Resistance or stay with his mother?—embodies existential anguish. Finn
would reinterpret the same moment as a feedback overload: the system
cannot maintain coherence under contradictory imperatives. Pain drives
re-prioritisation; once a stable decision is enacted, anguish subsides. In short: For
Sartre, anguish is the price of freedom. 5. The Mature Human: From Authenticity to Operational
Stability Both
Sartre and Finn reserve the term mature for a human who has learned to
operate without illusion. For
Sartre, the mature individual lives in authenticity—aware that there
is no essence or divine script, yet choosing and acting with full
responsibility. To blame one’s nature, society, or God is bad faith. For Finn,
maturity means procedural alignment—the capacity to interpret feedback
correctly and adapt efficiently. Immaturity manifests as dependency, denial,
or externalisation of regulation (the belief in transcendence). The mature
mammal self-regulates; the immature one delegates control to gods,
ideologies, or other surrogates. In both
systems, the mature human is autonomous. Sartre grounds autonomy in moral
freedom; Finn grounds it in systemic self-sufficiency. 6. Convergence and Divergence Convergence: ·
Both thinkers dismiss transcendence and affirm
the contingency of existence. ·
Both define meaning as humanly generated. ·
Both see suffering as integral to the process of
becoming. Divergence: ·
Sartre’s existentialism is phenomenological
and ethical; Finn’s monism is procedural and energetic. ·
Sartre’s anguish is a revelation of freedom;
Finn’s is a diagnostic instrument. ·
Sartre’s authenticity culminates in moral
responsibility; Finn’s equilibrium culminates in homeostatic stability. In
Sartre’s universe, man is condemned to be free because there is no
God. 7. Illustrative Example: The Engineer and the Druid Consider
a bridge collapsing. ·
The Sartrean
engineer, facing the ruins, feels anguish: his design failed; his choices
defined him; the failure mirrors the absurdity of human striving. Yet he
recommits—he will build again, for meaning resides in the act of rebuilding. ·
The Finnian druid, observing the same collapse,
interprets it procedurally: an instability exceeded tolerance thresholds; the
system signalled failure; new constraints must be designed. The feedback is
not moral but mechanical. Correct the rule, rebalance the energy flow,
continue. Both
rebuild the bridge. But Sartre’s reconstruction is existential redemption;
Finn’s is procedural recalibration. 8. Conclusion: From Existential Heroism to Procedural
Maturity Sartre’s
existentialism and Finn’s Procedure Monism describe the same drama at
different scales. Sartre narrates it from within consciousness—as the
story of a self that must invent meaning. Finn narrates it from above—as
the systemic necessity by which any emergent maintains identity in chaos. Sartre’s
human is heroic, trembling before nothingness yet forging meaning in defiance
of it. In both, meaning
arises not from revelation but from response. Whether called freedom or
feedback, it is the same operational imperative: to act, to adapt, to
stabilise oneself as a transient but coherent event in an indifferent
universe. Thus,
Sartre’s anguish and Finn’s feedback are two expressions of the same law: To be
real and identifiable is to regulate one’s randomness. On the Purpose of a
Mammal (as human) |