I have been reading and vibing with the idea that the conditions that allow the Universe to support things like stars and galaxies and stability are the same conditions that support life. This suggests life is an extension of stars. Yet we already know that we are literal stardust. And we have thinkers like Tim Ferris write that we are the parts of the Universe that think and talk. We should not be so surprised. We should remember that stars are the parts of the Universe that shine and we are the parts that write by their light.
Stars even die like we do. When we die, our molecules (or proteins, in biological units) get absorbed by other creatures. When stars die, they often give back much of their mass to interstellar gas clouds out of which form future stars. Not all stars do this. Primarily, the ones with the best chance of forming life do so. Stars must die as we die if they are to turn into life.
Stars go through life stages and give off different kinds of light based on what they are burning. Stars can be alone or in pairs. Sometimes they are equal partners and sometimes there is a dominant partner who barely moves while the submissive one scurries around. Stars can pass by a cluster or even galaxy and, depending on the interaction, get absorbed into the collective or rejected and shot out into the abyss. Stars can burn slowly and live a long time or shine their corner of the galaxy but die quickly.
I am having a harder and harder time seeing differences between people and stars. Maybe we are stars -- literal, tiny pieces of star. Not 'we are made of stardust' but we are stardust'. Not my fault I'm not massive enough to induce fusion anymore than it's the star's fault it's too voluminous to fit into my jeans.
Nietzsche opens "Zarathustra" with the eponymous hero (One day I'm going to write about a hero named Eponymous) asking the Sun what meaning it would have if it had no one to shine for. Now we know that is a tautology. And rather one-sided -- we too are shining for the Sun.
Stars even die like we do. When we die, our molecules (or proteins, in biological units) get absorbed by other creatures. When stars die, they often give back much of their mass to interstellar gas clouds out of which form future stars. Not all stars do this. Primarily, the ones with the best chance of forming life do so. Stars must die as we die if they are to turn into life.
Stars go through life stages and give off different kinds of light based on what they are burning. Stars can be alone or in pairs. Sometimes they are equal partners and sometimes there is a dominant partner who barely moves while the submissive one scurries around. Stars can pass by a cluster or even galaxy and, depending on the interaction, get absorbed into the collective or rejected and shot out into the abyss. Stars can burn slowly and live a long time or shine their corner of the galaxy but die quickly.
I am having a harder and harder time seeing differences between people and stars. Maybe we are stars -- literal, tiny pieces of star. Not 'we are made of stardust' but we are stardust'. Not my fault I'm not massive enough to induce fusion anymore than it's the star's fault it's too voluminous to fit into my jeans.
Nietzsche opens "Zarathustra" with the eponymous hero (One day I'm going to write about a hero named Eponymous) asking the Sun what meaning it would have if it had no one to shine for. Now we know that is a tautology. And rather one-sided -- we too are shining for the Sun.
