HEALING CHANGE
Years ago one of our ancestors, probably a woman, questioned the meaning of life. She asked “the last why” and changed the course of humanity. Her man most likely provided the answer because being a man he already knew everything there was to know about life. His answer though, was different from all the other answers he had ever given. It was certainly obvious why hungry predators were avoided and why particular plants weren't eaten; but the answer to “the last why” was difficult to grasp. After chasing it around his mind for awhile the man became so sure his answer was right he shared it with a friend. The friend saw things differently however, and humanity was divided.
They began arguing about the answer and before long the former friends were enemies. Eventually what began as a fight over an answer progressed into conflict over aspects of life increasingly removed from the answer. The argument never was settled so in the years between then and now this same process was repeated many times with successive answers. The consequences are Judaism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, their thousands of recognizable, variously rigorous, religious/philosophical offspring and literally billions of misinterpretations, one for each of us. Each division is cut in the face of humanity.
They are life threatening; but if we care and if it is not too late, a simple change will heal the wounds. All each of us has to do is accept the fact that in the traditional sense there is no answer to “the last why”. Granted, given our history of trying to fill that void, releasing our 'philosophies' will be most difficult. Still, if we don’t make this healing change we will continue to cut humanity into parts until we self-destruct. If we do accept that there is no answer to “the last why” we will stop trying to fill the void under it; and this unnatural activity will be replaced by our innate natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. With this “ideal reaction to the void” we will change courses from our present heading toward certain self-destruction; and return to the one that leads to self-realization, where we might discover why.
Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 11:02PM
Reader Comments (5)
Scarcity is the source of much, if not all conflict. I may get along well with you, but if there is only one unit of food that each of us need to live, we will not be as friendly as if there were enough for both of us. And people don't stop once they've had enough, which is where much conflict could be avoided.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your first sentence is not yet correct. Your second sentence is not as definite as it could be and your third sentence can be connected to the first two by modifying its context.
The greatest source of conflict is our effort to fill "the void" with money and all the stuff it can buy. There is not enough money in the universe to fill the void in one of us so the "scarcity is the source of much... conflict." that cannot be "avoided" because more will never be "enough". Some of this conflict is over the food we need to fill our stomachs but at the moment food seems scarce only because so much of the money we need to fill our stomachs is diverted by our materialistic reaction to the void.
Now, while most of the conflict is over money, the conflict caused by our religious/philosophical efforts to fill the void is a close second and there is no scarcity of religions and philosophies. Nevertheless, if we do not change it seems quite likely in the near future the void will be pretty well forgotten in the struggle to survive in an increasingly hostile environment with scarce and diminishing resources. If we devolve to that point then your first sentence will be correct and your second sentence should be revised to remove the notion "we will not be as friendly." for the conflict will be universally deadly. Thanks for your comment. Doug.E.Barr
"Years ago one of our ancestors, probably a woman, questioned the meaning of life." ... "because being a man he already knew everything there was to know about life." ... wtf?
If you hadn't started with those nonsensical and stereotypical remarks I might've enjoyed your little article a bit better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was suggesting with what I thought was a bit of humor that a woman being the more thoughtful of the species gave birth to humanity and a man with a stereotypical know it all attitude divided humanity. Thanks for pointing out I may not have been as clear as I should have been for you. However, I won't change what I have written unless I receive another complaint. Doug.E.Barr
Given the infinite possibilities of humanity I refuse to let go of any unanswered question. How could a person ever choose to simply ignore as definitive a concept of the meaning of life. I would rather spend my days with people who have a breadth of answers to that question than with any who simply ignore it. That which slices the face of humanity is not our differences, but out inability to accept those differences. Life is beautiful for it's variance, not ugly because of it. It's lack of tolerance, not abundance of opinion, that creates strife, it always has been.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not much of what you write makes sense to me. What you mean by "Given the infinite possibilities of humanity I refuse to let go of any unanswered question." is not clear. My guess at what you mean by "infinite possibilities of humanity" is the infinite possibilities of genetic variation. If I have guessed correctly I am still unsure what "I refuse to let go of any unanswered question." means and what your refusal has to do with "the infinite possibilities of humanity."If you mean you refuse to give up asking questions that explore the infinite possibilities of your unique innate capacities then I am with you.
I am not sure how a person can consider "as definitive a concept of the meaning of life." I am quite sure definitive concept is oxymoronic. Look around. You are seeing the consequences of spending your "days with people who have a breadth of answers to the question "What is the meaning of life?" Based on the available evidence my guess is our days will be fewer living with a variety of answers than they would be if we lived without the answers. That is not the same as ignoring the question. By all means, wonder about the meaning of life. That wonder is what keeps us "reaching out to the limits of our capacities...."for the answer. It is when we answer the question that we quit wondering and bring an end to life.
You really have to be careful when talking about differences. Our unique mental and physical capacities, our biological differences, our genetic variations are indeed what makes "life...beautiful". Our unique religious/philosophies are what make life "ugly". Religious/philosophical answers end wonder, inhibit the "reaching out to the limits of our capacities...", the source of beauty. They have to be defended in ugly ways. Without them there would be no intolerance. In fact, the path to "tolerance" and life without strife, will only be found in freedom from all answers to the question that can not be answered. Doug.E.Barr
this is kind of sexist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither by intent nor definition is there any hint of sexism in this essay. You either don't know the definition of sexist or you are inclined to find sexist remarks where ever you look. Doug.E.Barr
This is really confusing. I really don't grab the concept of it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The confusion is not in the writing. Doug.E.Barr