The Last Why: the precis
INTRODUCTION 1-2
Our Nature 3-4
Our body 3-4
Our mind 3-4
Our spirit 3-4
Our reactions to the void 5
The ideal 5-9
The absolutely restrictive 10-12
The absolutely permissive 13
Our blended reactions 14
The continuum of reactions 15-22
Our resultant reaction 23-24
Changing our reactions 25-28
CONCLUSION 29-31
Introduction
While studying to be a teacher I imagined a desperate student asking me some version of, “What’s happening?” I learned that neither my religious ‘inheritance’ nor any one thing I’d read provided a reasonable answer; and believing I should know it before I was asked, I set out to find the answer. I began, believing there had to be one crystal clear explanation based on biological facts of life rather than on dead theories. I remember thinking as the Apollo astronauts orbited the earth, I should not see ‘borders’ between individuals either. Later on when physicists were publicizing their hope of finding the “grand unifying theory” of nature, it occurred to me there should be a grand unifying fact of human nature. It took some time but if the students my search kept me from teaching were to now ask me, “What’s happening?”, I would tell them it is all the consequence of asking “Why am I?”, the question I call “the last why”. Even though I suggest it gave birth to humanity and so could be considered the first “Why?”, I called “Why am I?” the last why because after viewing all the evidence of diversity and considering the number of times it has been asked, I concluded “Why am I?” has not been answered nor will it be, in the conventional sense. Thus, if we can imagine a time when all the questions that can be answered have been, “Why am I?” will remain unanswered. Indeed, the first probe into meaning of life will be “the last why”. (1)
When one of our ancestors first asked “the last why” s(he) discovered the answer missing, the metaphysical unknowable, “the void”. Instinctively our ancestor reacted as s(he) had to scores of physical unknowns, with fear, anxiety, panic, terror and similar emotions. S(he) also had the urge to run; but the void was within so there was no escape. Consequently our ancestor tried filling it to mitigate the physiological reactions to the void. Now, of the four significant events I see in the history of humanity, the first attempt to fill the void ranks third after the conception and birth of humanity. Prior to this attempt, all activity, including the questioning that gave birth to humanity, was biologically motivated, natural activity. The first attempt to fill the void introduced into our existence philosophically motivated unnatural activity. At the time it seemed like a reasonable reaction and we haven’t changed our minds. We keep trying to fill the void. Though the number of ways we try to fill the void has increased significantly since the first, our nature and the method of our experiments have not changed; and the results continue to be predictable. It is as if we are living within and proving “the law of human nature”. (2)
Our Nature
The common nature I see consists of four elements: body, mind, spirit and our reaction to the void. Our body is the integration of realized potential physical capacity, physical activity and physical knowledge. Our mind is the integration of realized potential mental capacity, mental activity and mental knowledge. Our spirit is the ‘light’ indicating our ‘degree of life’. Though they could be, our present reactions to the void are not the same, nor do we all ask “the last why”. We inherit our reactions to the void from the common pool that has grown since the first reaction; and we can continue living an inherited reaction an entire lifetime without ever asking “why?” Some of us do ask “Why am I?” and react anew. Whatever, we all commonly react to the void. (3)
Our nature can be represented by the most common three dimensional shape. The three aspects of our body beg to be represented by a triangle with three equal sides. Likewise our mind begs to be represented by the same shape of the same size. Our spirit has no form but I can imagine it ‘shining’ through a ‘window’ of the same size and shape that represents our body and mind. Joining these three facets of our nature creates a tetrahedron I see resting on the fourth equal facet I imagine represents our reaction to the void. It seems appropriate that the tetrahedron, the shape of the carbon atom, the building block of life, is also the ‘shape’ of our nature, the building block of humanity. We all have this identical shape but we have unique capacities; and though we can recognize the facets there are no seams. Indeed, we are identically, a unique three dimensional seamless body/mind/spirit, in reaction to the void. (4)
Our reactions to the void are blends of what I call the ideal reaction to the void and either the absolutely restrictive or absolutely permissive reactions. The ideal reaction, the same for each of us, is exclusively, reaching out simultaneously to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. This is the biologically motivated natural activity that created our present human form from the first single cells of humanity; and by replication created each of us. Natural activity is restricted to that which permits us to realize our potential capacities, to become what we are capable of being. Natural activity integrates our body/mind/spirit. Given our evolutionary history it would appear the intended purpose of natural activity is self-realization, life; and so without ever focusing on it, natural activity just happens to be the ideal reaction to the void. (5)
The ideal reaction to the void is uniquely demanding. There is no theory except that we are, to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and God. The only goal is to realize our potential capacities; our purpose being self-realization. Our spirit provides direction but in conjunction with activity for our ‘light’ does not illuminate our way. Rather, it indicates the degree to which we are “reaching out…”. With no external push or pull, the ideal reaction requires self-motivated persistence; the utmost sensitivity to our spirit, the spirit of others and the spirit of God; and the patience to wait for self-realization. The ideal presents a seamless, simultaneous responsibility to our self, to others, to God and to the system that supports life. To meet this responsibility we must care unconditionally that we reach out to the limits of our capacities, that others become what they are capable of being, that God can be; and that Nature is in no way diminished. Finally, the ideal reaction to the void requires faith to ‘blindly’ “reach out…” into unknown potentiality. (6)
Although the ideal reaction to the void is uniquely demanding, given its apparent characteristics, the life resulting seems to be commonly and commensurately rewarding. Among the biological ‘rewards’, the spirit we generate is at its maximum intensity leaving no dark corners in our being. With no external demands we have the sense of being in control of our life. Though bound by the ultimate responsibility, within those natural boundaries we feel completely free to become what we are capable of being. Reaching out to the limits of our capacities is accompanied by a sense of fulfillment as we accomplish our purpose of self-realization. In this accomplishment there is a sense of satisfaction. The fact that our natural activity and expanding realized capacities are unique and equally necessary to others gives us a feeling of self-worth. With this sense of belonging to and being needed by a population of totally interdependent individuals there is a sense of security. As well, we experience pleasure, joy, elation, delight, happiness and other bio-buzzes with the natural activity of self-realization; and there is the exhilaration of having the faith to “reach out…” justified. (7)
We reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God at the rate that is the optimum for each of us. We have only one deadline, the finished line that encircles our potential capacities. At the optimum rate we miss nothing. We neither run out of nor pass over time. In the ideal there is the perfect tension in the ‘thread’ of our existence. Limits are realized but the degree of frustration we feel is ideally suited to direct us into unrealized potential. A constant concern that we are meeting our responsibilities creates just the right amount of urgency. This ‘edge’ is honed by the excitement that accompanies reaching out into the unknown of our potential capacities, and the anticipation of expanding realized capacities both at the level that matches our rate of activity. (8)
In the ideal reaction we also find a sense of integration that seems to confirm the possibility that in reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God we are doing what feels right. This ‘knowledge’ gives us the greatest possible sense of meaning and subsequent peace of mind. Natural activity also creates ‘arms’ of love with which we hug ourselves, envelop others and embrace God. Finally, natural activity seems to stoke our faith and hope despite the void. The answer to “why am I?” is missing. We can’t deny the void nor should we. It seems an inspired motivating device; and because our natural activity generates maximum spirit, gives us the greatest possible sense of meaning, creates love and all the other positive characteristics, the ideal reaction to the void seems to maintain in us the faith to carry on and hope in the possibility of God. (9)
The absolutely restrictive reaction is the one with which we try exclusively to fill the void. Generally it is the active antithesis of the ideal, its negative in most respects. More specifically, with the ideal we “reach out…” while with the absolutely restrictive reaction we try to fill the void we sense within. The ideal reaction is natural integrating activity; the absolutely restrictive reaction is unnatural disintegrating activity. With the former there is integration; with the latter there is disintegration. There is only one ideal reaction to the void. If it was possible to live the absolutely restrictive reaction we would each have our own individual way of trying to fill the void. The consequence of us commonly “reaching out…” is individual self-realization, life; incidentally and not by our design, the ideal reaction to the void. The consequence of the individual absolutely restrictive reaction we design in an effort to fill the void is identical active self-destruction, death, obviously an utterly ineffective reaction to the void. (10)
Even though we can each have a different one, I consider individual absolutely restrictive reactions to be variations in one of eight ways we can try to fill the void. With our materialistic reaction we try to fill the void with money and the endless list of stuff it can buy. We try to fill the void with our religious/philosophical reactions that are answers, more or less, to “the last why”. They range from formal religions to the informal views of life such as the nebulous philosophy of “human rights”. There is the romantic reaction rooted in the myth that another person possesses an inherent force we call love, capable of filling the void. We have a factual reaction with which we try to fill the void with the elusive single fact or all the facts we can gather. We can also try to fill the void with some sort of familial reaction. There is as well an occupational reaction that is an attempt to fill the void with our occupations, jobs, vocations and often “just something to do”. The seventh way we can try to fill the void is with our preeminence reaction, being first, best, richest, smartest, most beautiful and all the other ways we, as individuals or groups, can be better than others at any number of levels from international to personal. Finally, there is our anesthetic reaction. By using it we try to fill the void with alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, deprivation, gorging and other more obvious anesthetics. Unfortunately, this final reaction to the void comes with the distracting reputation of being socially unacceptable and addictive. Trying to fill the void is addictive because more effort will never be enough. However, the anesthetic reaction is no more addictive than the other seven ways we try and all eight are equally biologically unacceptable. (11)
If we could try exclusively to fill the void, it wouldn't matter which way we tried, all absolutely restrictive reactions would demand nothing of us. With their completely prescribed activity there would be no risk, irresponsibility, insensitivity to our spirit, no resistance to the pull toward their ‘goal’, and impatience. We would care about nothing but trying to fill the void which would require no faith. Among the biological ‘punishments’ the unnatural activity of an absolutely restrictive reaction would be entirely out of our control, would generate no spirit, consumes love and would restrict us absolutely leaving us no room to be. We would feel totally unfilled, no sense of accomplishment, self-worthless, completely isolated and supremely insecure. While trying to fill the void the pace, stress, tension, frustration and urgency, all optimum in the ideal, would be extreme, as would be boredom, sadness, depression, emotional pain, fear of the void, unnatural excitement and artificial anticipation. In the absolutely restrictive reaction there would be no sense of faith justified, a sense of complete disintegration, the ultimate sense of meaninglessness, the greatest mental turmoil, an all consuming hate and a black hole of hopelessness containing the impossibility of God.(12)
The absolutely permissive reaction to the void is simply, giving up. It is the passive antithesis of the ideal, not its negative, merely its opposite in all respects. With it we do nothing. The absolutely permissive reaction is unnatural inactivity and where there is no integrating activity there is disintegration, passive self-destruction, death. (13)
Our blended reactions are created by blending the natural ideal and either of the unnatural absolutely restrictive or absolutely permissive reactions, under two precise conditions. The first, to restate the obvious, our reaction to the void must contain some measure of the ideal for without its integrating activity we disintegrate. Not as obvious but just as reasonable, it seems the sum of the natural and unnatural components in our reaction is constant. Theoretically, our reaction can be entirely natural. However, if it contains one of the unnatural components in some measure, that measure will be replacing an identical measure of the natural component. If we choose to increase, or allow the unnatural component to increase by some measure, we will diminish the natural component by that measure; or if we choose to increase the natural component we must accordingly decrease the unnatural component. So in our reactions to the void there is a natural component and a complementary measure of an unnatural component; the more of either the natural or unnatural component, the less of the other. (14)
The continuum of reactions to the void these two conditions create could be presented as a straight line, the image “continuum” usually evokes. If it were, the absolutely restrictive reaction and its consequent active self-destruction would be at one end; the absolutely permissive reaction and its consequent passive self-destruction would be at the other end; the ideal and its consequent self-realization would be at the midpoint of the continuum. However, the continuum of reactions to the void explains all of what is happening most easily if it is bent into the shape of a circle with the absolutes, separated by a small gap, at the bottom and the ideal at the top. To complete the image, I imagine the finite space enclosed by the circle is black, represents the void and certainty while the infinite space outside the circle is white and represents potentiality. (15)
Generally, if we were to move along this continuum from the ideal to either the absolutely restrictive or absolutely permissive reaction, the characteristics that define each successive reaction would be less and less like those that define the ideal and increasingly like those that define the respective absolutes. More specifically, in reactions increasingly removed from the ideal on the permissive side of the continuum we would find the ideal complete concentration on reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, become more and more diluted by increasing inactivity. As unnatural inactivity replaced natural activity we would experience a diminishing sense of integration along with a gradual loss of the ideal 'rewards'. The reaction would be emptied and in the end our disintegration would be complete. Since the unnatural inactivity does nothing to our existence, there isn’t anything further in the transition from the ideal to the absolutely permissive reaction to describe, so for now this transition can be allowed to fade out of the discussion. (16)
In contrast, unnatural activity subtracts from our existence so there are several transitions to describe on the restrictive side. In reactions increasingly removed from the ideal, biological ‘rewards’ are gradually replaced by biological ‘punishments’. In another that is more specific, God can be seen in transition from the ideal, subjective possibility we reach out to for a hand up to the limits of our capacities, to, in the absolutely restrictive religious/philosophical reaction, the objective impossibility we reach up to for handouts with which we try to fill the void. There is also a transition between the knowledge that becomes part of our nature as we reach out to the limits of our capacities and the facts that separate us from our nature as we try with them to fill the void. In reactions further and further from the ideal the number of ‘bridges’ diminishes while the number of 'wedges' increases. Love also changes, from that generated by our natural activity in the ideal, to love consumed in our effort to fill the void. As more and more unnatural activity is introduced into our reaction there is a corresponding increase in conflict between our natural inclination to be and become, and our unnatural self-destructive efforts to fill the void, that in the end we lose. (17)
There is a perhaps unexpected transition in the number of ways we try to fill the void; and associated with it but likely not too surprising, the appearance of confusion. In the ideal there is no effort to fill the void and no confusion. As we move away from the ideal we see the ways we try to fill the void appear in succession along with increasing confusion until we arrive in the reaction mid way between the ideal and the absolutely restrictive reaction. In this reaction we would see a blend of all eight ways we try to fill the void equally evident in the unnatural component that equals the size of the natural component; “everything in moderation”, except for maximum confusion. In reactions beyond this mid point, while the natural component continues to diminish in size and the unnatural component increases accordingly, confusion and the number of the ways we try to fill the void decreases until in the extreme, absolutely restrictive reaction there is absolute deadly certainty in the one way we try to fill the void. (18)
In the continuum of reactions between the ideal and the absolutely restrictive reaction there is also a changing view of “human rights”. “Human rights” did not need to be included in the description of the ideal reaction. In my view, the ideal reaction to the void, the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God and our consequent self-realization is our one and only common, biological human right. The philosophy of “human rights” was mentioned as a less formal religious/philosophical reaction, one of the eight absolutely restrictive reactions. The former becomes the latter through the sense of being right, one of the biological ‘rewards’ generated by natural activity. Like all ‘rewards’ it does diminish with decreasing natural activity in reactions further removed from the ideal but it remains pervasive, non-specific and even at its minimum is always sufficient to give us the erroneous impression our efforts to fill the void are right. As our reactions to the void move away from the ideal, the first tentative belief in our unnatural ‘right’ gradually becomes complete conviction in the absolutely restrictive, self-destructive, biologically wrong, ‘philosophical’ human right to fill the void in our own one way. (19)
Finally, if we were to begin at either absolute and move toward the ideal through the continuum of reactions, we would notice our focus and consequent motivation changing. To ‘see’ these changes recall the image of the circular continuum enclosing the finite black space representing the void, surrounded by an infinite white emptiness. Even though by definition it is impossible to live the respective absolute reactions to the void, imagine that it is possible for us to ‘stand’ on the circumference of the circle at either the absolutely permissive or absolutely restrictive end of the continuum. Due to our common innate orientation toward the ideal, our individual lines of vision would be parallel to the line between the gap separating the ends, and the ideal. If we were standing at the absolutely permissive end we would be seeing nothing but the black space, the void, the metaphysical “black hole” that seems able to empty the life out of us. If we were standing at the absolutely restrictive end we would also be seeing nothing but black, the way we were trying to fill the void having restricted the life out of us. (20)
From these starting points imagine moving along the continuum while maintaining our innate orientation. In our peripheral vision we would immediately catch a glimpse of the potentiality in the white emptiness outside the circle; and feel a sliver of biological motivation to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Accordingly, on the permissive side we would see a “glimpse” less of black; and on the restrictive side we would see all but a "glimpse" of the way we last tried, and feel a sliver less drive, to fill the void. As we continue toward the ideal our biological motivation would increase. From the permissive side we would see more white and less black. On the restrictive side we would see the number of ways we try to fill the void increase until the mid point then decrease to none in the ideal while the drive to fill the void would steadily diminish. At the ideal, in my vision we would see, growing in the white emptiness, representing “the last why”, a single red rose around which we ‘plant’ self-realization, the consequence of reaching out to the limits of our potential capacities, to others and to God. (21)
The list of characteristics that defines every reaction to the void and determines its location on the circular continuum was started by defining the ideal, the mid point, and the absolutely restrictive and absolutely permissive reactions, the respective end points. Then reactions between these defining positions were generally defined as being more or less like the defining reactions according to their distance from them. Less generally this meant that in reactions further and further from the ideal on the restrictive side the ‘punishments’ of the absolutely restrictive reaction gradually replaced the ‘rewards’ of the ideal. This list was expanded by the more specific observation that in reactions further and further from the ideal, God, subjectively living in the ideal, is increasingly restricted until in the absolutely restrictive reaction, God is dead. Next it was noted that facts change from being bridges in the ideal to wedges in the absolutely restrictive reaction; and that love given becomes love taken. After these came descriptions of the transitions in the number of ways we try to fill the void; from the one common human right for all of us to a different human right for each of us; and the concluding observation that we ‘see’ specific complementary amounts of “black” and “white” from different locations on the continuum (22)
This concluding observation was the last in the list of characteristics defining individual reactions to the void but not the end of the list that defines every reaction to the void. Yet to be defined is our resultant reaction. Yes, we do have individual reactions to the void. However, without question we do not react to the void in isolation. Our individual reactions constitute humanity’s resultant reaction to the void that is the sum of all individual reactions. Thus fundamental to every other experience, our resultant reaction has a resultant amount of natural activity and a complementary amount of unnatural activity. Accordingly, our resultant reaction has a location on the continuum of reactions where the same ratio of natural and unnatural activity would place an individual reaction. Generally, what were presented as characteristics of individual reactions, translate reasonably well to our resultant. So for example, there is within humanity a pervading sense of meaninglessness and a complementary sense of meaning. Specifically, there are two experiences that don’t translate directly from individual to resultant. They are conflict and its complement, cooperation. (23)
Cooperation is irrelevant to the individual; but as noted we do experience conflict within us, between our innate natural activity and the opposing efforts to fill the void. In the resultant the conflict is between us, between groups of any size, from two individuals to the last two groups that could divide humanity. The source of this conflict is still our efforts to fill the void but the different ways we try to fill the void are not the reason for conflict. In fact, conflict over the same thing, money, dominates our present existence. No, conflict is entirely due to the direction of unnatural activity which is inward, toward the void within. So it doesn’t matter if we use the same or a different way, trying to fill the void puts us into opposition to each other. The amount of conflict between us is dependent upon the complementary amounts of natural and unnatural activity in our resultant reaction. If our resultant were at the ideal there would be no conflict as we each reached out, in the same direction along parallel lines, to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. In place of conflict there would be the unconditional cooperation needed for us to reach out to the limits of our capacities. At locations further removed from the ideal our resultant would manifest an increasing amount of conflict of ever greater intensity and the increasingly conditional cooperation we need in our group efforts to fill the void. In the absolutely restrictive reaction the cooperation that allowed groups of humanity to cooperate in conflict would be gone, every individual would be in conflict with every other individual and humanity would be in conflict with Nature. The list of characteristics is now complete. (24)
We use these characteristics in the process of changing our reactions. Changing our reactions to the void by choice became a possibility when our ancestors first asked “the last why”. Prior to the birth of humanity there were only the natural biological changes that occurred as they reached out to the limits of their capacities, to others and to God, the same changes that created our present adult form from our first single cell. Discovering the void gave our ancestors the option of trying to fill it and thus the possibility of introducing unnatural change into our existence. In doing so it seems they became aware of our innate orientation toward natural activity and triggered what could be considered an emotional immune system, a biological “still small voice” that resisted unnatural change. They subsequently initiated the process of evaluation and began accumulating the symptomatic characteristics we can use in our evaluations today. (25)
There are many examples that illustrate historical evaluation and change of reactions to the void. In one that is well quite known, Jesus apparently found that Judaism, the part of the unnatural component in his inherited reaction to the void, made it far too restrictive. So he made it much less so with his “Golden Rule”. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a more natural direction for activity by which Jesus moved his reaction to the void closer to the ideal. It seems successive followers of Jesus didn’t hear the message for they buried it deeper and deeper in a reaction to the void that became so restrictive it split into two about 1000 years later. Then, 500 years after the schism, Martin Luther decided the inherited Roman Catholic part of his reaction to the void was still too restrictive, apparently particularly with respect to sex, and so began his Protestant Reformation. The reformers removed a fair amount of the accumulated unnatural activity from their inherited reactions to the void but less than Jesus removed from his so their reactions found locations accordingly further from the ideal. Among less well known examples of evaluation and change, we will find a day can’t go by without someone changing their reaction to the void with the hope of moving it closer to the ideal where their activity will be more natural and meaningful. There are also millions of individuals trying ever harder to fill the void with for example, money. (26)
Changing our reactions to the void is simple. We simply change the ratio of natural to unnatural activity in them. However, making our reactions to the void more ideal can be variously difficult mainly due to the influence of our resultant. As the one and only example, the dominant materialistic component of our resultant generally restricts our natural activity. In particular though, it has created a cone-shaped economy that gives the most money to the one at the top and progressively less to more and more of us the further removed we are from the top. Money is not inherently necessary to life but since through our materialistic reaction we have made it the currency of living, the less we have the more difficult it is for us to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God within its restrictions. At the bottom of the cone are many millions of us who don’t even have enough money to engage in the most basic natural activity necessary to survive. (27)
If we are among the millions who are able to change our reactions to the void, there are further niggling difficulties. Our resultant imposes an upper limit on movement toward the ideal that one individual did not create and can not move. If we are able to change our reaction to the void, in order to even evaluate it we have to overcome the conviction that our individual efforts to fill the void are right. Even then, the disease in our reaction to the void being non-specific, without critical thought we can easily diagnose it as an indication we are not trying hard enough to fill the void. Our disease can also be misdiagnosed for us by representatives of various ways we can try to fill the void, to win converts to their way. If we do get to the point of making a change we must face our instinctive fear of an unknown reaction. Finally, self-realization is quiet; self-destruction is noisy. So, amidst the increasing cacophony in a resultant reaction further and further removed from the ideal it becomes more difficult for us to hear our biological “still small voice” telling us to change. Still despite all the difficulties and reasons we find not to change our reactions to the void, the process is simple. (28)
Conclusion
Should we change our reactions to the void to move the resultant toward the ideal? Yes, if we believe it matters that humanity does not continue to self-destruct, for in my view it is “crystal clear” this is what‘s happening. From a distance at which I can contain the answer to “What’s Happening?” in one paragraph, I see each of us weaving the ‘threads’ of natural and unnatural activity in our reactions to the void into a fabric of existence. The natural activity is clear while the eight ways we try to fill the void are each a different colour. Though we each weave a fabric of existence they have no “borders”. Our individual fabrics integrate more or less to form humanity’s fabric of existence. We become part of this fabric the moment we are conceived. When we die naturally we fall away from the edge. When we die unnaturally we leave a hole in the fabric of humanity. Theoretically the fabric of humanity could range from clear and completely integrated through somewhat coloured and correspondingly disintegrated to black and completely disintegrated. At the present time the fabric of humanity is a mess of clashing colours dominated by the green of our materialistic reaction to the void, riddled with holes and disintegrating. If we continue to weave our individual fabrics of existence with the current blend of natural and unnatural activity, the fabric of humanity will continue to disintegrate and eventually self-destruct. (29)
The evidence supporting this conclusion is quite overwhelming. I could begin by presenting the relative ‘weights’ of biological ‘rewards’ and ‘punishment’s such as the conflict within us and we would see that our ‘punishments’ outweigh our ‘rewards’. This presentation of subjective characteristics is not necessary however, for the only evidence we really need to justify concluding we are heading to self-destruction is the objectively observable conflict over money we see in our factual cone-shaped economy. To that we could add the conflict between us and our pre-birth offspring, and the remaining conflict we generate with our religious/philosophical reactions to the void. After a period of rest to recover from exhaustion, we could add the conflict we generate with the remaining six ways we try to fill the void. To emphasize the conclusion, some environmental experts say our self-destruction is inevitable because we have won the conflict with Nature. There are certainly other experts with a conflicting conclusion but there aren’t many who don’t believe if we do not act to make peace with Nature, it will be mere decades before our environment has been mortally wounded. (30)
I won’t add to the conflict by choosing sides for my purpose has been to explain that in ideal life there are no sides; and that the reason there are is a history of trying to fill the void discovered by asking “Why am I?” I only wish to say that if there is time to save ourselves, though we had nothing to do with our beginning, all the evidence suggests that rather than ending in self-destruction, we can choose self-realization. If we do, we will turn toward self-realization neither by making peace with Nature nor by making peace between us although both will be equally significant consequences of our choice. We choose self-realization by making peace within us. As noted, the process is simple. To make peace within us we simply replace the coloured thread with clear, another way of saying we merely replace unnatural activity with natural activity both of which mean we merely replace trying to fill the void with reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. If the process sounds fairly easy even with the listed difficulties, it is because I have not specifically mentioned that in replacing our unnatural activity with natural activity we in effect empty the void of all the ways we are trying to fill it. In my opinion we will find emptying the void close to impossible. Still, if we don’t empty the void, in self-destruction we will discover nothing. If we do empty the void, what in my view would be the fourth of the four significant events in the history of humanity, we might find in self-realization the answer to “the last why”. In a clear flawless fabric of existence we might even see the “Glory of God”. (31)
Saturday, May 19, 2007 at 11:54AM
Reader Comments (4)
Man, your thoughts are deep. I accept there is a God. I accept that we now see through a glass darkly but one day we will know the answers. My thoughts don't go as deep as yours! Where were you in school/ I am sure you were one of the gifted ones. Think on, Doug. Surely many of your thoughts reflect the Glory of God, your creator and the One with all the answers! gail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Gail for gift of time not only to read what I have written but to comment as well and on two entries no less. (other entry) Although you find my "thoughts...deep" I hope you find them clear right to the bottom. In my view we are all equally uniquely 'gifted' but collectively we have created an existence that generally does not allow us to open our 'gifts'. I reached my academic peak at Christmas in my 4th year of elementary school. The following year when I was registered in a new school, officials put me into Grade 6 but then I had to repeat my final year of high school for failing English. I repeated my first year of university as well because I failed motivation. I changed courses but I still have no idea how I managed to graduate. I struggled on a career path in General Motors where HR personnel called me a misfit. I am still wondering where I fit in. As for the rest of your comment I am uncertain but I am where I am because I continued to wonder. Doug.E.Barr
Wonderful. Just wonderful. I have something a bit more coarse with many gaps but I've decided to embrace the gaps.
.....................................................................................................
The opposite of a really bad idea is also a really bad idea, apologies to Neils Bohr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A view of life with gaps in it is open to interpretation. I agree with Neils Bohr. In my view at the opposite end of the continuum from the absolutely restrictive reaction to the void is the absolutely permissive reaction to the void, both self-destructive. Midway between the ends is the ideal reaction to the void.
I truly appreciate your assessment of my precis and your last statement was useful. The dissertation between the alpha and the omega had to have been written by a person engaged in above average philosophical activity. I deleted it however, because I set up my site and am currently publicizing it at considerable expense to present my views; and giving you a platform for your views does not serve my purpose. Please don't feel offended. I would delete the Pope and make no apologies.
no offense taken
i tend to ride by the seat of my train of thought
i have the ingredients for my dissertation, it will probably come out somewhat differently when i decide to run that "tape" again, perhaps more precise
that Niels Bohr quote helps me explain it a lot (although his was the opposite of a great truth is also a great truth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your understanding provides a ray of hope. You should not have apologized to Niels Bohr. I know we are turning Neils Bohr and his beloved philosophy of yin and yang on their heads but I prefer "The opposite of a really bad idea is also a really bad idea." In my view a really bad idea is trying to fill the void, the absolutely restrictive reaction to the void. Also a really bad idea is giving up, the absolutely permissive reaction to the void. It is between these really bad ideas that we find the only truth. Doug.E.Barr