{"id":7,"date":"2008-01-10T14:49:57","date_gmt":"2008-01-10T22:49:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/?p=7"},"modified":"2008-01-10T20:00:50","modified_gmt":"2008-01-11T04:00:50","slug":"meaning-of-life-provisional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/?p=7","title":{"rendered":"Meaning of Life (Provisional)"},"content":{"rendered":"

An acquaintance heard that I was interested in philosophy and jokingly asked me, “What is the meaning of life?” I didn’t have a ready answer then, but the next morning, in reverie, I found myself thinking, “You know the answer.” Surprised—because I didn’t know that I knew—, I asked this inner voice, “Oh? What is it?” The voice said, “Well, you’ve been playing with these ideas for a couple of years, and it’s gradually coming together. You’ve been living by these ideas, too. So, let’s try to put it into words. Try this: Life is an opportunity for God to be born through you<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whoa. I felt a little ashamed that any part of me would presume to make such a claim, but another part of me said, “Hey, we’re just playing, speculating, trying things out. Check this line out with your various testing-thinking-systems and see what you think.” I did, and here’s some of the inner conversation in semi-essay form. I am open to your comments, and in light of them, may revise this formulation. As for right now, it still feels right, seems like it can work. Practicality is a significant criterion, also—I don’t always require absolute scientific or logical proof, but rather, in this realm, more a sense of whether I can use this idea, whether it will help me live with a better attitude, and whether it might motivate good actions.Nevertheless, a bit of analysis seems appropriate, so let\u2019s take this statement apart:<\/p>\n

“God\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is a sticky concept, because any name (i.e. \u201csign,\u201d in linguistic terms) tends to imply some limitations of the definition of that which is signified. So, with some humility and explicit recognition that what is being referred to cannot be adequately named; yet on another level, for purposes of philosophical discourse this overall category deserves to be considered: When I use the word “God” in this kind of context, I am referring to the Greater Wholeness of Being and Becoming. It is not a male or female Wholeness, nor even a personality \u2014 much less a king-like power-hierarchical one. The way I\u2019m referring to God is more like what is referred to in Whitehead\u2019s \u201cprocess philosophy.\u201d Some parts of the Bible hint at this more abstract and spiritual source energey, and a number of contemporary theologians from various traditions also seek to refine the old patriarchal image, such as Paul Tillich\u2019s description of God as the \u201cGround of Being.\u201d<\/p>\n

In this view, which, admittedly is not the traditional view of God, God is everything\u2014i.e., Spinoza\u2019s \u201cpantheism\u201d\u2014and also more<\/em> than the physical world, and more than the physical and mental world or anything known or knowable to humanity. This more-than sense requires a modified word, and that is panen<\/strong>theism<\/em>. A major corollary is that God is not at all apart from me or you, but rather we are a part of the Greater Becoming, however minute we may seem in size.<\/p>\n

Actually, the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead<\/a> (1861-1947), a foremost exponent of what has come to be known as \u201cprocess philosophy,\u201d didn’t call it that; rather, he described his metaphysical view as \u201ca philosophy of organism.\u201d He thought that the metaphor of the cell to the whole organism described better the nature of the relationship than the more traditional views of humans relating to God as children to a father or subjects to a king. As a corollary, again, it is impossible to be separate from God. The implication is also that there is no hell and as for heaven, it is dubious as a concept. What happens when cells die in our bodies? Their components are largely recycled, but all the components and energies are not focused so as to reincarnate in the identity of another single cell. Another corollary is that what is ultimately important is the ongoing development of the Divine “organism.”
\nGod\u2019s Many ReBirths<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ah, words, words that seek to express what is of course ineffable, not possible to express in words. So by using the metaphor of birth in this metaphysical-poetic speculation, I am trying to suggest the idea of a radical change of state, at least in a limited sense. To be born is to open to something really new, and each birth offers such a possibility. Indeed, each moment offers possibilities, as we recognize the complexity of factors interacting and the opportunity for new creative syntheses.<\/p>\n

(Another metaphor that is sometimes useful is \u201cawakening,\u201d as if there were several levels of consciousness\u2014perhaps many. We are most familiar with our own experience of dreamless sleep, dreaming sleep, drowsy-sluggish awakeness, and bright-engaged awakeness. That there may be several levels of consciousness more dense and \u201cless\u201d conscious than these mentioned types, and also the possibility of several levels of consciousness greater, more awake, somehow, than what we have experienced\u2014well, it\u2019s difficult if not impossible to imagine, and harder yet to appreciate a degree of consciousness more than what one has experienced.)<\/p>\n

I just don’t think that saying that the world or you or I are “expressions” of God, or emanations, or manifestations, really comunicate what is intuitively imagined here. Birth, in contrast, to me suggests a dynamic coming together of many variables, components of individuality<\/a>. They imply that God is fixed and internally consistent, a true in-dividual (i.e., not-divided)\u2014with no significantly different \u201caspects.\u201d Yet such an image is not only an anthropomorphic, but reductionistic. Consider that part of God\u2019s glory is the sheer multiplicity of aspects, dimensions, depth, and varieties of being and becoming. I suspect that there are many aspects that we don\u2019t know about yet, and probably many aspects that the human mind can never know.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s Birth Through You<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

At any rate, the birth of a sentient individual offers an opportunity for a new creative potential, a unique blending of many factors. Sentience adds yet another dimension, that of subjectivity and its intrinsic capacity to choose, create, add to what is being otherwise created. (To call it \u201cfree will\u201d is again a bit reductionistic, as if the only choice were to obey the traditional \u201crules\u201d or disobey. In fact, the choices made are incredibly varied and often involve creative alternatives that are not obvious or given at the outset of a situation.)<\/p>\n

An assumption here is that creativity as a fundamental principle of existence is also a value, and perhaps a source of a kind of aesthetic pleasure to God\u2014perhaps of far greater value than the traditional image\u2014a projection of patriarchal psychology\u2014of having subjects who unquestioningly obey.<\/p>\n

Another value is that of experiencing, and using a panentheistic framework in which God is as immanent as well as transcendent, we can imagine God participating in the experience of each sentient being, enjoying (or suffering), according to the situation.<\/p>\n

The key point is the \u201ctaste\u201d of your becoming, moment by moment, your own creativity, experiencing, subtle development and awakening, struggle, suffering, triumph, discovery, insight, and so forth\u2014these elements are what need to be cultivated.<\/p>\n

The Opportunity<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thinking of life as an opportunity draws our attention to a wide number of themes:<\/p>\n