I think the idea is fairly simple: we prefer a painted picture to a blank sheet of paper. When in the mood for music, we prefer a musical composition to silence. And so on. So that the divine has limited itself and severely diluted itself into the components of this universe because "something" is more interesting than "nothing." The limitation is critical so that the divine can explore its self without being bored - without always knowing what's around the next bend.
What are the implications for regular life? Regular life is full of suffering and instability. Why not create a perfectly stable situation? Actually an omniscient God would easily impose stability on an unstable system. But that would ruin the game. It would be like taking back your last move in chess after you see that it puts you in a rather dangerous check. So that we are fighting a continual battle against instability as a condition to staying lost (i.e. not realizing that we are the divine). We have limitations precisely because of this (and possibly, because if our thoughts could instantly produce results, we would inadvertedly (or purposely) introduce horrific instability: quick, try not to think of a nuclear holocaust. Try not to think of your leg being chopped off. You see?). The fight against entropy is a precondition to the continuance of the game, and it is our challenge to figure out how to produce and maintain stability in the midst of all the diversity, social and natural, which make the painting colorful and the musical composition beautifully interesting.
How do we find what elements favor stability? It's quite simple: food, clothing, shelter, physical and mental health, peace, love, family, safety, and creativity. These, across the board, are what people desire. Relativism exits only in the manifestations - for instance, most societies have some sort of private property or private possessions system, and when a thief violates those standards, the responses may be: chopping off a limb, imprisonment, probation, or intake into a shelter system. The point is to identify the standard, not attach oneself to how the community or culture deals with violations to the standard. So that if we can find these elements of stability that are universally desired, we introduce structures that maximize that stability.
We must always be wary of the tension between stability/order and freedoms. The impulse towards freedom is a result of the colorful painting. If all people were the same, if we all conformed to the same ways of behaving, a great deal of the rich interestingness of existence would be lost. Further, nonconformity can often show us how to increase stability. So the hippie movement was a reaction to the suburbanization, commodification, and mass consumptionist lifestyle from the 1950s. But in granting hippies freedom to organize the way they wanted, they showed many people that greater stability may be found in working together cooperatively rather than competitively, as is the value in the capitalist system. Thus an element of instability (the hippie reaction) may someday prove to have been a turning point towards a more stable, cooperative society. Therefore, we should not always support those actions that ostensibly maximize stability (the police state, for instance) because acts of instability often will have latent stabilizing tendencies.
Let's finally look at how and why people introduce instability into their own lives. If the human impulse is towards stability, why then do we see, on an average episode of Jerry Springer, people hurting themselves and their loved ones? Why is there widespread alcohol abuse, a drug that overwhelmingly tends to produce high instability and unpredictability. This too is a manifestation of the creativity principle. People living what they perceive to be boring and meaningless lives, devoid of creative outlets, or devoid of whatever it is they need to explore life as an interesting creative thing of which they are a part, will introduce instability into their lives in an attempt to find that element and so to create stability.
Alternatively, the bored alcoholic writer with a good marriage, a home that he owns, money in the bank, good health, etc. - he has stability, so what else does he need? So, real stability depends on a Zenlike satisfaction with life precisely as it is, lacking that, he might introduce the destabilizing element in an attempt to stabilize, just as revolutionists destroy the old order so as to create a newer and more stable one.
A last point regarding free will: Do we live in a Christian paradigm, in which God has enabled us to explore the world hoping we will turn to him, and those who do not are lost? In other words, does God want us to live stable and happy lives? Or is all prescribed? Somewhere in between, I think. The first question is meaningless in a world in which we are all purposive manifestations of the divine mind. who are here to explore the world. Actually, God does not want us to live completely stable lives because that would put an end to the game. However, it cannot be completely prescribed, because that would imply an intrusive Brahman that is directing everything, therefore an awareness. This is only possible if it is an awareness we know absolutely nothing about, which seems sort of pointless. If the Brahman wanted that, it wouldn't have split itself into the ten thousand things.
No comments:
Post a Comment