19. Permanence, meaning, and impermanence

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

6:35 a.m. “What’s it all about,” from yet one more viewpoint, this time the interaction of points of view among time-spaces. At least, that’s what I think you meant, last time.

You are accustomed, most of you, to think in terms of future, when you consider questions of purpose. “What is this leading toward? What may we become?” but it is a little more productive to consider the same question of meaning in past and present tenses, as well. It isn’t only, “What does this lead to?” It is, also, “What did this lead to?” And, “What are we actually doing now?”

You see? To understand anything, you need to consider what and how, or you cannot understand why.

It has always seemed to me that this is one of the things wrong with slogans like, “The end justifies the means,” or “Doing evil that good may come,” or even “This is necessary for the greater good.” Besides being convenient rationales for self-serving, they are also short-sighted. That is, wrong morally and wrong factually.

We won’t go into that now, so that we can proceed to the point we hope to elucidate, but perhaps we can look at that in another time. It boils down to: “You ignore context at your peril.”

So, what does the interaction do? What did it do? What will it do?

(Bear in mind that structuring it this way, though it may seem strictly logical to you, seems so mostly because it conforms to your ideas about flowing time. You have changed those ideas in one part of your mind, but the senses and your previous indoctrination preserve the more conventional idea within you, to a greater or lesser degree, depending.)

• Past. You live as you were “assembled.” You are composed of strands each of which “lived” its life, made its choices, became what it became, and serves as partial template for your life.
• Present. You make your choices among these elements within you, and you influence them as they influence you. We will need to say much more about this, but the point is, every element in the equation is functioning now, changing now, becoming the basis for its future now.
• Future. You are shaped by past decisions, but the future you that has been shaped has its input into the decisions that were made, because, again, it is all alive, it is all the eternal present.

The one feature that is obvious, no matter how you look at it, is –?

Impermanence.

Impermanence. Therefore, elementary logic tells you –?

The desired result cannot be to build something permanent. Or is it that, until we build something permanent, the game goes on?

Very good. Both, and neither.

I know, I know: It’s all in how you want to look at it.

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. We smile. So let’s look at it both ways, first one way at a time, and then, if it proves feasible, both ways at once, and if that proves impossible, one way, then the other, then the one in terms of the other, but this goes on and on, an endless process of what you call stepwise refinement. Better – if we can accomplish it – to show the two aspects singly and together, and leave further refinement to the interested individual.

Permanence. If life is building toward a goal, a structure, what could it be? Given that everything is mind-stuff, it cannot be something that 3D would recognize as a material structure.

That isn’t clear logically.

No, but let’s proceed. The setting-out of the reasons that it is logically defensible would be a longer process than is justified. Take it as given for now.

If life is but a dream, what “solid” result can that dream be after? Couldn’t you say that, in a way, reality is the universe “making up its mind” about something?

That’s both breath-taking and irritatingly vague.

It is, isn’t it? Do you suppose that may be why this hasn’t been spelled out once and for all, long ago?

Or let’s suppose that in fact no such permanent result can be achieved. Does that amount to the universe spinning its wheels? Is it all as the poet had one of his puppets see it, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? Treat this as a real question, not a rhetorical one. Your response will help point the way.

Well, you could argue it either way, I suppose. The point of life certainly isn’t obvious to us as we proceed through it. Mostly we have to take on faith the idea that there’s a point to it that isn’t just a fiction in our minds. But for me, anyway, I find the evidence against the “tale told by an idiot” idea to be stronger, and I’ll tell you why. It isn’t any way scientific, but it is experiential. Life feels real, particularly when we experience it emotionally, and particularly when we experience it in positive emotions in terms of others.

Describe your experience.

Well, you know, even at the time it felt like that little moment meant something. I take it this was a set-up.

No, other than helping you experience it consciously, fully, rather than half your attention elsewhere.

I see. That sounds right. Well, I was returning some books to the UVA library, Sunday. From the parking garage to the Clemons library entrance is a good number of outside steps upward – the equivalent of at least two stories, maybe three. I had a lot of books in my bag, eight I think, and it was a lot of steps. I had to pause a couple of times on my way up. I was perhaps two-thirds to the top when a voice from near the bottom asked if I was all right I said, as I do, “I will be,” meaning when I get my breath back, and I thanked him for asking. At the top of the stairs, I was sitting on a bench waiting the few minutes for Clemons to open, so he caught up with me. He asked again if I was all right, and where did I want to go (he not realizing that this was where i was headed). I told him what was going on with me, and no big deal, and in a couple of minutes the library opened and we were inside and went our separate ways. The point here is that I noticed the genuine concern this stranger had. That happens to us all the time. Sometimes we are the recipients, sometimes we are the extenders of the concern, but in either case what is it but a selfless act of love connecting two people for no ulterior purpose and with no tangible result other than the connection itself. I am a white man in his late seventies. He is a black many probably in his fifties. We know nothing of each other but the moment, and the moment both was and was not anything special.

And, you see, the real in that moment is invisible, intangible, and is without setup or result, but it is what was real.

That’s  how it feels, yes. And that’s how it always feels when I’m moved to try to help somebody, or somebody helps me. It is the realest part of reality, but I couldn’t and can’t say why or how.

Ah, but we can. That’s what we are doing.

Oh! I get it!

Yes indeed. It is when you extend beyond yourselves that you experience more of yourself than your self-definition. That is why selfishness is self-defeating. It is a form of fear, a shrinking. Love is expansion.

As simple as that. Obvious, as you say it.

Obvious after we have spent quite a bit of time laying groundwork!

Well, we’re grateful for it, you know. Now, does this answer the question about the point of life? I mean yes, expansion is via love. But still, does that prove anything about life’s meaning?

We smile. It depends entirely upon what you means by “prove.” Logically, of course not. It doesn’t begin to prove it. But viscerally? You tell us.

Of course it does. It resonates. But I’m in the position of knowing what I cannot demonstrate logically or even tentatively.

And this is an obstacle, how? Given that no one persuades anyone of anything, what do you need logical proof to do? Setting out your truth is all you can do, all you need to do. Those who have ears will hear. All you can do – or anyone can do, very much including us – is try to clarify relationships, to hint why what is so is so. That’s all that can be done or need be done, because every individual is a world to himself or herself. That is, you live in whatever world you resonate with. Reality in effect confirms your expectations.

“We create our own reality.”

That is the sense of it, yes.

I think that isn’t the way most people interpret that saying of Seth’s.

So? Interpreting the ideas others express says more about where the interpreter is than it does about what is interpreted.

We’re well beyond an hour, but I feel impelled to say what has been in my mind for this while: “Freely you have received, freely give.” What’s the relevance?

Setting forth your best understanding is a form of love. Turning it into commerce would alter its character. In fact, we will discuss that next time, though it may seem an interruption of our exposition.

Okay. Our thanks as always for all this, a quarter of a century’s worth and more.