XXI – It even seems that it could be said that the exercise of freedom is paradoxical – continued the Foreigner –, that is, that is more or less of an illusion, but only those that, well, more than obey, but understand God, are the ones that become aware of that, while the ones that disobey/do not believe surrender themselves and live in that illusion (of being free, not being it so), becoming then slaves of their unbelieving deliberation – demolishing, then, the foundations of the basic operation that makes possible for reason, conscience for to proceed in its uninterrupted search for truth while distinction of good and evil, that can only be made and be sustained by faith, because the Being/Truth are infinite. »The affirmation of freedom, to a certain extent, being an illusion or paradoxical, affirmed in this world, doesn’t seem to make sense, knowing I that I can, for example and very plainly, stop or continue to speak. But this world is a world on which one lives under conditions, where will, conscience and the ability of thought are conditioned to the laws of their circumstances, to their corporal context, to the possibilities of their entity nature. For instance, if I, being in place x, want to be instantaneously in place y, which is a thousand miles away, although I can conceive it and have such desire, I cannot do it, I’m conditioned. That is, will and thought are conditioned by the general context in which I’m living in, wanting to say by this that the exercise of freedom that is done in this world is an exercise that seems to aim to an essence of the being that I am and will become as a thinking/conscientious and free-will being. It could be said that it’s like a seed already with the conscience of the fruit, but still limited by its present context. So, the question that seems to arise is the following: what is that essence that freedom seems to aim at and in which should be exercised? If it doesn’t seem to be so much a freedom of movements, so to speak, because I’m conditioned to what concerns the suitableness of thought and will with the context that I live in, that is, if it doesn’t seem to be so much a freedom aimed for the exterior (although naturally it also reflects there), it seems to be mostly a freedom that aims for the interior, that is, for the freedom of spirit or soul, as in, for moral: in sum, the discernment made between good and evil, between truth and error. The Prophet assented with a nod of his head. And the Foreigner continued: – Moral seems to be something that comes from the desire to live in peace that men have in their hearts. Given that no one can live in war permanently, nor wants war nor desires it (unless by wicked desires), there is, then, a need to legislate in a way that people can live in peace with one another according to a law, that tells them what is good and what is evil. The laws of men don’t tell so much what is good (unless understood if not doing what is evil). And also the laws of men don’t reward if one behaves well, but only punishes those who behave badly. Now the question is: who, among men, will tell them what is good and what is evil? Or yet: if God didn’t exist, would it even make sense to contemplate that sort of question (about what is good and what is evil)? Is it that the question of good and evil is emptied in the abstention of doing evil? Is it that good is something just preventive or also proactive? It seems to be proactive as well. For instance: if I, while passing by a beggar, do not steal what he might have with him, I did good, in the sense of not doing evil. But besides not stealing what he might have with him, I still give him something, I did more than just refraining from doing evil. In that sense, couldn’t it be that the notion and the possibility of doing good is something that hides/revealing a greater mystery, already in the intimate of the human being, while a conscientious, thinking and moral being, that is, as a responsible being? – Yes – answered the Prophet. – It seems that, even if just vaguely, what reason calls good already seems to point to God, even though in an undefined manner. – But back to the question – continued the Foreigner. – Who, among men, will tell them what is good and what is evil? It seems that who decides what is good and what is evil is a majority. But good, in its most rudimental sense of not doing evil, only seems to be possible of becoming effective in virtue of the penalty in which one incurs by not complying with the law of the majority. That is, knowing as it is known that good as well as evil are real and objective things (at least, to what concerns us, that is, in minimum, in the sense of safe keep of physical integrity and propriety), and preferring as it is preferred good instead of evil, even thus one does not fail to see that good, despite of well intended, doesn’t have the strength of becoming effective in the human being, while firm commitment of acting according to its parameters, if resting only in the arbitrary of a majority and its effectiveness coerced by the escape to a penalty due to one’s non compliance. That is, it seems that the existence of good, in the sense that that same (existence) seems to point to a mystery, suggests that the same can only become viable and effective if rested on something beyond a human majority arbitrary, that is, it has to rest on something greater than men, (still) in broad sense, on God. – Still without a specifications that may come from religion, isn’t that so? – Yes – confirmed the Foreigner. – But this Good/God, at least already should have/be, so that good can become effective, and so that same good becomes peace – and not only because of that, that is, not only so that good can become effective among men, but because the same good present in human reason already points to Something truly existing (and not as a political-psychological construct) –, but that Good/God should be/have at least the characteristics that reason already intuited of its Nature: goodness, intelligence, search for peace and omniscience. Good/kindness and intelligence because it’s what the existence of those things in the human being already tell him that that Good has to have, and peace because that’s the consequence of good becoming effective. Omniscience is commented apart because the same seems to have other immediate ramifications, that the same good in the human being already seems to allude to, even though implicitly, them being: the judgment of the soul (after death) and Eternal Life. »The judgment of the soul (after death) because the legislated law that the majority seeks to impose is a law that rests solely on the consequences of this world, that is, that bears only into account their arbitrary opinions about what is good, not bearing in mind (and not even reckoning) nor life after death nor, most of all, the judgment of the soul after death. This to say that, without those premises of the omniscience of that Good and the judgment of the soul after death, all the evil that could be done, if those premises didn’t existed, is perfectly inconsequent. And, also, the strength of good, if rested only on the consequences of this world and this life, as previously said, if rested only on the escape from punishment in case that same good (also as said, that is only not to do evil) is not complied with. Thus, if there is no other good other than the one that the majority seeks to impose by its laws (nevertheless that in its most rudimental form be it only the safe keep of the physical person’s welfare and propriety), but that good that not bears into account nor reckons the judgment of the soul after death nor the Greater omniscient Good, any human being, without those post mortem premises, can be led to act, without any scrupulous (because he doesn’t believe nor was taught to believe in those premises) in a way contrary to the law, having only for concern the fact that his actions (contrary to the law of the majority) are not known by those that seek to enforce the law. So, it could be said that all the good that seeks to safe keep at least the persons physical integrity and property, if not rested on something more than the laws of a human majority (that not bears into account the, well, for now, supernatural premises that were mentioned), seems to arise only as strength for hypocrisy. Because, well, someone could pose the following question to himself: why should I bother to work if I can steal? Isn’t it that all that has to be done is to hide that behavior from the authorities? This type of question, if the understanding of good rests only on a human arbitrary, that does not recognize, at least, the judgment of the soul after death, is perfectly lawful. If all that exists is this life and this world, then the meaning of the human being is to be a hypocrite. It could be objected many arbitraries in defense of the opposite, that is, that behaving as such is wrong/evil, and that goodness lies in serving others or at least not hurting them. But in case all objections of this kind (that might be made to this conclusion) also deny or aren’t based on the existence, after death, of the judgment of the soul by Something superior to the human being, that is, by God, they’re nothing more than other individual idiosyncratic subjectivities, despite of resting on a majority, given that, if it is denied that premise of life after death, the existence of the omniscience of God and the judgment that every person/soul is subjected to after death, without those premises, all opinions are valid and all is behavioral lawful, for more aberrant that any idea or behavior could present itself to the so called common sense – that without the existence of God is nothing than a majority opinion –, because the only law that exists is rested solely on the consequences of this world. That is, the question of good and evil, without bearing into account the existence of the judgment of the soul by the Good God after the person dies, not even makes sense to be put, because the only law that exists is the one of the strongest or of the majority, as, anyway, already is verified in this world. If that is the only law that is purposed as the best possible one, then, that way, it is being denied, although unconscientiously, reason itself in its most primary exercise, what makes us humans, and I would even say, it is also being denied one’s own existence, and saying that the human being is nothing but an animal (without reason), that, of what is known about animals, their concerns about good and evil little or nothing bear into account life after death. The Prophet smiled. And the Foreigner had some water. Continuing: – The specificity of the human condition, that is, the fact of being a user of reason, implies necessarily a consequence of his actions after death, because it is already reason itself that tells him that as an immediate consequence of the most basic and fundamental operation of it while distinguishing good from evil, be it on a moral level or in a instrumental one, like for building a bridge or something, and also while desiring peace. Because if God didn’t exist, then the question of good and evil (morally understood) wouldn’t even make sense to be put, and what it seems to be desired then is not peace, but war and hypocrisy, and that’s not true. So, reason itself, still without being in contact with religious revelation, already affirms that there has to be a universal law, that does not come from men, that human beings will be submitted to after dying. This happens as a logical outcome of human condition or the nature of reason. It still has nothing to do (directly and explicitly) with religion yet. It’s reason itself, because of its nature, that already announces that, at least because of the reasons that were mentioned previously: the operation of discernment that the person does of good and evil, and consequently the existence of something that we call good; the fact that goodness, if rested only on a law that comes from a human majority arbitrary, that does not bear into account life after death, the omniscience of Good/God and the consequent judgment of the person after she dies, in any way is guarantee for goodness becoming effective universally, unless out off fear of suffering a penalty in this world; and because, above all, bottom line, the denial or already the inconsideration, while legislating, of the existence of, well, at least Something Good and Intelligent whose judgment everyone will be subjected to after death, makes that the question about good and evil not even make sense to be put – because, again, not existing a Universal and Eternal Judgment that awaits us after death, all the evil that could be done is perfectly inconsequent, as long as it stays hidden from others and, well, it’s no longer evil, being then evil only to be caught doing evil; and because all will be then summed up to life in this world, that is, to the law of the majority – that, as such, makes that understanding a denial of reason itself, because we’d be saying that, while denying the existence of God at least as Universal and Eternal Judgment, that the basic operation of reason while discernment of good and evil doesn’t exist, that is, that what human beings call reason and conscience is in fact unconsciousness. That is, purposely or not, who thinks that way, who doesn’t believe in God, put in perspective at least as Universal and Eternal Judgment, is denying his own existence, while a being bearer of reason – no longer, this way, that is, if not believing in God, as a human person, but as an animal would do it, in which reason is a servant of the senses and not the senses servants of reason. – It could be said then – began the Prophet – that the path that reason undergoes while disregarding the existence of God, at least while Universal and Eternal Judgment, leads invariably to absurdity. It is reason itself that reckons that as a result of its desire to live in peace that offspring’s into its most basic operation of discernment of good and evil. It is already reason itself that states: it doesn’t make sense for God not to exist. If God didn’t existed, at least as Universal and Eternal Judgment, then what would impose itself to reason would be a use of it in service of two things: hypocrisy or strength. But that is antagonistic to the desires of peace and goodness and truth that reason aims at, at least as a child, given that no child or baby or woman with a baby has for good being subjected to the horrors of war, that is one of the consequences of believing that God doesn’t exist, being the other hypocrisy, that also doesn’t make sense because, citing someone that appeared to me last night in a dream, «I have met many with desires to deceive, but I have never met anyone that wanted to be deceived». «Saint Augustine», said the Angel to the Reader. – Naturally that exist the so called people of good-will – continued the Prophet –, that, in broad sense, have in being kind and truthful to others as the right way to go. But what it seems that is being tried to be demonstrated here is that, if that intuition of being kind and truthful doesn’t rest on God, put in perspective at least as Universal and Eternal Judgment, those premises are nothing more than subjectivities, that, thus, are as valid as the ones that state that behaving as such is senseless. – Nevertheless – observed the Foreigner –, it is not being tried to say with this that is necessary to announce and convert people to God while a necessary psychological construct so that good can become universally effective in the human person, as if inventing a reality or an interpretation of reality so that peace is possible, as it seems to do the doctrines that use notions of karma and reincarnation, as I’ve mentioned previously. The statement of those notions, yes, seem to be political-psychosociological constructs developed as instruments that aim at the achievement of social peace, in the sense of: your present condition in this world is the effect of your actions in your past life, so, given that the fault for that is only yours, (you have to) live with it. And don’t try to change your luck (in case it is less fortunate or try to improve it although not being bad) by acting evil (like stealing, etc.) because, in your next life, you could come to the world in an even less favorable condition. Life, understood in such a manner, leads then the person to behave good in a general way, at least while respecting others, so that nothing bad happens to him, if not in this life, at least in the following – unless moksha or nirvana are achieved… Anyway, it’s an interpretation that could be considered as being well intentioned, in the sense of establishing or trying to establish peace, but doesn’t seem to adapt to the true nature of reason. Those notions seem to be more like intellectual soothings that, despite the fact of being able to lead the person to a compassionate and peace behavioral mode, they seem to be, however, misconceptions of the user of reason, that might or in fact already does have an alienating effect regarding the true nature of it. Those doctrines also seem to be inviting, especially in these atheistic rebounding times, because they seem to meet a thirst of infinite that exists in the human soul, through the way it portrays divinity, as an idea of impersonal good, that is, that is not a person, that doesn’t expresses itself explicitly nor has free-will, well, nor loves then. Such envisioning of divinity, at first sight, seems to be more inviting to the human being, given that any statement from divinity seems that it will always coerce human will, thus jeopardizing freedom. So, an idea of divinity as impersonal Good, at first sight, seems to be more attractive, because being it so divinity, one can behave solely under the deliberations of the arbitrary of reason of oneself (even if under a general idea of Good, at least, of not harming others), without the explicit coercion of the Supreme Good, appearing that to meet a freedom also desired by reason. But that notion of an impersonal divinity or deity seems to be an apparent freedom, while choice of remaining in ignorance while not wanting to search or listen to the explicit sense/meaning of that Good already believed existent. And that notion also doesn’t seems to be adequate with what unto which the nature of reason already seems to say about that Good, that is, as reason, that is intelligent, that is, explicit. This to say that many times it seems that not to believe in God is a choice that is made because of what is feared of having to give up, mostly on a behavioral level, in virtue of the implications that that faith will or would have on the person or on a general idea about what he or she might think what life and God are. And also, that pretense freedom, under the light of a divinity or deity that, although good but impersonal, doesn’t truthfully set free the human being, given that reason is only released not while subtracting itself to the primacy of the senses, but with the knowledge of the truth. – So – said the Prophet –, it could be said then, in sum of what has been said up to this point, that the basic operation of reason while discernment of what is good and what is evil leads to conclude that exists something that is convenient, that is good, and something that should be rejected, that is evil. Because the human being is a social being, and because of what his reason desires as a child, or as a conscientious mother with her small children, while naturally rejecting the horrors of war, that same Good has to be a good that produces peace as universal good, that is, applicable to all. Since the universal good, without bearing God into account, makes that the notions of good and evil not even being reasonable to be put – given that, if God didn’t exist, the only evil that would exist and be worthy of such a name would be the one of being caught doing it –; and given that a notion of goodness, without bearing into account the existence of God, can only be possible if imposed by the force of arms or of a balloted majority, that same envisioning/acceptance (to that good/best possible peace) seems to deny the most basic operation of reason and its most fundamental aspiration while stating to us that there is something that is good and something that is bad, that is, of goodness existing, and also seems to deny the most fundamental aspiration of reason, if these are the only means for goodness and universal peace, the consequent desire of the human being as a social being, that is, while desiring peace. So, not being able to deny what is the most fundamental in human reason by the foreseen best possible ways so to express what is the most real and basic in human reason, consciousness, truth, that same inability of expressing universal goodness and peace (unless by the erroneous/best possible ways of escape from penalty, the force of arms or a balloted majority, unable to establish peace universally), that same inadequacy of those best possible means, because denying the foundation of what is the most real and essential of human reason, already point to a necessity – not for being necessary (instrumentally speaking, so to obtain peace) but truly existing, because the human being/reason also exist – of a Universal Good, anterior and successor to life in this world. (Anterior and successor in the sense of already existing before the human being – without wanting to regress to human origins, but simply already anterior to us presently anyway – and successor in the sense of pointing to the logical necessity of having to have a Judgment from that Good that all will be subjected to after death. »That Good still has to be reckoned as in being able to express Himself explicitly, and not being only an idea of an impersonal Good, because reason is the explicit existence of the Being, being just that when faithful to its nature while fundamentally expressing its desires for good so to obtain the peace that it aspires to. Being then, if not seeking that, only a reason or a use of reason while instrument of war and hypocrisy, that is, worst than animals, that, although it could be attributed to them a use of, well, not rational or discursive reason, but a form of reason (while affective memory and problem solving ensemble), being then a «reason» totally subdued to the senses. Not being then human beings hypocrites only when they make a use of reason while faithful to its most basic impulses and basic operations, that is, while true instrument of peace. – Well pointed – commented the Foreigner. – That said, it has to be reckoned that it is reason itself, not as idyllically or romantically envisioning an interpretation, as if wanting to fool itself, but simply for reckoning what it says fundamentally through its most basic impulses or basic operations (of discernment of good and evil), but it’s reason itself, through its most fundamental activity that tells us that it exists, at least, Something Personal, that is, Someone, that is Intelligent, Eternal and that seeks peace. »Moral or morality, while an operation of reason that aims at the discernment between good and evil, of the souls in itself, ad intra and also interpersonally speaking, already put in perspective with the premises mentioned previously, seems to be, however, preliminary or introductory to something greater, because it seems to be an operation moved solely by, so to speak, «pure» rationality, understanding by that the fact of not bearing into account or not being moved by feeling or sentiment, without emotion, as if an operation arisen from the empathy of reason towards itself. Reason, since it doesn’t exist walled in itself, when reckoning the existence of that Supreme Good, is then, still without being exposed explicitly to that same Good, that is, still only reckoning the true existence of that Good as a result of the self-knowing exercise of itself, is already drawn to that Good, where its deliverance seems to be, while knowledge of Truth. Given this, moral or morality seems to be only a preparation for the true life, true knowledge and true freedom, that sums up in the expression: love of God. – Now, where does reason find the manifestation of that Supreme Good? – asked the Prophet. – It has already been demonstrated that the existence of that Good will imply to reason a religious relationship or of faith – continued the Foreigner. – The word believe shouldn’t be feared because believing is a fundamental and inescapable operation of reason. Believing is something that everybody does, even if it’s not a religious faith, that is, given that the human being isn’t able to verify all the information that he becomes aware of, and over which he builds his opinions and choices on, because of that, the human being is a being that inevitably lives off beliefs. So, believing is a fundamental and indispensable operation of reason. But the relationship of knowledge that reason, at this stage, still has with the Supreme Good is still a relationship of faith – not that reason, in itself, hasn’t already reckoned its existence, but hasn’t been exposed to an explicit manifestation of it yet. So, reason, while searching for the Voice of that Supreme Good, can only conclude one of two things (about the explicit manifestation of that Supreme Good in this world, given that, after death, reason already understands that the same will be manifested there), but reason, in that search, can only conclude one of two things: either it has already made itself manifested (in History) or not. And naturally that the most probable is that it has not only made itself manifested in this world but it’s present every day, or that Good wouldn’t be substantial but accidental, because, envisioned as such, that is, as accidental, is an hypothesis that reason rejects spontaneously due to its own substantial nature of permanent search for goodness. – Agree – said the Prophet. – So that Supreme Good should have, at least, some general characteristics that reason already deducted of its Nature: Someone that is Good, Intelligent, Eternal and Peaceful. Beyond these features, and because reason only ascends to that Good in a general and vague manner, that same manifestation should also have another characteristic: of it being a revelation, that is, what is revealed by other and not being a construct of reason about the more defined or explicit outlines of that Someone Good. Under these essential premises, already at start are excluded from that search all the doctrines, religions and philosophies that to not affirm such features when in reference to Divinity or general interpretation of the Real or its sense/meaning, I should say.
Posted on: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:05:21 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015