Beowulf: Beowulf: Permission to BehavePermission to Behave

FeracoFeraco

Search for Human PotentialSearch for Human Potential

13 December 201213 December 2012

Although he’s definitely the villain of the Although he’s definitely the villain of the poem’s first half, Grendel occupies a gray space poem’s first half, Grendel occupies a gray space in our ethical and moral systems; we don’t in our ethical and moral systems; we don’t really know what to do with/how to feel about a really know what to do with/how to feel about a victim of abandonment and cruelty who lashes victim of abandonment and cruelty who lashes out in kind. out in kind.

I should point out that, while the terms I should point out that, while the terms “ethics” and “morals” are related, they aren’t “ethics” and “morals” are related, they aren’t interchangeable. interchangeable.

When I speak of “morals,” I’m talking When I speak of “morals,” I’m talking about codes that govern your personal/private about codes that govern your personal/private behavior – whether you choose to help behavior – whether you choose to help someone, wear something, relate to someone, someone, wear something, relate to someone, abandon something, etc. abandon something, etc.

When I speak of “ethics,” I’m talking When I speak of “ethics,” I’m talking about codes that govern your professional about codes that govern your professional conduct – the beliefs that determine my conduct – the beliefs that determine my teaching style, for example. teaching style, for example.

For simplicity’s sake, let’s keep For simplicity’s sake, let’s keep assuming, as we did in assuming, as we did in Run Fast…,Run Fast…, that we have free will. that we have free will.

We established earlier that We established earlier that choices matter to us because they choices matter to us because they allow us to deviate from an allow us to deviate from an instinctive, automatic course.instinctive, automatic course.

Choice is a manual override, so Choice is a manual override, so to speak. to speak.

Morals function in much the Morals function in much the same way.same way.

Assuming we adhere to the Assuming we adhere to the values we say we hold dear, we use values we say we hold dear, we use morality to arrest our worst impulses morality to arrest our worst impulses – to resist temptation and – to resist temptation and corruption, or to avoid harming corruption, or to avoid harming others or ourselves unnecessarily. others or ourselves unnecessarily.

In other words, morals slam the In other words, morals slam the brakes on the parts of human nature brakes on the parts of human nature we don’t like; one wonders, then, we don’t like; one wonders, then, whether we aim to be something whether we aim to be something other than human. other than human.

However, morality really doesn’t have However, morality really doesn’t have to be restrictive, and nor do ethics. to be restrictive, and nor do ethics.

At its most basic level, the study of At its most basic level, the study of each requires the student to try each requires the student to try discovering the “best” way to live life. discovering the “best” way to live life.

Without those twin senses of Without those twin senses of “goodness,” we simply survive, and never “goodness,” we simply survive, and never grow; as I’ve often stated, our frameworks grow; as I’ve often stated, our frameworks give us direction. give us direction.

And that direction shapes more than And that direction shapes more than your career goals; how many friendships, your career goals; how many friendships, for example, would you lose if you only for example, would you lose if you only made relationships based on who could made relationships based on who could help you survive? help you survive?

More importantly, that combination – choice More importantly, that combination – choice and morality – profoundly impacts each and morality – profoundly impacts each individual’s sense of identity. individual’s sense of identity.

You should consistently check your own You should consistently check your own sense of morality; does it limit or free you? sense of morality; does it limit or free you?

In what ways does it affect you – and are In what ways does it affect you – and are you comfortable with those effects? you comfortable with those effects?

If you’re not, the nice thing is that you’re If you’re not, the nice thing is that you’re allowed to shift your framework; I imagine none allowed to shift your framework; I imagine none of you have the same values you held as a five-of you have the same values you held as a five-year-old, as your needs have changed year-old, as your needs have changed justjust a little a little since then. since then.

And as we pointed out earlier, if you have And as we pointed out earlier, if you have free will, you have the ability to choose your free will, you have the ability to choose your actions based on your individual needs – which, actions based on your individual needs – which, in turn, means you’re responsible for their in turn, means you’re responsible for their consequences, and thus get to choose whether consequences, and thus get to choose whether you’ll lead a “moral” life. you’ll lead a “moral” life.

But what But what isis a “moral” life? a “moral” life? It’s not simply a matter of It’s not simply a matter of

following accepted rules (although following accepted rules (although that’s typically not a bad place to that’s typically not a bad place to start). start).

After all, historians have After all, historians have documented numerous acts of civil documented numerous acts of civil disobedience – immorality in the disobedience – immorality in the legislative sense – that contributed to legislative sense – that contributed to human progress. human progress.

Was Gandhi’s resistance of British Was Gandhi’s resistance of British rule immoral? rule immoral?

Was King’s resistance of racial Was King’s resistance of racial bigotry? bigotry?

For that matter, would it have been For that matter, would it have been immoral for those men, both of whom were immoral for those men, both of whom were capable of so much, to stand by and do capable of so much, to stand by and do nothing in the name of following society’s nothing in the name of following society’s established laws? established laws?

In the examples of Gandhi and King, In the examples of Gandhi and King, “legal” and “moral” existed at odds with “legal” and “moral” existed at odds with one another. one another.

Should one follow the rules or follow Should one follow the rules or follow one’s instincts when they’re mutually one’s instincts when they’re mutually exclusive? exclusive?

And if you’re willing to break a rule And if you’re willing to break a rule because it feels morally wrong to follow it…because it feels morally wrong to follow it…well, what if your instincts are wrong? well, what if your instincts are wrong?

(You’ll understand why I ask this when (You’ll understand why I ask this when you read the you read the Revenge TherapyRevenge Therapy thread this thread this week.) week.)

We form moral/ethical frameworks We form moral/ethical frameworks in order to make sense of such situations in order to make sense of such situations – to take the things we comes across and – to take the things we comes across and contextualize them in a way that allows contextualize them in a way that allows us to act on our interpretations. us to act on our interpretations.

That framework allows you to make That framework allows you to make the choices you’d want to make. the choices you’d want to make.

Therefore, those codes eventually – Therefore, those codes eventually – inevitably – shape your hopes and inevitably – shape your hopes and dreams…which is why you have to dreams…which is why you have to construct your framework carefully, lest construct your framework carefully, lest you accidentally build a prison for you accidentally build a prison for yourself. yourself.

(Watch for “the box” in (Watch for “the box” in Revenge Revenge Therapy.Therapy.))

In this sense, the ability to choose In this sense, the ability to choose to live well is essentially the ability to to live well is essentially the ability to choose insight over ignorance, to choose insight over ignorance, to elevate the rich, varied lifestyle above elevate the rich, varied lifestyle above the thoughtless and bland. the thoughtless and bland.

You can choose either one, of You can choose either one, of course, but let’s say I want to live course, but let’s say I want to live well, to live a “good” life. well, to live a “good” life.

How How dodo I decide to do so? I decide to do so?

It seems like an awful lot of It seems like an awful lot of people have a lot of ideas about how people have a lot of ideas about how to do things...how do I choose?to do things...how do I choose?

Let’s start with that word: “good.” Let’s start with that word: “good.”

What does it mean? What does it mean?

Well, we defined ethics and morality Well, we defined ethics and morality before we did anything else because before we did anything else because goodness goodness couldcould be relative, and my be relative, and my impression of living well could be entirely impression of living well could be entirely off-base. off-base.

One thought-school holds that true One thought-school holds that true good and evil exists in the universe, good and evil exists in the universe, completely independent of any completely independent of any perspective-related bias or moral perspective-related bias or moral relativism, and that our inability to relativism, and that our inability to reliably perceive it points to a flaw in us, reliably perceive it points to a flaw in us, rather than in the perfect order of the rather than in the perfect order of the universe. universe.

Another school holds that good and Another school holds that good and evil are human constructions in a universe evil are human constructions in a universe that’s much larger than them, and thus that’s much larger than them, and thus too shallow to accurately describe the too shallow to accurately describe the things they do. things they do.

Still Still anotheranother holds that all morals are holds that all morals are relative, subject to dozens of factors per relative, subject to dozens of factors per individual, and that no one can point to individual, and that no one can point to something absolute and say, “This, here, something absolute and say, “This, here, is unambiguously, incontrovertibly good” is unambiguously, incontrovertibly good” without facing opposition – that, indeed, without facing opposition – that, indeed, every individual is responsible for defining every individual is responsible for defining “goodness” for himself or herself. “goodness” for himself or herself.

But if you are able to shape the But if you are able to shape the concept of whatever qualifies as “good” concept of whatever qualifies as “good” yourself, does “goodness” lose all real yourself, does “goodness” lose all real value? value?

You, for example, may believe You, for example, may believe Death Cab for Cutie is awful; I may Death Cab for Cutie is awful; I may believe they’re excellent. believe they’re excellent.

If we’re listening to the same If we’re listening to the same music at the same time, doesn’t that music at the same time, doesn’t that just invalidate the value of both just invalidate the value of both reactions? reactions?

(Think of the darker version of the (Think of the darker version of the P/Not P dilemma.) P/Not P dilemma.)

The worries here aren’t minor; The worries here aren’t minor; we’re talking about the words we use we’re talking about the words we use to make sense of the world and those to make sense of the world and those around us, words whose definitions around us, words whose definitions are assumed to be static during most are assumed to be static during most human interactions. human interactions.

When someone says something is When someone says something is “good,” your first reaction “good,” your first reaction isn’tisn’t to to assume that all concepts of goodness assume that all concepts of goodness are relative; it’s to mentally process are relative; it’s to mentally process the thing as “good.” the thing as “good.”

So when we say something is So when we say something is “good,” or ask whether something is “good,” or ask whether something is “good,” what do we really mean? “good,” what do we really mean?

Does the use of “good” in “Does the use of “good” in “One One Tree HillTree Hill is SO GOOD!” match the use is SO GOOD!” match the use of “good” in “Kindness is good for the of “good” in “Kindness is good for the soul”? soul”?

In some cases, we seem to be stating In some cases, we seem to be stating a fact about our opinions – when we say a fact about our opinions – when we say One Tree HillOne Tree Hill is good, we’re expressing a is good, we’re expressing a favorable opinion toward the show with favorable opinion toward the show with the expectation that others will agree (or the expectation that others will agree (or be interested). be interested).

In other cases, we seem to be stating In other cases, we seem to be stating a fact or truth about something – i.e., a fact or truth about something – i.e., “kindness is good.” “kindness is good.”

We call this We call this evaluative objectivism.evaluative objectivism. Evaluative language assigns a Evaluative language assigns a

“quality label” to something – this is “quality label” to something – this is good, that’s bad, this is right, that’s good, that’s bad, this is right, that’s wrong – and there are different schools of wrong – and there are different schools of thought relating to our uses of such thought relating to our uses of such language. language.

An evaluative objectivist thinks there An evaluative objectivist thinks there is such a thing as a “universal bad” or is such a thing as a “universal bad” or “universal good”; an evaluative skeptic, “universal good”; an evaluative skeptic, on the other hand, tends to think that on the other hand, tends to think that there are shades of grey in everything – there are shades of grey in everything – that is, that good and evil are relative that is, that good and evil are relative concepts rather than moral absolutes. concepts rather than moral absolutes.

There are ways to deal with the There are ways to deal with the skeptical thinker, just as there are ways to skeptical thinker, just as there are ways to deal with the objectivist thinker. deal with the objectivist thinker.

The point, however, is that our The point, however, is that our personal understanding of that single personal understanding of that single four-letter word – “good” – has a four-letter word – “good” – has a tremendous impact on how we see the tremendous impact on how we see the world – and, therefore, on how we make world – and, therefore, on how we make moral and ethical decisions. moral and ethical decisions.

Let’s test this hypothesis with a Let’s test this hypothesis with a simple question: are you living a simple question: are you living a good life? good life?

The obvious follow-up question: The obvious follow-up question: “Well, what defines ‘the’ good life? “Well, what defines ‘the’ good life? What defines ‘a’ good life?” What defines ‘a’ good life?”

I know that a bunch of different I know that a bunch of different responses will pop up around the responses will pop up around the classroom if I ask that question, classroom if I ask that question, because you each have your own because you each have your own interpretation of goodness, and you interpretation of goodness, and you assign your own value/weight to assign your own value/weight to goodness as well.goodness as well.

Can we set up our own ethical Can we set up our own ethical and moral codes just like that, and moral codes just like that, however? however?

Well, sure – morals aren’t Well, sure – morals aren’t (usually) carved in stone, and the (usually) carved in stone, and the construction of those codes plays a construction of those codes plays a huge role in determining any huge role in determining any person’s sense of identity. person’s sense of identity.

What’s hard, though, is trying to What’s hard, though, is trying to separate what one is taught from separate what one is taught from what one teaches oneself; I’m not what one teaches oneself; I’m not sure morality can develop in a social sure morality can develop in a social vacuum, but if it can’t, how can you vacuum, but if it can’t, how can you tell which beliefs are really “yours”? tell which beliefs are really “yours”?

And the bigger question – the And the bigger question – the more controversial one – is not more controversial one – is not whether you whether you cancan set up your own set up your own ethical and moral codes, but whether ethical and moral codes, but whether you should be you should be allowedallowed to do so. to do so.

After all, what’s a criminal action After all, what’s a criminal action other than a misaligning of one’s other than a misaligning of one’s moral and ethical codes to the ones moral and ethical codes to the ones held by the consensus? held by the consensus?

And how easy is it to act And how easy is it to act perfectly in accordance with beliefs perfectly in accordance with beliefs you don’t personally hold?you don’t personally hold?

The whole concept of a society as a The whole concept of a society as a body rests on the assumption that the body rests on the assumption that the people who live together in a certain people who live together in a certain region did so because they believe similar region did so because they believe similar things. things.

This was as true in Beowulf’s time as This was as true in Beowulf’s time as it is now, perhaps moreso if you consider it is now, perhaps moreso if you consider the likelihood that these characters lived the likelihood that these characters lived in places where just about everyone ate in places where just about everyone ate the same food and spoke the same the same food and spoke the same language. language.

But even in our current mishmashed, But even in our current mishmashed, far-flung, polyglot society, people tend to far-flung, polyglot society, people tend to self-select in order to stay close to people self-select in order to stay close to people who are “like them,” whether in terms of who are “like them,” whether in terms of religious, cultural, social, or political religious, cultural, social, or political makeup. makeup.

(This is one reason why Diversity (This is one reason why Diversity Weeks remain important.) Weeks remain important.)

To be clear, my emphasis on belief To be clear, my emphasis on belief in this case is predicated more on in this case is predicated more on socially-accepted criteria (don’t throw socially-accepted criteria (don’t throw things while teaching, etc.) and less on things while teaching, etc.) and less on things like who to pray to or vote into things like who to pray to or vote into office. office.

On that score, as long as my codes On that score, as long as my codes meet the criteria my society uses to meet the criteria my society uses to define “good,” I’ll probably be fine in its define “good,” I’ll probably be fine in its eyes. eyes.

This is why many peoples’ This is why many peoples’ ethical/moral frameworks are deeply ethical/moral frameworks are deeply influenced by religious or social influenced by religious or social precedents; few among us want to be precedents; few among us want to be exiled. exiled.

Most of us would more readily Most of us would more readily betray our convictions then be turned betray our convictions then be turned into Grendels, even in a minor way. into Grendels, even in a minor way.

That, I think, is why it’s so difficult for That, I think, is why it’s so difficult for some of you to understand his situation: some of you to understand his situation: you’ve usually been given the chance to you’ve usually been given the chance to bend yourself into whatever shape you bend yourself into whatever shape you and others deemed socially acceptable. and others deemed socially acceptable.

Grendel never got that chance, was Grendel never got that chance, was never going to get that chance, and then – never going to get that chance, and then – to top it off – was going to be forced to to top it off – was going to be forced to listen to people living the life he’d been listen to people living the life he’d been denied while he rotted (semi-literally) in a denied while he rotted (semi-literally) in a freezing, haunted swamp.freezing, haunted swamp.

Given all that, it’s not particularly Given all that, it’s not particularly surprising that he snaps.surprising that he snaps.

Grendel’s situation is extreme, but it Grendel’s situation is extreme, but it points back to what Gladwell alludes to points back to what Gladwell alludes to when he discusses opportunities, or what when he discusses opportunities, or what Dr. King and Gandhi understood when Dr. King and Gandhi understood when they led their movements: problems occur they led their movements: problems occur when, for whatever reason, it’s not when, for whatever reason, it’s not possible to align your beliefs with societal possible to align your beliefs with societal norms. norms.

A society full of people with A society full of people with wildlywildly divergent ideas of ethics/morals cannot divergent ideas of ethics/morals cannot stand: we use “consensus morality” to stand: we use “consensus morality” to define criminality, and a total lack of define criminality, and a total lack of agreement on basic standards simply agreement on basic standards simply leads to the collapse of law. leads to the collapse of law.

Yet there’s an equal danger in Yet there’s an equal danger in “groupthink,” where progressive ideas “groupthink,” where progressive ideas are instantly feared, dismissed, or are instantly feared, dismissed, or ridiculed simply because they don’t match ridiculed simply because they don’t match pre-existing standards.  pre-existing standards. 

That’s the balancing act, then, That’s the balancing act, then, that falls to every individual: how that falls to every individual: how different can I choose to be? different can I choose to be?

How unique should my choices How unique should my choices and morals be? and morals be?

How much do I dare to rock the How much do I dare to rock the boat while I’m alive? boat while I’m alive?

Can I live with my choices along Can I live with my choices along the way? the way?

And can I live with them when And can I live with them when the bill comes due?the bill comes due?

Can my soul?Can my soul?

When asking about the soul’s When asking about the soul’s nature, it helps to start with basic nature, it helps to start with basic questions… something like questions… something like “Where is it?” “Where is it?”

Is it in your head? Heart? Is it in your head? Heart? Pinky? Pinky?

Clearly, the soul isn’t Clearly, the soul isn’t something you can grab and rip something you can grab and rip out, Mortal Kombat-style. out, Mortal Kombat-style.

But how can we be sure it But how can we be sure it exists if we can’t find it? exists if we can’t find it?

To try solving this puzzle ourselves, we To try solving this puzzle ourselves, we need to look at what constitutes a human need to look at what constitutes a human being. being.

Our first school of thought today is Our first school of thought today is MonismMonism, which holds that everything is made , which holds that everything is made out of the same stuff – no blending between out of the same stuff – no blending between anything. anything.

This “stuff” could be matter, could be This “stuff” could be matter, could be energy, could be thought – but whatever energy, could be thought – but whatever we’re made of is uniform. we’re made of is uniform.

In other words, there’s no separation In other words, there’s no separation between the “spiritual” and the “physical” – between the “spiritual” and the “physical” – Monists believe that everything is built from Monists believe that everything is built from the same blocks. the same blocks.

Therefore, humans are either going to Therefore, humans are either going to be all spiritual “stuff” or all physical “stuff.”be all spiritual “stuff” or all physical “stuff.”

There are two subsets of thought that, There are two subsets of thought that, when combined, form the Monist school. when combined, form the Monist school.

Think of a coin representing the Monist Think of a coin representing the Monist spectrum, with each subset representing spectrum, with each subset representing one of its faces. one of its faces.

We’ll assign “heads” to the We’ll assign “heads” to the MaterialistsMaterialists, who believed that , who believed that everythingeverything is physical – the energy/matter continuum, is physical – the energy/matter continuum, essentially. essentially.

In this case, “thought” would not be In this case, “thought” would not be something that’s “intangible” – it’s a real, something that’s “intangible” – it’s a real, tangible electrical signal, carried from tangible electrical signal, carried from physical neuron to physical neuron. physical neuron to physical neuron.

Since nothing is intangible – and the Since nothing is intangible – and the soul would seem to be – the Materialists soul would seem to be – the Materialists argue we don’t have them. argue we don’t have them.

There’s some disagreement among There’s some disagreement among Materialists, however, on what constitutes a Materialists, however, on what constitutes a human being. human being.

We’ll only concentrate on two We’ll only concentrate on two sub-sub-subsets subsets in the interest of time. in the interest of time.

Eliminative MaterialistsEliminative Materialists take a hard line: take a hard line: “thought” doesn’t exist, nor does sensation. “thought” doesn’t exist, nor does sensation.

Everything is just an electrical event in your Everything is just an electrical event in your brain, and all events are made of the same brain, and all events are made of the same “stuff”: nothing that happens brain-wise is “stuff”: nothing that happens brain-wise is distinct. distinct.

Reductive MaterialistsReductive Materialists are gentler – they are gentler – they accept thought exists – but they also reduce it to accept thought exists – but they also reduce it to an electric event. an electric event.

In any event, all Materialists basically argue In any event, all Materialists basically argue that we’re just “stuff,” and there’s no mysterious that we’re just “stuff,” and there’s no mysterious or mystical “soul” in us because we’re uniform or mystical “soul” in us because we’re uniform and thus indivisible. and thus indivisible.

If Materialist Monists (say that five If Materialist Monists (say that five times fast!) have the right idea – that times fast!) have the right idea – that we’re uniform blocks of “stuff” – we can’t we’re uniform blocks of “stuff” – we can’t be divided into bodies and souls. be divided into bodies and souls.

Since we can’t be divided, we can’t Since we can’t be divided, we can’t release anything separate when we die. release anything separate when we die.

(Also, if a soul’s not put in at birth, a (Also, if a soul’s not put in at birth, a soul’s not leaving when we die.) soul’s not leaving when we die.)

This, of course, doesn’t worry the This, of course, doesn’t worry the Monists much: as William Hazlitt put it, Monists much: as William Hazlitt put it, “there was a time when we were not: this “there was a time when we were not: this gives us no concern – why then should it gives us no concern – why then should it trouble us that a time will come when we trouble us that a time will come when we shall cease to be?” shall cease to be?”

Since we assigned “heads” to Since we assigned “heads” to the Materialists, we’ll assign “tails” the Materialists, we’ll assign “tails” to the to the IdealistsIdealists, who believed that , who believed that the only things that exist are minds the only things that exist are minds and ideas; anything that seems and ideas; anything that seems physical instead is simply a mental physical instead is simply a mental projection. projection.

In other words, we’ll move from In other words, we’ll move from being nothing but physical forms in being nothing but physical forms in the Materialists’ eyes to nothing the Materialists’ eyes to nothing butbut souls now. souls now.

This body is not a body; my eyes This body is not a body; my eyes aren’t being used; it’s all in my aren’t being used; it’s all in my head. head.

With the Materialists and With the Materialists and Idealists representing opposing Idealists representing opposing sides of a coin, it stands to reason sides of a coin, it stands to reason that there’s a school that grabs the that there’s a school that grabs the whole coin. whole coin.

That’s the That’s the DualistDualist school. school.

They hold that both bodies They hold that both bodies (physical “stuff”) and souls (physical “stuff”) and souls (mental/spiritual “stuff”) can exist, (mental/spiritual “stuff”) can exist, and account for our inability to sense and account for our inability to sense the soul by proposing what amounts the soul by proposing what amounts to a multi-plane system. to a multi-plane system.

According to the Dualists, our According to the Dualists, our bodies exist in this reality/plane of bodies exist in this reality/plane of existence, while our souls exist in existence, while our souls exist in another one – one that’s perfectly another one – one that’s perfectly laid over our own and runs at exactly laid over our own and runs at exactly the same speed. the same speed.

We’re linked together in time, if We’re linked together in time, if not in physical space, and we access not in physical space, and we access what we can’t see like an antenna what we can’t see like an antenna that receives and processes an that receives and processes an external signal. external signal.

If you like the concept of human If you like the concept of human beings as combinations – a fusion of body beings as combinations – a fusion of body and soul – you’re also accepting the idea and soul – you’re also accepting the idea of a “double reality” (the seen and of a “double reality” (the seen and unseen). unseen).

For that matter, you might buy into For that matter, you might buy into “double reality” without being a Dualist at “double reality” without being a Dualist at heart.heart.

You can propose that a human being You can propose that a human being is one thing (not body and soul is one thing (not body and soul components, but one whole object), then components, but one whole object), then assert that some “omni force” – a god or assert that some “omni force” – a god or gods – operates beyond your range of gods – operates beyond your range of sensory perception. sensory perception.

It affects your life, it can help you, it It affects your life, it can help you, it can sense you – but you can’t see it.can sense you – but you can’t see it.

In any case, each school of In any case, each school of thought seeks to address similar thought seeks to address similar concerns. concerns.

Is there more to man than Is there more to man than what can be sensed? what can be sensed?

If there isn’t, how did we even If there isn’t, how did we even conceive of a “soul”? conceive of a “soul”?

(It’s not like anyone believes (It’s not like anyone believes they have “secret physical” they have “secret physical” components.) components.)

If there is, which part is more If there is, which part is more important – body or soul? important – body or soul?

Which part lives your life? Which part lives your life?

Is what goes on in my head – Is what goes on in my head – my consciousness and thoughts – my consciousness and thoughts – different from my soul? different from my soul?

(Descartes said no – he felt (Descartes said no – he felt that the mind and spirit combined that the mind and spirit combined to form the “theatre of to form the “theatre of consciousness and conscious consciousness and conscious experience.”) experience.”)

Oddly enough, these questions Oddly enough, these questions go to the heart of our earlier go to the heart of our earlier explorations of choice and explorations of choice and morality. morality.

If we’re just programmed by If we’re just programmed by cells and chemistry, are our cells and chemistry, are our “infinite possibilities” actually “infinite possibilities” actually limited – at a sub-molecular level? limited – at a sub-molecular level?

(It’s the same question we (It’s the same question we considered when we introduced considered when we introduced the “divinely guided” artist, the “divinely guided” artist, except here biology, not divinity, except here biology, not divinity, provides the guidance.) provides the guidance.)

As you can imagine, Monists and As you can imagine, Monists and Dualists can’t reach common ground Dualists can’t reach common ground while considering these matters (mainly while considering these matters (mainly due to the Monists’ perspective), and due to the Monists’ perspective), and they don’t take too kindly to each other. they don’t take too kindly to each other.

The Monists believe that we are The Monists believe that we are complex – but uniform – beings, with our complex – but uniform – beings, with our uniformity eliminating the possibility uniformity eliminating the possibility that we possess souls. that we possess souls.

The Dualists believe the opposite – The Dualists believe the opposite – that we’re divided at a metaphysical that we’re divided at a metaphysical level, and that there’s something to us level, and that there’s something to us that we aren’t seeing. that we aren’t seeing.

But even if we do have souls – if But even if we do have souls – if we are living a Dualist existence – we are living a Dualist existence – the Hazlitt quote is still worth the Hazlitt quote is still worth pondering. pondering.

After all, none of us can After all, none of us can remember a time before our births. remember a time before our births.

What was our soul doing before What was our soul doing before then? then?

Where does the river begin? Where does the river begin? Where do we go after – if Where do we go after – if

there’s anywhere to go?there’s anywhere to go? And where does the river end? And where does the river end?

Moreover, if one does have a Moreover, if one does have a soul, one has to wonder whether it soul, one has to wonder whether it can be changed (consciously or can be changed (consciously or unconsciously), damaged, etc. unconsciously), damaged, etc.

At a minimum, if the soul can’t At a minimum, if the soul can’t be changed, character and be changed, character and personality certainly can; this personality certainly can; this would indicate that soul and would indicate that soul and character are separate. character are separate.

If the soul can’t be changed, is If the soul can’t be changed, is it more important than our it more important than our character – our self-constructed character – our self-constructed personas, the ones that we shift in personas, the ones that we shift in accordance with the experiences accordance with the experiences and knowledge we gain throughout and knowledge we gain throughout our lives? our lives?

Which one governs our behavior Which one governs our behavior – soul or character? – soul or character?

And if souls can’t be changed, And if souls can’t be changed, why bother being good? why bother being good?

Your soul’s going to be the Your soul’s going to be the same anyway. same anyway.

Is it a matter of fearing the Is it a matter of fearing the karmic consequences? karmic consequences?

Are we afraid something bad Are we afraid something bad will happen to our souls after we will happen to our souls after we die regardless of whether the soul die regardless of whether the soul was “responsible”? was “responsible”?

Earlier today, I made the same point Earlier today, I made the same point about a dozen times: our morals provide a about a dozen times: our morals provide a scaffold in order to stop us from behaving scaffold in order to stop us from behaving (naturally) badly. (naturally) badly.

What would have motivated that What would have motivated that awful “natural” behavior, however? awful “natural” behavior, however?

Our souls? Our souls? If not, why do we believe our soul’s If not, why do we believe our soul’s

eventual fate depends on what we do eventual fate depends on what we do here? here?

How is it any more fair to punish a How is it any more fair to punish a soul for something it couldn’t control than soul for something it couldn’t control than it would be to punish someone who didn’t it would be to punish someone who didn’t mean to commit a crime? mean to commit a crime?

And if there’s some meaning to our And if there’s some meaning to our lives at the time we die, will we have been lives at the time we die, will we have been defined by who we are…or what we’ve defined by who we are…or what we’ve done? done?

Jesse Lacey, Brand New’s lead vocalist, once Jesse Lacey, Brand New’s lead vocalist, once sang, “…I’m not scared to die / But I’m a little bit sang, “…I’m not scared to die / But I’m a little bit scared of what comes after / Do I get the gold scared of what comes after / Do I get the gold chariot? / Do I float through the ceiling? / Do I chariot? / Do I float through the ceiling? / Do I divide and fall apart?”divide and fall apart?”

William Ernest Hocking wryly notes that William Ernest Hocking wryly notes that “man is the only animal that contemplates death, “man is the only animal that contemplates death, and also the only animal that shows any sign of and also the only animal that shows any sign of doubt of its finality.” doubt of its finality.”

Numerous cultures and theologies provide Numerous cultures and theologies provide different explanations for what death actually is. different explanations for what death actually is.

(One wonders why we don’t have a “Unified (One wonders why we don’t have a “Unified Theory of Death.”) Theory of Death.”)

However, it’s useful to begin with our old However, it’s useful to begin with our old logic, the Laws of the Excluded Middle and logic, the Laws of the Excluded Middle and Noncontradiction: either something lies beyond Noncontradiction: either something lies beyond death – regardless of what it is – or nothing does. death – regardless of what it is – or nothing does.

For the sake of our exploration today, we’ll For the sake of our exploration today, we’ll consider both.consider both.

Scientifically speaking, death Scientifically speaking, death represents the end of corporeal existence. represents the end of corporeal existence.

(“Corporeal” = “Physical” – “Corpus” (“Corporeal” = “Physical” – “Corpus” Body Body Corpse.) Corpse.)

It seems like such a simple deal, and It seems like such a simple deal, and to a Materialist, it is – but to others, not to a Materialist, it is – but to others, not so much. so much.

Remember, if you’re a Materialist, Remember, if you’re a Materialist, you don’t believe in a division between you don’t believe in a division between realms – you think this is it. realms – you think this is it.

This doesn’t mean that a Dualist can’t This doesn’t mean that a Dualist can’t believe this is it; it’s just that dualism is a believe this is it; it’s just that dualism is a prerequisite belief if one wants to believe prerequisite belief if one wants to believe in some sort of afterlife or reincarnation. in some sort of afterlife or reincarnation.

As you might expect, a Monist doesn’t think As you might expect, a Monist doesn’t think anything happens after death – or happened anything happens after death – or happened before life. before life.

This works for Idealists (who believe we’re This works for Idealists (who believe we’re nothing but mental energy and projections), as nothing but mental energy and projections), as well as for Materialists. well as for Materialists.

The Idealists, after all, recognize that death The Idealists, after all, recognize that death “happens,” even if they don’t believe a physical “happens,” even if they don’t believe a physical body is actually expiring. body is actually expiring.

Instead, they simply assume death Instead, they simply assume death represents the fundamental ending of a represents the fundamental ending of a consciousness.consciousness.

A Dualist, on the other hand, operates A Dualist, on the other hand, operates under the principle that there’s more to us than under the principle that there’s more to us than meets the eye. meets the eye.

Again, you don’t have to believe in an Again, you don’t have to believe in an afterlife if you’re a Dualist, but a belief in some afterlife if you’re a Dualist, but a belief in some state of being that persists after death requires state of being that persists after death requires you to assume that humans are more than sacks you to assume that humans are more than sacks of meat and bones. of meat and bones.

If you’re a Monist, can you fear If you’re a Monist, can you fear death? death?

Sure – there’s a push and pull Sure – there’s a push and pull between accepting what you see as the between accepting what you see as the natural necessity of death and facing the natural necessity of death and facing the overwhelming terror of oblivion. overwhelming terror of oblivion.

Plus, there’s always that final Plus, there’s always that final possibility: what if you’re wrong? possibility: what if you’re wrong?

(Would this be a good or bad thing? If (Would this be a good or bad thing? If you’re a Monist, I suppose it depends.) you’re a Monist, I suppose it depends.)

If you’re a Dualist, should you fear If you’re a Dualist, should you fear death? death?

Sure – what if Sure – what if you’reyou’re wrong? wrong? Plus, who’s to say you lived well Plus, who’s to say you lived well

enough to enjoy a second life even if enough to enjoy a second life even if you’re a Dualist? you’re a Dualist?

Imminent death tends to elicit a number of Imminent death tends to elicit a number of different fearful reactions from people. different fearful reactions from people.

We may fear that, as I alluded to before, We may fear that, as I alluded to before, something we did in life will come back to haunt something we did in life will come back to haunt us. us.

Others may fear that nothing we do, for Others may fear that nothing we do, for good or ill, will impact our fate after death. good or ill, will impact our fate after death.

Still others fear death because it is a Still others fear death because it is a mystery, and our minds respond oddly to mystery, and our minds respond oddly to perceived dangers that aren’t fully understood. perceived dangers that aren’t fully understood.

We may fear that the end will involve We may fear that the end will involve suffering, or that nothing awaits us on the other suffering, or that nothing awaits us on the other side. side.

But our greatest fear may also be the But our greatest fear may also be the simplest: the possibility that our deeply-held simplest: the possibility that our deeply-held beliefs about the end are, in fact, wrong – and beliefs about the end are, in fact, wrong – and that something else, something unanticipated, that something else, something unanticipated, will happen instead. will happen instead.

The great philosopher Plato took The great philosopher Plato took a physically-oriented approach to the a physically-oriented approach to the study of death. study of death.

He argued physical objects don’t He argued physical objects don’t just stop existing. just stop existing.

If you want to “kill” a chair, what If you want to “kill” a chair, what do you do? do you do?

Breaking it up just separates it Breaking it up just separates it into its components, and even burning into its components, and even burning it leaves ashes.it leaves ashes.

The chair’s been transformed into The chair’s been transformed into something else, but not eradicated something else, but not eradicated from existence; whatever you started from existence; whatever you started with remains. with remains.

The same thing holds true for a The same thing holds true for a statue – if it falls over, it breaks into statue – if it falls over, it breaks into little shards, but the stone remains. little shards, but the stone remains.

This, Plato asserted, is how things This, Plato asserted, is how things get destroyed in our world – they get destroyed in our world – they break down into components, but break down into components, but they aren’t eradicated or erased. they aren’t eradicated or erased.

Plato, a Dualist, then went on to Plato, a Dualist, then went on to argue that since the soul is not argue that since the soul is not substance, it cannot be broken down substance, it cannot be broken down into parts – and since it can’t be into parts – and since it can’t be broken down, it cannot be destroyed. broken down, it cannot be destroyed.

Plato’s thought process may hold Plato’s thought process may hold true for physical things – but is true for physical things – but is everything in this world physical? everything in this world physical?

This is the sort of question that This is the sort of question that makes a Materialist angry, as one would makes a Materialist angry, as one would insist that everything is physical, and insist that everything is physical, and that it therefore makes no sense for that it therefore makes no sense for there to be this mysterious thing there to be this mysterious thing composed of something unknowable composed of something unknowable beyond sensation. beyond sensation.

If you’re not a materialist, however, If you’re not a materialist, however, you acknowledge that there are a you acknowledge that there are a variety of different “substances” in the variety of different “substances” in the world. world.

Is the beam from my laser pointer Is the beam from my laser pointer made from the same “stuff” as the grass made from the same “stuff” as the grass on the softball field? on the softball field?

However, things do exist that stop existing. However, things do exist that stop existing. Where does light go when you shut off its Where does light go when you shut off its

source? source? Possibly nowhere – possibly everywhere. Possibly nowhere – possibly everywhere. If I play a note on the piano, however, does If I play a note on the piano, however, does

it play forever? it play forever? What if I destroy the piano? What if I destroy the piano? Can the note live on without its host – its Can the note live on without its host – its

source? source? How does Plato know that the soul isn’t How does Plato know that the soul isn’t

made of something as transitory as a musical made of something as transitory as a musical note – or a physical body? note – or a physical body?

Then again, if the soul isn’t meant to Then again, if the soul isn’t meant to endure forever, what’s the point of having one? endure forever, what’s the point of having one?

With death – as with many other things – With death – as with many other things – humanity’s questions just lead to more humanity’s questions just lead to more questions.questions.

We often wonder about the meaning We often wonder about the meaning of life in the context of the meaning of of life in the context of the meaning of death. death.

If there’s no “beyond,” many wonder, If there’s no “beyond,” many wonder, is there any point to the “here and now”? is there any point to the “here and now”?

I would argue that the lack of a I would argue that the lack of a “beyond” would make the good we “beyond” would make the good we perform in this life even more important; perform in this life even more important; if this is all we get, why not make it as if this is all we get, why not make it as wonderful for everyone as possible? wonderful for everyone as possible?

William Penn phrases it better than William Penn phrases it better than me: “I expect to pass through life but me: “I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore, there be any kindness I once. If therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do to can show, or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now, and not any fellow being, let me do it now, and not defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again.” way again.”

What if there’s nothing after this? What if there’s nothing after this?

How would our lives in this “plane” How would our lives in this “plane” (using the Dualist system) change if (using the Dualist system) change if nothing lies beyond? nothing lies beyond?

Is Penn’s philosophy best? Is Penn’s philosophy best?

Should we instead simply throw Should we instead simply throw morality out the window and take what we morality out the window and take what we want while we can? want while we can?

Does the mystery surrounding death Does the mystery surrounding death actually help us live better lives? actually help us live better lives?

(It depends on your view regarding (It depends on your view regarding fear, I suppose – is it a positive or fear, I suppose – is it a positive or negative force?) negative force?)

Many theologies and cultures account Many theologies and cultures account for some sort of continued existence. for some sort of continued existence.

One wonders if this shared tendency One wonders if this shared tendency towards a reverence for an “afterlife” is towards a reverence for an “afterlife” is meaningful in and of itself, or if it merely meaningful in and of itself, or if it merely reveals something interesting about the reveals something interesting about the human character – whatever that human character – whatever that interesting thing may be. interesting thing may be.

We have people who claim to have We have people who claim to have been contacted from beyond, or to have been contacted from beyond, or to have come back from the brink of death. come back from the brink of death.

In some cases, people insist that they In some cases, people insist that they remember previous lives – previous remember previous lives – previous revolutions of the Samsara cycle, perhaps. revolutions of the Samsara cycle, perhaps.

But in any event, the mystery surrounding But in any event, the mystery surrounding death – the sheer enormity of all that we don’t death – the sheer enormity of all that we don’t know – isn’t necessarily a prescription for know – isn’t necessarily a prescription for negative possibilities. negative possibilities.

After all, if we don’t know whether we After all, if we don’t know whether we continue beyond our corporeal end, we don’t continue beyond our corporeal end, we don’t know that we know that we can’tcan’t continue. continue.

Perhaps that’s part of the meanings of both Perhaps that’s part of the meanings of both life and death: that without definite knowledge, life and death: that without definite knowledge, all doors remain open to us, and we have an all doors remain open to us, and we have an opportunity to explore the infinite possibilities of opportunity to explore the infinite possibilities of existence – and, in turn, the infinite possibility existence – and, in turn, the infinite possibility for discovery, both of new answers and new for discovery, both of new answers and new questions, a billion targets at which to fling the questions, a billion targets at which to fling the arrows of our selves…or souls.arrows of our selves…or souls.

We just have to hope that we, like Carl, like We just have to hope that we, like Carl, like Beowulf, lived well enough to make the Beowulf, lived well enough to make the adventure worth taking.adventure worth taking.