Our collective
human
archives, our accumulated lore and legends and all our records, are
prolifically endowed with many varied,
interesting
(and in some cases
trulyfabulous) accounts of
how
and
why
all this came to be. Some such accounts even claim to be
"The Truth",
a claim which appears to be symptomatic of the onset of great
righteousness later on. Others are
presented
as
possibilities,
as "What if ... ?"s - which appears to make
them
clearer
to look at, more palatable to entertain, and certainly much
easier
to
consider.
Generally
speaking,
many such explanations and / or attempts to explain the
how
and the
why
of it all, are at the confluence where the two great
rivers,
science and
religion,
meet. Sometimes there's
common
ground. Sometimes there's only disdain and
hostilityshouted
from one bank to the other.
Of
course
we're not limited to only tworivers
which
source
this
inquiry.
That would make it overly
simplistic.
There are many others in addition to science and
religion:
notably there's also the
"I don't
know"river.
"I don't know"
/
"We don't know",
in regard to
how
and
why
all this came to be, is arguably the one
closest
to
the truth
- that is, if you're willing to tell
the truth
unflinchingly about our situation. We know what we know. We also know
(regarding certain areas of life) what we don't know.
"I don't
knowhow
or
why
all this came to be" is as
close
to an
authentic,
honest,
truthful
statement about
how
and
why
all this came to be, as y'all are likely to
get.
Now something is often forgotten and / or overlooked in this pursuit.
Something is often neglected in this
inquiry
into our
origins
and into the
origins
of all that came to be. It's this: the mechanisms ie the instruments
with which we conduct the
inquiry
(to wit, our intelligence, our intellect, our discrimination etc)
are included in that which came to be, yes? That
being
so, I
question
whether we have any access to an objective outcome of such an
inquiry,
when that with which we're conducting the
inquiryis also that into which we're
inquiring.
Can we, for example,
using
our intelligence, reach an objective outcome
inquiring
into the
origins
of our intelligence? Can we,
using
our intellect, reach an objective outcome
inquiring
into the
origins
of our intellect? Can we,
using
our discrimination, reach an objective outcome
inquiring
into the
origins
of our discrimination? I don't assume
the answers
to these
questions
are no, and I don't assume
the answers
are yes (in any case, with
transformation
we'll
get
to appreciate
the answers
in an entirely new
light).
Rather, what I am suggesting is these are the real
questions
ie these are the
interestingquestions
to
ask.
Where it leaves me is with the following compelling realization:
inquiry
or no
inquiry,
outcome or no outcome, explanation or no explanation, I'm here.
I'm still here, whether I'm in the
inquiry
or not. I'm still here, whether the
inquiry
bears fruit (ie
answers)
or not. The
inquiry
can (and probably will) produce many, manypossibleanswers,
and the
inquiry
may or may not produce satisfaction ... and
yet ... the blindingly
simple
obviousness of it all is
inquiry
or not, I'm here, whether the
how
and the
why
is explained or not ie understood or not. This suggests the pragmatist
pays
attention
to
being
here rather than to the
how
and the
why
of it all coming to be.
So I don't
questionhow
and
why
it all came to be, as a condition of satisfaction for my life. Rather
than
questionhow
and
why
it all came to be, I
simply
appreciate that it is. Understanding the
how
and the
why,
is not required. As
stupid
as it sounds, understanding the
how
and the
why
is not a condition of satisfaction for living.
