On Being

So, who are the thinkers that talk about the value of existing?

I want to read some on that. 

Here's what I mean (and I'm going to go through my thought process):

It started with art. 

I'm thinking about the value of art. Now, I believe art to be valuable. I love the stuff. So I asked myself why. Why do I love art? Why do I think it's valuable? The phrase "art for art's sake" immediately came to mind. 

"Art is valuable because it is art!" I told myself, and then immediately disagreed. Or, at least, I failed to wholeheartedly agree all at once. 

something? Isn't that why you think it's valuable?"

I said, "wait, wait, are you sure? Doesn't art do something? Isn't that why you think it's valuable?"

"Not really," but I didn't just want to go back and reassert that it's for it's own sake so, "I do think that art can do some really important things that only art can do, teach things in certain ways, express certain ideas in a particular mode, but it doesn't have too. It's not like the art that most effectively communicates a certain point is the best art. Let's not enslave art to didacticism, now."

"Okay, right right," I had to agree there, "but if you say that art is 'valuable just because it's art' what do you really mean? Even if what you're really saying is that the value in art is simply in its 'beauty' or 'artistry' (wow, loaded terms there, we could play definition games all night) what you're really saying is that the value in art is found in the extent to which it is beautiful or artistic. The extension of that would be that the value in art lies in beautifying, which is doing something, which goes right back to art being valuable for something other than art."

"Not necessarily," it was hard to keep my wagging head from being condescending, "even if it were true that 'art for art's sake' meant that art was valuable because it is beautiful, it's a non sequitur to say that is the same as saying that it is valuable for beautifying. The latter term is the effect it would have on something else, the former something possessed for itself."

"Okay, right, right, I see that," a concession made, "at the same time, why are you going to say that that is valuable? At the very least, for something to exist as beautiful, you're asserting that it belongs to the realm of existence, and that that fact of it's existence is a crucial part of its value. It is valuable because it enters the realm of existing things, and is established as with them in some way. Thus, its value is, at some level, through it's relation to other things."

"Okay, first of all," and here there was no helping the creeping entrance of condescension, "you obviously need to do some more reading, or learning, or something to get your terms straightened out. You jumped right in to value, art, existence, relation, beauty. Man, there are worlds of thought that you should probably consider before you start trying to formulate all this stuff on your own." I paused here for a subtly emphasized cut-down, "unless, of course, you think you're capable of that. I mean, really I'm saying that because this whole existence, relation, value deal goes way beyond art. You're talking about everything. You're asking whether, in order to merit existence, something needs to serve a purpose. That's elements, that's organisms of every kind. I mean, yeah, you're talking about people. You're saying that everything needs a telos."

I blinked coldly for a moment, I wasn't about to be patronized without at least a silent protest. 

"I realize that," finally, "and you're right, that's exactly the question I'm asking. I realize this relates to people. It goes there easily. What is the value of our existence? Isn't that the question that we've been trying to answer forever?" I held up my hand, not going to allow my rhetorical questions to be superciliously answered, "yeah, most of philosophy, through all time. Every religion, etc. I know the multitude of answers. I know there are a multitude of approaches. What I'm asking for," my words chopped out, "is for you to honestly and frankly do some thinking with me. I know the whole huge body of philosophy is out there trying to get at this question, and I'm interested in going there, I really am, I would love to read whatever I can get that is really talking about this and doesn't dance around the point, but right now I want to talk. I want to hear why you think things have a reason for existing. I don't want a bunch of philosophical recall and jargon. I know you're perfectly capable and I'm not interested. Don't tell me the range of philosophies. Tell me what you think is important and why. Let's be a little vulnerable here and allow some brain-picking. Is that something you're afraid of?"

The silence was a little stoney and a little lengthy.

In the shadow of Your wings I sing for joy

Psalm 63:7

Forgiveness (When I make it all about me)

It is scary to forgive.

It is terrifying.

 

It is a weakness in me.

It is me saying,

“there is something I need to do

for the people that do me wrong.”

It is me saying,

“I owe something to the people

that stole something from me.”

 

It is beyond the point

of deceiving myself

into thinking that I can

hold the failings of

another person over

their head.

It is easier

to forgive someone

when I like

the way they make me feel.

It is beyond the point

of thinking that by

taking something

from another person

I will be getting

something myself.

 

It is admitting that,

when I do not forgive,

I

I    I    I

am doing something wrong.

 

 

Some time ago

Oswald said, "showing no concern for the uncertainties that lie ahead is the secret of walking with Jesus." I don't like that. Something about it doesn't seem right. 

I think it's something in the, apparently clear, connection between "not worrying" and "the secret following." I think he's got it backwards. Maybe it's just that I disagree with how he frames it. (Framing - one of my new favorite thought games. Sometimes deadly serious games.)

Don't talk about "showing no concern." Don't try to play around with negative constructions of the things we shouldn't do. They just evoke that thing. It's the whole Hegelian dialectic - everything contains its opposite. Don't say "show no concern for the uncertainties," that only reinforces the very thing its trying to caution against by evoking it in the psyche. 

Instead, say what it is we should do. Frame the discussion with phrases that posit something. Say, "take courage in the leadership of Jesus." Say, "be confident in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the face of uncertainties." This could just be language games, but I think it's more than that. It's about how we think about things. 

That's why I like what Hudson says more. "The obedient are provided for," is his message. I prefer this too Oswald despite the danger of verging on health-wealth because, first, he's not creating a causal relationship, and second because he's talking from experience. The man was discussing his challenges with the China inland mission. He's stating the facts of his life in the light of scripture, and he says, it's not about not worrying, really. It's not about trying to determine whether or not you're worrying about the uncertainties. That just creates a cyclical worrying about worrying about worrying vortex that sucks you in until you give up (or if you give up right away, turns you off from thinking about uncertainties altogether). Instead, It's about the obedience, the following. Just do that. Focus on that. Think about being obedient, and if you do, guess what, you'll be provided for one way or another. I love that. It may mean not getting what I want. It may mean my plans failing. So what? I was at least obedient. After that I can trust that what I got was what I needed.

Lanceolate Dragons-wort

A redundancy that cannot be escaped.
Inherencies break down inerrancy.