Dienstag, 31. Mai 2011

The beginning

What is the objective criterion by which the bearer of gifts knows that they are alive?

As I see it there are two:

1) Being in a state of life
2) Being in a state of sentient consciousness.

Here consciousness simply means a state of being, where one is in possession of their senses, in particular (or rather necessarily) the sense of perception, as opposed to simple vision. What should one do with their state of being alive, is of course the next question. It is not a simple question. It is only asked when the bearer of the gifts is sure of his survival through plenty of food and shelter. For pain otherwise is a force that compels him to see these first and foremost.

I believe (though there is some rationale to this belief) that there is no inherent meaning of life. We are not born to do such and such but rather unto a world that presents us choices. When I say world, I do not mean some entity that knows, but the environs that surround you. They are not necessarily dead or unconscious but they are passive and have their own behavior independent of the bearer.  Not all bearers need to care about their query for there are those who are born with the flair of passion. They are capable of finding the their way cleanly through the labyrinth of choices for their path is marked. This treatise is for those who are bewildered at the entrance with the avenues. Does this make life for them less than real? Does it make life meaningless? I would say hardly. For Sentience essentially separates mankind and like from the vegetation or the worms in that it gives him the ability to perceive that there is more than one avenue. A man (what I call the entity with sentience) may then choose through whatever bias he may carry what turn he will take. This, I say is giving life a meaning, in the same way as writing a plot for a novel, he chooses the plot for his life. It can be an adventure  or a comedy or a tragedy. He defines it what it will become through action.

One can not question why 'meaning' is more more important than the lack of it, for such a truism can not be rationalized in a world where there is no inherent meaning. The meaning is the means, the purpose and  a product. It is the means to forward the gift of sentience. It is the purpose that sentience craves. It is the product of sentient thought.

Still, it is unresolved as to what makes a path superior to another. Or even what makes some paths worthy of being ignored completely as opposed to others. That, as one may see constitutes the origin of Morality. What one ought to do as opposed to what one can do. I would state now, that for all intent and purposes Morality in its most fundamental form is no derivative of worldly religion. Rather religions are a clustering of ideas of Morality and other substances which are not the scope of the discussion. Morality is by definition here, the means and the criterion of choice. Since it is an ought, it has to be realized and not discovered. I see two essential tenets emerging cleanly at the very beginning:

·    The sanctity of life
·    The sanctity of sentience

Without these ideals there is no man and thus no choice and no morality. Thus they are apical to any further investigation. This is also one of the reasons of why a choice must be made. Others will follow of course. To deliberate further, we need to understand constraints on morality. What restricts ought is of course can. It is appropriate to point out at this juncture that given enough time and resource a Man principally can learn to overcome many barriers on his abilities. But it is a given that this time is limited and the resource not always aplenty. Thus every constraint on morality is a function of experience and congenital ability. Trivializing this at this moment to focus on the central morale of the discussion, it is intuitively clear that one should recognize his ability first to make an informed decision. This practice places at his disposal the means to comprehend the lacunae between his wants and his talents. It is then appropriate to say that the simplest means to choice is doing what one does best. This is hardly a necessity! It is a guiding principle that allows minimizing pain. And by pain I do not mean hardship or effort. By pain I mean the diseases of regret and self-pity that are the products of mistakes. Even above the natural constraints there are other more artificial ones. They are created by us according to what we desire. One can chose a lavish life over one strewn with constant effort, for he requires to derive only pleasure from it. Others may chose to derive knowledge of the world before they perish as it may be the only elixir that slakes their thirst. There is in fact nobility in the latter. For there is more meaning to a life that seeks and dies than a life that only dies. Either is worthy but the persuers of  are worthier than the slackers for the residue of their life is more than the ash and dust of their bone, however evanescent their persuit be.

How does one end as essay? This is how.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen