I stated earlier that choice is freedom and that slaves have no choice. Slaves do what they are told to do (or suffer the consequence). It is time to add another important issue regarding slaves and choice. Courage is a dormant, potential mover of action, though not easily employed by those under the harshness of slavery. Once the individual slave chooses to defy the master’s will, that individual becomes free. A severe public flogging was a usual consequence employed by white slave owners of “uppity niggers” enslaved in the early American slave states. However, a more severe price of that freedom could be death for the choice to pursue an escape to freedom. Freedom might be short lived, but it is true freedom nonetheless. An incredibly strong courage is required in such situations. As the dark desperate shadow to shake off the chains of slavery increases, the need for an intense courage can be lessened or overcome by the constant nagging of a brutally horrifying desperateness that chokes off the life of a slave. So, the function of courage is to assist the individual facing an apparent formidable force greater than the individual desperately choosing to be free. In said situation, said individual may seek the benefits of religion to assist in the application of courage to defy the overwhelming force seeking to enslave the shackled individual.
Paul Tillich’s understanding of faith and religion as one’s ultimate concern adds another dimension to the function of religion that isn’t about the control of vulnerability. Ultimate concern is more about choice than vulnerability. Ultimate concern is more about “understanding our deepest roots.” Ultimate concern is not emphatically connected to controlling vulnerability, but controlling vulnerability can be ‘a’ or ‘the’ motivator for one’s ultimate concern. Hawking’s ultimate concern to understand our deepest roots is a quest ‘to pursue‘ and not ‘a defense‘ to employ. His ultimate concern is to learn and relate, not to control. It is a proactive ultimate concern, not a reactive ultimate concern. Tillich’s ultimate concern opens up a new dimension for religion — the identification of a core path chosen to be pursued by the life force of the individual.
After reading Brown’s manuscript recording Tillich’s discourse on his ultimate concern, I readily accepted his understanding as being exquisitely useful for discerning hypocrites. Having been raised in a devout Roman Catholic family; being an altar boy and having been educated in a Roman Catholic grammar school for eight years; as well as being very active in my local Catholic Youth Organization, I struggled with the inconsistencies I encountered often with the members of the church of my youth especially those inconsistencies pertaining to the businessmen of the Catholic persuasion.
Monday through Friday, business practices were about economics, competition, profit margins and wealth acquisition. Sunday was for religious ceremony, the immersion into the holy, the seeking of forgiveness, and for the passing around of the collection basket for monies to be spent by the church.
To my understanding, having read what I perceived was Tillich’s message, I now could apply a concrete measure to discover what religious preference the individual truly embraced. Was the ultimate concern of that individual the religious preference claimed by that individual? That was the question to be asked and investigated. The investigation consisted in observing the actions of the individual in question to see if that individual’s actions in business and other activities were consistent with the precepts of the proclaimed religious affiliation? In short, what were the choices made by the individual and were those choices consistent with that individual’s professed religious beliefs? Instead of navigating through two systems of governance (the secular and the sacred) I had to navigate through only one system of governance (one’s choice of their ultimate concern).
In the end, I learned to focus on the choices others chose. Next, I worked to perceive the pattern of those choices. Once the pattern firmly established itself, I perceived the true ultimate concern of that individual regardless of what was claimed to be the ultimate concern. Having achieved the perception of an individual’s ultimate concern, I no longer needed to concern my self with hypocrisy because I now perceived the true ultimate concern to which that individual would constantly and consistently conform. Instead of perceiving hypocrisy, I learned to perceive deception. Hypocrisy is a problem plaguing the hypocrite. Deception is a problem for those in relationship with the hypocrite. Hypocrisy is a problem for the self. Deception is a problem for the other to detect. I protect my self from hypocrisy by being true to my self. I protect my self from deception by accurately knowing the ultimate concern of others. So, I made a choice. Seek to learn the ultimate concern of others and then choose to act accordingly as the situation presents itself. I left the hypocrite to deal with the natural consequences of being a hypocrite. The consequences of being deceived would be mine.
In the television series, The Librarian, is the episode, The Librarian and The Apple of Discord. In this episode, the character of Jenkins counters Ezekiel’s challenge to Jenkins that he is a coward because he refuses to choose. Jenkins’ response:
“I did choose . . . once . . . I chose a side in a very complicated . . . I chose. No good came of it. And over the years I chose again and again; each time a little hope, lots of blood and nothing really changed. I finally learned my lesson and I came here just to do my work, alone, because why choose, nothing, (oh god) nothing ever changes.”
Additionally, in this series, in The Librarian and The Rule of Three, Morgan le Fey and Cornel Bard have a confrontation. Morgan le Fey is the antagonist that needs to be destroyed. Cornel Bard is the protagonist who seeks to protect the innocent students who are going to be destroyed by Morgan le Fey. Laughingly, Morgan le Fey explains:
“Looks like you have a choice, guardian. Either you kill me or you save the kids. No time for both. I do believe you have a choice. It’s the first I’ve hurt in centuries . . . but you still have to make a choice. Kill me or save them.”
Consequently, Bard chooses to save the students. Then, when Bard returns to the library, Jenkins, who is the caretaker of the library, scolds Bard for making the wrong choice.
To my mind Bard’s situation provokes the question: Do moral dilemmas have a correct choice? OR, Is the correct choice based upon one’s belief? In literature, moral dilemmas create tension. How the moral dilemma is constructed manipulates the level of tension from low to high or vice versa.
I have felt the same as Jenkins felt because even when I chose to act, the world remained unchanged. So, why choose? My bouts of doubt that wafted over me many times over the years during my struggle to make a difference diminished my hope for a better world. So, why choose? Why not just act to fulfill my desires regardless of the effect perpetrated upon others. Is narcissism the ideal condition to achieve?
My naiveté could not understand the function of choice. In error, my earthworm point of view focused upon my motivation to make the world better. I finally realized my error. Choice is not about fixing the habitat in which I live — not directly. Choice is about fixing my self through learning about the choice that I just made. Experiencing the consequences that followed naturally from that choice established another potential choice to be made or ignored. Would I reflect upon the consequences being delivered and their relationship to that choice OR would I engage in using all of my effort to deflect, minimize, or vigorously refute ‘unfair’, ‘undeserved’, ‘unforeseen’ or ‘unjust’ consequences for an ‘innocent mistake’ made by a ‘naive’ individual? Those who refuse to reflect and choose ignorance instead, eventually become mired in a hellish situation of their own making. Those who choose reflection increase the potential for a continuous evolution to a more beneficial existence.
From an earthworm’s point of view, fixing Earth is a motivation derived from an Archimedean point of view. From a top-down perspective, this earthworm learned that my choices were more about my evolution than the evolution of Earth. The evolution of Reality is light years more vast than the reality of this little earthworm. However, chaos theory states that huge outcomes occur in closed dynamic systems from a sensitivity to initial conditions in which a butterfly moving its wings in Africa can result in a hurricane slamming into New York. This effect has been dubbed the butterfly effect. So according to the butterfly effect, this earthworm, now turned caterpillar, changed its focus to a top-down perspective to realize that:
1) If I learned from my choice to make a better choice the next time that said choice needed to be made, then I would improve my decision making process.
2) As my decision making process continued to evolve in this fashion, into a more effective process, then I would have a more beneficial effect on the overall habitat in which I lived.
3) If other individuals evolved in the exercising of their free will in a likewise manner, then the impact on our habitat would be cumulative.
4) As the number of individuals evolving in a likewise manner increases, then the beneficial effect on the overall habitat would be doubled, tripled, or quadrupled, etcetera depending on the number of individuals who are evolving in a likewise manner.
The function of choice is to facilitate learning. My choice is to learn how to choose the correct choice in ever evolving situations. The difficult challenge hidden deep within this choice is the word (the morpheme) ‘correct.’ To determine what is correct, one needs a standard measure with which to compare a given choice with that standard measure of correctness. The quest now changes to discovering that standard of correctness. It could be easily understood that this new quest might become my ultimate concern. Once that standard of correctness is found, my ultimate concern would shift to living according to that standard of correctness. Again, I am faced with the question of what constitutes correctness. My journey continues.
One’s ultimate concern establishes the individual’s standard of correctness. If my ultimate concern is myself, then my standard of correctness is that of a narcissist. If my ultimate concern is to understand our deepest roots, then my standard of correctness is that of a seeker. Hopefully the contrast between knowing a narcissist and knowing a seeker provides enough proof that the standard of correctness of the former is nothing like that of the later and vice versa. This being the reality of the situation, I cannot state what is correct and what is not correct because it depends on the standard used. Different ultimate concerns have different standards. I can understand one’s standards by observing the choices the individual makes and then perceiving the pattern that defines that individual’s ultimate concern.
Understanding the various ultimate concerns of individuals is like understanding the various institutionalized world religions. Standards of correctness are universal to all ultimate concerns. However the principle of discerning the ultimate concern governing an individual’s life path can be, and should be, equally and unbiasedly apply within the sacred as well as within the secular realm of governance. The principle of applying ultimate concern is more global than applying religious dogma to understand the beliefs of the individual. Hence, I chose to focus on identifying ultimate concerns over trusting in the individual’s professed religious preference.
More importantly is the due diligence required for me to discern my true ultimate concern by which I live, the ultimate concern that establishes my standard of correctness. Everyone has an ultimate concern. Not everyone is aware of what that ultimate concern is. There are individuals that go about their daily lives oblivious of what is driving their choices, the real direction of their applied life force. These same individuals may be content to accept the precepts of one of the institutionalized religions as that which placates the forces populating the sacred realm.
Self deception is more difficult to crack than the deception attempted by others because every self inherently has a very strong sense of self preservation. Self preservation is a universal, a naturally occurring element of homo sapiens. The self will deceive itself if the self feels it is necessary to do so for the preservation of the self.
David Livingstone Smith in his book, Why We Lie, states on page 21, “. . . self-deception is any mental process or behavior the function of which is to conceal information from one’s own conscious mind.”
[NOTE: In the margin of his text, I recorded the following note: the defining point: to “conceal” means to hide; to hide implies decision: 1st an evaluation, then a decision to hide. Deception is not ignorance nor avoidance. I highly recommend that Why We Lie should be carefully read because readers must consciously choose what is worthwhile, correct, incorrect or deceptive. No author is omniscient (including David Livingston Smith and myself.]
The ultimate concern of the narcissist is the self. Any self reflection is defaulted to rationalizing the correctness of taking what the self needs but then considers that what the self wants is, in fact, what is needed. Any consequences to the other (person, thing, or institution, etcetera) is not relevant and quickly dismissed. A given narcissist may join one of the institutionalized religions and give generously to the church and exude piety during all public demonstrations of faith regardless of any perceived hypocrisy by other attendants. What others think is of little consequence. Hypocrisy is part of the standard of correctness for the narcissist as well as deceiving, therefore the narcissist appears to believe that he or she will still gain a heavenly reward. Such self deception is very difficult to crack. When it comes to this type of impregnable narcissist, I resort to Newton’s third law of motion to define or indicate the force needed to counter such narcissism.
Such a narcissist will prevail until a force that is the opposite and of equal magnitude confronts said narcissist. The narcissist is stopped in his or her tracks but not necessarily defeated. For narcissism to be overcome, the opposite and opposing force must be greater than the narcissist. In the secular realm of governance such a force must exist in the rule of law, hence the need for an uncorrupted, unbiased, judiciary. The judiciary protects society and society is about the collection of selves — not one particular self (that’s the condition of a monarch or a dictator). My frame of reference regarding society, governance and law is that of a democracy because it is one of the more difficult forms of governance to maintain and protect but is necessary to learn to overcome instinctive aggression.
If the individual self has a very strong sense of self protection, then a society of individuals banding together forms a common self identity which is infused by a cumulative sense of societal self protection. The judiciary protects that cumulative sense of others who support the individual self but not at the expense of others. A tension occurs. A balance must be maintained. My belief is that the balance between the individual self and the societal conglomerate of selves provides the greatest potential for evolution while at the same time being equally a potential for devolution given the propensity for opposites being a general principle in the realm of our universe.
I am getting a sense (as you, likewise, may be experiencing) that this discourse is becoming more complicated and complex. This rise in complexity, I believe, emerged when ultimate concern: 1) merged the sacred and the secular realms and 2) that the true ultimate concern of each individual, whether professed or not, is lived in fact. I cannot imagine a conglomerate of narcissists ever cooperating. To my mind, if such a conglomerate existed, it would be in a state of constant war analogous to the kid’s game played when I was a young boy. The name we gave the game was “king of the mountain” where one young boy stood at the top of a grassy hill while other boys tried to push or topple the would be “king” down the hill with another taking his place. It was all good boyish fun with wrestling, shoving and pushing amid a endless sound of laughter. No one was out for blood. This recollection at this point in time of my life is somewhat prophetic regarding the current global trend for many nations attempting to replace democracies with authoritarian oligarchies.
Instead of having a few institutionalized religions to consider, there now exists as many ultimate concerns as there are individuals. Likewise, when ultimate concern determines the standard of correctness, then there now are as many legitimate standards of correctness as there are individuals. To add to this complicated state of affairs, consider that no individual is omniscient. Omniscience is not humanly possible to achieve, ever. Nonetheless, every act the individual executes is a matter of choice in the face of having only limited information, knowledge, and/or data, etcetera at the individual’s disposal regardless if said individual is aware of such matters or not.
Such is the condition of humanity at the present. This top-down perception is the starting point of our journey to understand our deepest roots. This is the only possible starting point for this earthworm turned caterpillar. Is this a choice on my part? The choice is to take up the journey. The starting point could be the old Archimedean point of view but I do not believe that I can actually remove myself to such a starting point because we are actually and realistically standing on the point at which I (and the reader) currently have available to us. Both of us, being far from omniscient, are left with our hope that our choice to take up this journey will lead to a successful outcome or anything worthwhile at all. Hope is the application of faith. This situation, according to my mind, is the actual, every day, application of faith. Every choice that I have made and every choice that you, the reader, has made is the result of limited knowledge and there is never a guarantee that your choice or mine will be beneficial. Every choice is ultimately an act of faith because outcomes are never guaranteed. The best anyone can hope for is a high probability of success, and often times unforeseen consequences tend to ensue. Each and every individual, whether they are aware of it or not, expresses their faith silently with their important choices made daily as a non-omniscient individual.
Summarizing assists clarity when faced with increasing data to resolve:
1) We now have a clear description of our starting position: a top-down, reverse engineering process to begin our journey toward the starting point of our current and continually evolving universe which is now the end point of our journey.
2) We have only two characteristics of that end point which is the beginning point of our universe.
a) It is infinitely hot — which indicates that it is infinite energy —and
b) it has a space of zero.
3) Thomas Aquinas was canonized a saint by Pope John XXII on July 18, 1323. His Uncaused Cause of the First Cause (UCFC) has been equated to our universe before the Big Bang exploded (as described by Stephen Hawking) and, because the cause of the first cause is without a cause, the UCFC is the ultimate concern for Saint Thomas Aquinas. However, the ultimate concern for St. Aquinas is the god of creation for the Roman Catholic persuasion. Thus, such a juxtaposition will likely alienate some scientists and church officials governing scientific precepts and methodology or institutionalized religions. (However creating a feud is the opposite of my true intention which is to harmonize. Certainly there will be some readers who can see the strong similarity between both definitions of our universe before the Big Bang exploded. But, the reality of opposites must be accepted.)
4) An individual’s ultimate concern is just that — the supreme concern of the individual. An ultimate concern can be a career, a religion, or an avocation, etcetera. As such the ultimate concern may be an art, a science, a religion, or thievery, or anything the individual chooses to treat as such. In this manner, Paul Tillich’s Ultimate Concern facilitates the pursuit of consilience which I believe is the spirit expressed in E.O. Wilson’s text, Consilience (copyright 1998 by Edward O. Wilson).
5) Ultimate concerns are primarily the choice of the individual and can be understood and/or perceived through discovering the overall pattern of the choices made by that individual.
6) The standard for correctness is formulated by the ultimate concern of the individual. As such, the possible configurations of a standard for correctness is the number of individuals that exist because the ultimate concern pertains to each individual and the ultimate concern also determines the specifics of the corresponding standard for correctness.
7) No individual is omniscient. Therefore faith is a constant whether recognized or not.
Since no one is omniscient, every choice of each individual is potentially flawed in a very real way. The unknown may be pertinent or critically significant thereby impacting a choice made ‘in good faith.’ Depending upon the degree of significance, the unknown may result in a completely disastrous affair. Thus we move cautiously onward with the faith that our choices will benefit our life force’s movement on Earth. I choose to take the next step in writing the text for this manuscript with the faith it will be of benefit. Once it is written, if the situation arises that the reader will encounter my manuscript, then said reader must choose to read it or pass it by; to read it and reject every word; to read it and then choose what to integrate into their consciousness and what to disregard.
What’s the bases of this faith of mine that moves me to choose to continue to write? I believe what has already been written accurately describes the reality of my life up to this point in my journey on Earth. I will only know the outcome of my faith when I finish writing, reflecting, rereading, polishing, and making it public.
As previously stated, the function of choice is learning. The function of learning is to improve. But the process of learning implies: 1) something needs to be learned which means I lack knowledge and/or understanding, and 2) mistakes will inevitably occur until what needs to be learned is in fact learned. Mistakes must be resolved. Mistakes may affect the welfare of others. Mistakes may affect my welfare. Mistakes very often cause harm. As the magnitude of harm increases, the resolution of the harm increases in magnitude and implementation. Currently, looking at the condition of the human race (the species: homo sapiens) there is much harm to alleviate. There are many mistakes that need to be resolved.
When earlier I spoke of juxtaposing Aquinas and Hawking as potentially igniting a feud between the secular and the sacred, I absolutely (remember that absolutes are an impossibility) had to own that a feud was, is, and never will be, my intention. My intention is always to seek harmony. Harmony is never achieved through war. War is the gold standard of competition — last man standing wins; last individual standing rules. War is an exercise in power acquisition in every sense of the word — power. The simple assessment of power acquisition in war is the outcome of the destructive force applied — dead bodies and blood, the utter destruction of everything tangible. The function of war is to destroy. Ethnic cleansing is about the complete eradication of the whole population of homo sapiens who are perceived to be different and inferior from those doing the ethnic cleansing.
Then there is a lesser form of competition. Opposing hokey teams face off on the ice for a given three periods of time. Regardless of who wins, both teams line up and every member of both teams shake hands and then move to their designated locker rooms. This hand shaking has two worthwhile components — to congratulate the other team for its play and to forgive (and hopefully forget) the actions taken, displayed and employed vigorously during the confrontation. Finally, concerning physical competition, there is the opposing high school wrestlers squaring off for their wrestling match. Again, both opponents shake hands at the end, regardless of who won the match, before leaving the mat. The handshakes are about forgiveness. The function of forgiveness is to take the first step toward regaining harmony. So, I ask both the scientists, the officials of institutionalized religions, and any other individuals who may be offended by my words to forgive any and all offense. I do not intend to offend. I intend to share my perceptions, correctly or incorrectly (as it may be discovered with future insights) for others to consider as possibly worthy of some consideration. I seek to share; not to confront.
Forgiveness, war, learning, improving, choosing, courage, and ultimate concern are all a matter of choice. Eating is not a choice. What is consumed is a choice, but every living creature must eat to survive. While an individual may choose to reproduce or not, the survival of any given species is that the individuals of that species join sexually to reproduce. Hence the strong, hard wired, instinct to engage sexually is not really a choice. How that drive is satisfied is a choice, but the fact that there exists a DNA component to the sex of the individual and therefore how that individual is most inclined to respond to that drive cannot be overstated. My experience has demonstrated to me that the DNA gnome which is specific to each individual is not without flawed manifestations in a portion of the individuals within any given species. Recall that no individual is omniscient and, therefore no other individual (with the exception of the individual in question) can feel the DNA intricacies; the nuanced biochemical secretions, or knows the complete history of any other individual. Therefore, while choice is very, very possible in the vast possibilities afforded homo sapient individuals, there are parameters that govern and thereby define the uniqueness of every living species and each individual on Earth. Hunger and reproduction are primal, strong, vital and hard wired in the DNA of living organisms. For many species hunger and reproduction are more instinctive than choices. Hunger and reproduction are more of a reactionary response as opposed to a proactive one. However, Homo sapiens through their advancement of the scientific method have discovered how to impose their consciousness will upon the reproductive processes through advanced organic chemistry and surgery which has rendered the reproductive process of human beings to an exercising of individualized choice apart from celibacy. Such advances have lead to Planned Parenthood and the pro-life or pro-choice competitive feud where deaths have occurred on both sides. An unfortunate state of affairs!
So, with all of this complexity and uncertainty, what is the the function of life?
Being a retired educator and a seeker, my ultimate concern is to learn. So my answer to this question is ‘to learn,’ but that is the same response to what is the function of choice. That being the case, it would follow that a nuanced change would result in my now stating the the function of life is to make choices, but maintaining consistency and continuity, I should add: The function of life is to make choices in the absence of being omniscient.
Since this discourse has established that the ultimate concern is specific to each individual, the answer to the question, “What is the function of life?” is potentially different for every reader of this manuscript and will be determined by each individual’s ultimate concern. To continue further along this line of thinking, every idea, thought, or perception is subjective to me and, therefore subjective to my ultimate concern. This is true for every reader of these words.
Am I an evangelist ? Is evangelism pertinent to my ultimate concern? No. But, an element of my ultimate concern is to work in harmony to assist in the improvement of this reality (whatever that means). To this end, I share my perceptions and what I believe I have learned along my way to evolve better as a human being, as a modern member of my species, the Homo sapiens of Earth. The issue, for me, is not to convert, but to share. I have availed myself to become familiar with as many religions as is possible given the time, energy and opportunity provided by my journey. Certainly, tolerance is a hallmark for harmonious exchanges. Writing this here and now is a solitary event that serves me in gaining clarity of mind. My mind is filled with my consciousness. My consciousness is me. I can share me. I cannot convert anyone to me —that’s nonsensical. Sharing is the issue, not evangelical pursuits.
However, on the bottom of page 263 and moving onto page 264 Hertog reports that the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi asked in the summer of 1950, “Where is everybody?” Hertog then reports the following:
“ Fermi’s point was that the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations, given such biophilic conditions, suggest that there is a serious obstacle somewhere on the road of evolution from ordinary dead matter to the advanced technotope we may soon be. …Fermi had a nagging feeling that the roadblock may lie in the one transition that separates our current civilization from being able to spread into the cosmos: We may not be able to survive the world we’ve created.”
To my mind, that “serious obstacle somewhere on the road of evolution” resides within the nature of choice and freedom. The inability to survive rests with: choice. Choice has consequences: good ones; bad ones; correct ones; incorrect ones; harmonizing ones, and ones with severe dissonance. Critically, each and every choice has an inherent consequence, and consequences can build up into a catastrophe. To Hertog’s mind, “We should learn from the past, though, that chance constantly interferes, leading history to take unexpected twits and turns.” Page 264.
I am more in favor of Bronowski’s understanding of randomness and chance with the implied principle of stability as that which governs evolution’s progress. If our cumulative choices do not conform to the principle of stability, then there is only one path to take — devolution. Hence extraterrestrial civilizations must evolve into more stable communities than our appears to be headed. The question then is which choice leads to greater stability for the advancement of intelligent life that is prepared to colonize the universe, not as a reaction to escape the cumulative unstable choices made in the past through hoarding, consuming and wasting what Earth has offered the life it has supported thus far, but by a harmonious life force utilizing what Earth has to offer in a stabilizing, rejuvenating fashion. Which ultimate concern will we individually and collectively choose? I am, however, ahead of myself. This is a topic more for the end of this sharing than the beginning.