Mystic: Before we begin, let us lay down some ground rules. First, there will be no quotations, either from the Bible or any other source. I think we both understand the potential fallacy of such works and the fact that every person to ever live has known little of the truth.
Agnostic: Agreed. Secondly, we must speak with complete sincerity and openness of mind.
Mystic: Certainly, and likewise must we allow each other complete support in forming our arguments and conjectures for I believe we are both here in pursuit of the same truth.
Agnostic: Yes, and lastly, semantics may not be used as an argument, in as much as the inability to comprehend a word or idea cannot be used a defense against it.
Mystic: I believe I understand. If, for example, one of us used the word infinity, it would not be an acceptable argument to say that infinity is incomprehensible to the human mind. That we cannot fully conceptualize the term does not mean that it does not exist. It is as using the term sunset to a man blind from birth. He knows what the word means, but he does not comprehend the word such as you and I for he has never witnessed the sight; he has never felt the meaning of that word. Such is the word infinity to all human beings; we may describe it, but we cannot comprehend and feel its meaning.
Agnostic: You understand completely, and this leads directly to the place I believe we should begin. Namely, the definition of truth.
Mystic: Please, proceed.
Agnostic: Simply, truth is what has actually happened, what is actually happening and what will actually happen, unattached to any perception, feeling or belief.
Mystic: Surely you do not confine truth to action.
Agnostic: What else is there?
Mystic: Thought, dream, inaction.
Agnostic: Define thought.
Mystic: The recognition by a being of itself and its own existence, as well as the means by which this being interacts mentally with that existence. Simply, consciousness, inclusive of the subconscious.
Agnostic: Shall dreams be considered part of this consciousness?
Mystic: Yes, as dreams are an interaction of the subconscious and conscious mind, they should be considered part of the all inclusive consciousness.
Agnostic: As such, is it also part of the mental interaction of a being with its existence?
Mystic: Yes, and no further do you need to proceed as I comprehend already that by using the word interact in describing thought, I have myself shown that consciousness happens and thus is held by your definition of truth.
Agnostic: And inaction was your other example of something other than action, but in the word itself is the word action, and in this case, that seems sufficient to disregard it on the simple grounds that the opposite of action is in fact the lack of action which in the eyes of truth is still an observable quantity. That nothing happens may still be recorded as in the same sense as if something happens. Agreed?
Mystic: Yes, but I feel necessary to address feeling in regards to this. I would think it differs little in general with consciousness as to being an interaction of a being with existence.
Agnostic: You then separate consciousness and feeling?
Mystic: Yes, or perhaps rather thought and feeling. Consciousness may contain both, but while this topic interests me greatly, I believe it should be put off until we conclude defining truth. What you have said is correct, but as we have included consciousness within the record of actuality that is truth, I would appreciate a clarification as to how you perceive it to be included for there are many possible variations which spring to mind.
Agnostic: First, I must reiterate that truth is without perception, feeling or belief, but this does not mean that these things are not part of truth. What I mean is that there are true events, true thoughts, true dreams, true inaction and true feelings. These are the things that did happen, are happening or will happen. Consciousness, however, as we both know, rarely experiences or remembers the truth for by its thoughts, dreams and feelings it remakes its perception of the truth to its fancy. This does not change the truth but adds to it a new array of thoughts and feelings.
Mystic: I believe I understand, and if I may, I will give an example to clarify what you have said, at least as I understood your words.
Agnostic: As you please.
Mystic: I shall for an example use a dream. Let us say that a man, deep in the middle of the night, dreams that he is flying over the ocean. This is the true dream, yet as he awakens, he vaguely remembers the feeling of movement and that there was water. When he is fully awake he believes he was sailing across a lake. This perception is his true perception of the dream, but the true dream is unchanged. Thus, we have come to realize that truth is of an incomprehensible magnitude. Every thought, while it may error as to its recognition of the truth as to what it considers, is itself a true thought, as in the fact that it is the thought actually being thought. The entirety of truth is the sum of all action, thought, dream, perception and feeling, as well as the lack of these things. And here, unless you have any objection, it seems we have arrived at a logical place to discuss omniscience.
Agnostic: Yes, though we could discuss truth without end, I agree that we both understand, for the purposes of this discussion, what it is. As for omniscience, I assume you refer to the belief that a being, usually referred to as God, exists with absolute knowledge; in other words, privy to the absolute truth as we have described.
Mystic: That is indeed what I refer to, and while I understand that in no way can we arrive at the truth of whether God exists, we may at least realize the awesome mind an omniscient being would possess. As we have defined truth, the being would know everything that has happened and all that is happening, including every thought, dream, perception and feeling of every other being that has existed or now exists. This being would know absolute right and wrong, if there are such things. It would know the beginning of existence, if there was a beginning. And based on the infinite extent of its knowledge, it would with fair certainty be able to deduce the future, if this being exists in such a way that there is a future. Knowledgeable of all, such a being would know perfection, but I ask, does being knowledgeable of perfection necessarily dictate that this being would be perfect?
Agnostic: First, it must be stated what perfection is. If we consider our definition of truth, I believe it best to define perfection as errorless action; action again inclusive of thought and the other varying aspects we have previously mentioned. But perfection presupposes an absolute right and wrong, which, as you mentioned, may not exist. But having said this, let us, for the purposes of answering your question, assume there is an absolute correct way to exist and that our omniscient being, knowing all, is aware of what this perfection consists. The answer, thus, seems easy enough at first. That the being knows how to be perfect does not necessitate that he will be perfect. It is as a man that creates a budget to remove himself from debt. He knows he must pay a certain amount each month to each creditor for so many years without incurring any more debt or taking money from his debt payments to purchase new things. He is knowledgeable of what it will take to make himself without debt, but this does not mean that he will ever become debt free. He may remain true to his plan for a few months and then change his mind. He may forget to send a payment, despite his previous fervor to be true to his desire to become debt free. He desires to be without debt, he knows how to be without debt, but this still does not mean that he will be. And while to compare perfection with such a base human institution seems absurd, it illustrates well the point. However, on deeper look, the omniscient mind must also know the ill consequences for being less than perfect, if there be any, which there must be in order for perfection to be a worthwhile task for this mind to attempt to attain. If there is no ill consequence for this being not becoming perfect, then it must be considered whether there is a benefit in becoming perfect. In terms of us as humans; what makes us do something that has no ill consequence if we do not do it?
Mystic: If it is enjoyable or to do it is simply easier than not doing it.
Agnostic: Thank you; I had overlooked that perfection might simply be the easiest way to live, and thus the omniscient being would arrive at perfection for simply that reason. But, I believe, that is simple enough that it needs no further explanation.
Mystic: Yes, but before we regard happiness, as that seems where we are headed, I must mention a point you have at least twice hinted at. That being the fact in describing a being cognizant of all truth, we cannot help but ascribe human traits at times to it for the simple fact that this existence is all we know. More so I bring to your attention the fact that in saying that the omniscient being knows truth, it must also know the truth of itself. What makes a man fail to remain with a budget?
Agnostic: That it makes him live differently than he has or would like to.
Mystic: Custom and pleasure. Now, let me first mention something that I just realized; the fact that ill consequence, as you called it, and benefit are the same thing, just as before inaction fell under action. At the same time, I must also remove the idea of something being simply easier. This also is part of consequence. Consider what makes something seem easy. It is the lack of challenge or resistance, which are merely forms of consequence. To sit is easier than to stand; why?
Agnostic: Because the body can relax more, a good consequence, and tires less easily, the avoidance of a bad consequence. I see your point, but I must remind you that many things are done irregardless of consequence, even if it is previously known what that consequence will be.
Mystic: Yes, we have reached an odd juncture. We have strayed from the topic, but let me breach one more point, and then, perhaps, we can clarify where exactly we have arrived at, if anywhere.
Agnostic: Proceed.
Mystic: Well, what I have been thinking is that we may have been wrong in grouping thought, feeling and action all together. Consider the fact that thoughts arise within the mind of various, unrelated concepts. While I still agree that a thought in and of itself is an action; I do not know. I guess in the conversation of consequence these things become clouded. Surely some thoughts and actions take place without regard to consequence. Yes, something will happen in reaction to something else, but is everything itself a reaction to something else? Is it not true that some things just are?
Agnostic: At first I say no, but I fully believe that this may change. Let us use the concept of a thought arising seemingly from nowhere. Forgive me, let me first split thought into three categories; memory, reason and dream. Reason, obviously is a reaction to stimuli. If I want to figure a math problem, I reason it out. If I want to refute a statement, it is reason that aligns my words. It is used in categorizing, figuring and operating, as well as other thought processes by which logic and rational are used. For thoughts of reason to arise a problem must first be presented. It may be of the concrete or abstract form, but always will there be something to be solved. Will I be hurt if I jump from this ledge? Moving at this speed, will I reach my destination on time? Why was I born? Is there a God? Both the conscious and subconscious use reason to solve problems, or at least attempt to solve them. These thoughts will not arise without stimuli.
Mystic: I believe in showing this you have convinced me that all three types are reactions, but please, continue.
Agnostic: Moving to memory. This also is a reaction to stimuli, although in a different manner than reason. Memory does not attempt to solve anything; it merely recalls, whether correctly or incorrectly, a moment or thought from the past. Obvious examples are the smell of the ocean recalling a time spent at the beach or a photograph causing the recollection of the time depicted. Less obvious are the memories which seem to arise without reason. These appear unattached only to the conscious mind. You, consciously, may not have noticed the apple core on the side of the road as you drove past, but the subconscious did, and after a series of recollections; first of eating an apple, then a time you shared an apple with your sister, then a happy memory of your sister; your subconscious delivers to your conscious mind, minutes after passing the apple core, with no connection to any of your previous conscious thoughts, the fact that it has been some time since you spoke with your sister and how much you would like to see her. Is that clear enough?
Mystic: Yes, I believe so.
Agnostic: And little need I say of a dream, except to further separate it into two types. The first is a consideration of the future, which arises, in both ways, like memory. Seeing a dog makes a man think that he would like a dog. Such things are simple dreams of what the future might be, irregardless of whether any steps are taken to make it true or it is even possible to become true. The second type of dream is the type of which we spoke earlier, when the man flew over the ocean. These are a mix of reason, simple dream and memory. Yes, the dream has the symbology of freedom, but from where does it arise? Obviously, this man, like every other, either consciously or subconsciously, has observed a bird and considered the freedom of the beast. Events of censure or conformity in life lead to the desire for freedom, whether or not the conscious mind recognizes it. The imagery is supplied by memory, which amazingly can create many scenes and faces a person has never observed by piecing together a grand many things they have witnessed. This is imagination. It uses reason to arrange pieces of memories to create things that have never been and will never be. Thus, I believe it has been shown that all types of thoughts are a result of some sort of stimuli, whether outside the body or within.
Mystic: Yes, but what of the first thought?
Agnostic: Likely there is first an observation or feeling, then the thought considering or recognizing this. The second thought would be built on the first, as the third on the second, and so forth until we have had so many thoughts to create memories to be recalled and dreams to be imagined.
Mystic: Thus, thought does not come about without external stimuli?
Agnostic: Not necessarily. As said, a feeling may come first which may be either internal or external.
Mystic: But is not a feeling a thought?
Agnostic: Is your empty stomach a thought?
Mystic: No, but what of happiness?
Agnostic: This is a good question; is there a feeling of happiness other than the perception that things are good?
Mystic: Based upon my own experience, I must say yes. There are feelings that are not thoughts, just as there are thoughts that are not feelings.
Agnostic: But the recognition of this feeling is a thought.
Mystic: And thus we have arrived where we began, when you stated the first thought of a person is their perception of a feeling or of external stimuli.
Agnostic: Yes.
Mystic: Should this not be called life; the moment that first thought blossoms as a result of a feeling or other stimuli?
Agnostic: I would agree; or is it rather consciousness?
Mystic: I do not follow.
Agnostic: Does a dog think?
Mystic: To some extent, but not as a man.
Agnostic: Apologies. Let me ask first; does a dog feel?
Mystic: From what I have observed, yes.
Agnostic: Does he consider his feelings?
Mystic: I do not know. He seeks pleasure. He attempts to avoid pain. He enjoys company and seems sad when he is alone, unless he is of a solitary personality. Honestly, I would say he has reason, memory and even simple dream, but he is without imagination.
Agnostic: Yes, I see your point. He has memory, in that he recalls his fellow dogs and where to get his meal. He has reason, in the sense that he navigates a trail or stalks his prey. Simple dreams, however, I cannot form an example.
Mystic: Perhaps he has merely anticipation, which is the simplest form of hope. When he recognizes a friend at a distance, he wags his tail and runs joyful toward him. When a bone is on the table, he looks at it, hoping to soon be enjoying it.
Agnostic: Yes, but unless you can think of an example, the dog is without long term dreams, as, perhaps, he is without long term memory, although I can consider no way of verifying the latter.
Mystic: I would mention only the observation of a dog running in its sleep. He may be recalling a time he ran, and even the oldest, most feeble, dogs may have these dreams.
Agnostic: Yes, but to return to the consideration of whether the first thought of a person, in the wake of the first feeling, should be called life or consciousness. After the discussion of the dog, how do you answer?
Mystic: Still that it is the beginning of life. I do not consider a dog conscious of itself, yet we have shown that it thinks, and thus, it too had a first thought, the beginning of life.
Agnostic: What of a tree? It is alive, but it does not think.
Mystic: It acts.
Agnostic: How so?
Mystic: It grows.
Agnostic: So does a stalactite.
Mystic: Yes, but it is merely a mineral buildup; a reaction to moisture.
Agnostic: As is a tree a reaction to a seed, minerals in water, soil and sunlight.
Mystic: And a person is a reaction to an egg, sperm and the minerals supplied in food.
Agnostic: Then action alone does not make life.
Mystic: But we have already shown that thought, as well as feeling, is part of action.
Agnostic: I suppose they are all reactions. As no thought comes from itself, it seems no action may arise alone. The stalactite is formed by the minerals in the water which drips along the ceiling of the cave. The water drains from the surface of the ground, where it picks up the minerals, which it reached by falling from the sky. The water reached the sky as it perspired from a man, who received the water he perspired from the mineral stream which runs from out the cave. Both the stalactite and the man are grown by the minerals found in the water, drained through the ground. The minerals arrive in the ground when the man is buried and the cave collapses to crush the stalactite. It is all reaction. It is all cyclical. There is the same amount of everything that ever there was.
Mystic: Yes, interesting, but; no, let me first illustrate my question more simply. Imagine we are sitting in a diner. On the table is a peppershaker. How did it come to be on the table?
Agnostic: The busboy or waiter.
Mystic: As a reaction?
Agnostic: Yes.
Mystic: It did not appear out of nowhere?
Agnostic: Things do not appear out of nowhere, as we have shown; everything is a reaction.
Mystic: Now, perhaps, you have guessed my next question. You stated that there is the same amount of everything as ever there has been.
Agnostic: Yes.
Mystic: Everything we are; everything we think is merely a reaction; the motion of things rather than the creation of things.
Agnostic: Yes.
Mystic: Where then did everything come from? Remember, you said things do not appear out of nowhere.
Agnostic: Perhaps everything has simply always been.
Mystic: But what of action. You said everything is a reaction, but for there to be a reaction, there must be first an action. If everything has always been, and at a time there was no action, from where did the first action arise to create all these reactions?
Agnostic: It would seem that, such as there was a hand to set the peppershaker on the table, there was a hand to set in motion the seemingly endless line of actions which have taken place since.
Mystic: But what set that hand in motion; is this not also a reaction?
Agnostic: Yes, it is. Can there be action without previous action? In all we have said, it seems implausible, but without an original action, there is nothing upon which to build the rest. Thus, action must have always been. But how can that be?
Mystic: But there is no action, only reaction. Thus, it should be asked; how can there have always been reaction?
Agnostic: Either way, we are left with no beginning. Thus everything, in some form, has always been and will likely always be for nothing truly is destroyed, only changed.
Mystic: And there will always be and has always been action, or reaction. Thus, existence is constant change, without beginning or end.
Agnostic: Or perhaps a cycle or loop.
Mystic: This implies repetition, which seems unlikely. It is illogical that the infinite reactions taking place would return upon themselves.
Agnostic: Perhaps I cannot use one word to describe the idea forming in my mind. Let me first describe the manner in which I have for some time considered the universe. I think it will help you conceptualize what I mean by a loop or cycle without repetition, or at least without complete repetition.
Mystic: Please, proceed.
Agnostic: Consider yourself standing in the center of a cube without walls. When you put your hand out to the right, it reenters from the left, as on a globe if you could reach about the circumference you would reach yourself. Likewise, if you reach to the left, your hand returns from the right. If you reach up, it ascends from below. In any direction you reach, your hand reenters opposite. Thus, applying such a concept to the universe; in any vector you proceed from earth, you would eventually arrive back at earth. I suppose it is best called a four dimensional globe, as in a three dimensional globe you may go up or down to escape the surface. The universe, as seen as such, has no surface; no exterior to reach. Consider time likewise. Travel long enough along it, and you find yourself back where you began. This does not mean, however, that your surroundings will be the same, such as if one was to circle the earth. Upon returning to the identical location, everything may have changed. Thoughts are different. People, things, have moved. Action does not repeat, but time and space do.
Mystic: I attempt to conceptualize the idea, and it is beyond me, but as we stated at the beginning, this should not hinder the argument for, though it is beyond the human mind, this does not preclude it from being true. What I do imagine, however, is the box you spoke of and my left hand reaching to the left to take hold of my right hand on the right. I look to the left and see the back of my own head. I look up and see the bottom of my feet. It reminds me of the endless reflections of two mirrors.
Agnostic: Yes, many times has this image reigned just beyond my mind. I can state the concept, but as you said earlier of infinity, I cannot feel or know it, as the blind man cannot envision a sunset.
Mystic: Yes, and as we have arrived at a consideration of the infinite, let us proceed along that line of thought. I shall begin, if you agree, by asking the question, where is the center of the universe?
Agnostic: I would say that there is none.
Mystic: Or, perhaps, every point is the center of its own universe. Let us begin with a single particle, the most minute, sizeless, particle of reality there is, smaller than anything that has yet been discovered. Consider this point at the center of a sphere not too dissimilar to the one you previously described, except that at any given vector, the universe extends infinitely from this point, never reaching a surface or repeating upon itself. And this holds true on any of the infinite vectors radiating from this point. Thus every point is the center of the universe, or rather there is no one universe but an infinite number of universes overlapping but nonetheless distinct.
Agnostic: And thus, from the perspective of even the most infinitesimal particle of reality, the universe is unique and thus everything is relative to this perspective.
Mystic: Yes. It is as two eyes looking at an object. They shall never see exactly the same image for they cannot look from the same place at the same time. No two things, of any scale, can occupy the same place at the same time.
Agnostic: But if that held true, would there even be time? Of course there is to us, but at the base level, would time exist?
Mystic: Yes. Time is merely a measurement of change, and thus each of the infinite points of reality has its own time, as each point changes uniquely. Yet, if these particles had consciousness, to themselves, they would not seem to change; it would appear that everything else was changing about them. It as grains of sand shifting about each other. In truth all grains shift, but to any individual grain, it appears to itself to be unmoving.
Agnostic: Such as mankind believed for so long that the earth was static while the heavens swirled about it.
Mystic: Exactly, but yet, if the universe is indeed infinite from any point, the earth is the center of the universe as well as any other. Or at least from a certain number of the infinite universes that radiate from the infinite points of reality. It as you and I, standing here. We are both an equal distance from ourselves were we to circumvent the globe, but we are not in the same place. Our universes, though different, are similar enough that we can communicate to each other a fairly accurate picture of what we see where we are. This is how the concept of time, not as simply change but the measurement of mankind, has arisen. To everyone on earth, the sun is relatively identical. To each of us, the earth is relatively the same, but at any given moment, we are all in some place and our perception of things is different. In that sense, there is no time. Everything is present. Yes, we have come from somewhere, we will go somewhere, but at any moment, we are in one place. This is true of people, of planets, atoms; anything.
Agnostic: Yet one cannot deny the passage of time, or the predictability of events within it. If I throw a rock, it travels along a set path, based, yes, upon factors of velocity, mass, gravity and such, but upon a path that can be foretold and retraced.
Mystic: Oh yes, we can tell the future in that regards, but what of the subatomic; do all such things operate as such?
Agnostic: One would assume so, as every step taken in that direction reveals adherence to such laws as all of Nature seems to run by.
Mystic: I agree, yet some things that do not operate according to any laws.
Agnostic: Of what do you mean?
Mystic: I mean anything that operates by free will.
Agnostic: But we still adhere to the laws of Nature.
Mystic: Yes, of course physically, but what of mentally? Yes, my arm will hang according to the law of gravity, but tell me, is there a formula to tell me why I just raised my arm?
Agnostic: Of course not. Though it is not impossible that one exists. After all, you lifted your arm as a reaction to your own speech.
Mystic: Yes, yes, and our conversation has been merely a series of reactions, as our entire lives have been, but just because it is all reaction does not mean that this action is predetermined or predictable.
Agnostic: It is a question of whether every action is determined by specific stimuli or if there are multiple potential reactions to each stimulus. If there is only one potential reaction to every stimulus, then everything is predetermined and theoretically predictable if one knows the stimuli. On the other hand, if there are multiple reactions to a specific stimulus, then we are left with the question of what makes something choose, or appear to choose, one reaction versus another. If I throw a rock directly at your center, will you dodge to the left or right?
Mystic: It would probably depend on many factors, some of which we could deduce, others we cannot. I might go to the right simply because that is my natural tendency, or perhaps the ground slopes slightly that way or my head was turned in that direction. Or, of course, I could choose not to move and let the rock hit me. Even this choice, however, could be theoretically determined if one knew enough information about what path I had taken up to that point in life. Honestly, though I do not like to say it, if we knew every contributing factor acting upon something at the instant it was introduced to a stimulus, we would be able to predict its reaction with certainty. Theoretically, also, this should be easier the less factors acting on a subject. Of course, in reality, there is at any moment such a vast number of interactions taking place, it would be impossible to predict with certainty whether I would go to the left or right or allow the rock to hit me. Thus, it would appear I made the choice. Additionally, to apply this to a human life in terms of fate; to accurately predict the course of one human life, one would need to know in advance the present location, momentum and vector of every particle of energy and matter in the entire universe. If one knew all this, then one could theoretically chart the cascading reactions of all these particles and bodies as they interact with each other and push the human life, or really the particles creating the human life, in whatever direction it appears to choose. This, of course, assumes that free will does not exist. But that question, along with the complex question of determination I briefly spoke of, seems unanswerable until consciousness is understood, in the sense of what makes the human mind? If it is indeed solely the brain, thought a series of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, then, though we seem to have choice due to the sheer complexity of the interacting forces and stimuli that act upon us, we are being driven by an unalterable, predetermined, path.
Agnostic: But, I sense, you consider the mind and brain as separate entities.
Mystic: I believe in the soul, and that it, in combination with the animal self of the brain, combine to make a human being. Of course, if everything is predetermined, I believe this simply because the correct neurons fired in my brain to a stimulus somewhere along the line.
Agnostic: Yes, true. But as regards to the interaction of the soul and the brain, I have always considered that if it was possible to organize the many divisions found within an individual human being, they would all, or nearly all, fall under the two main divisions of brain and soul, or preferably inward and outward selves. When one uses the term soul it stirs a great many preconceived notions. I believe it is better to use the term inward self for soul, although it is virtually interchangeable. I would further add that it is probably easier to look at these selves in the terms in which they evolve for a man’s journey through life may be considered as the amalgamation of the separate paths of evolution of the inward self and outward self. The journey of the inward self, as I mentioned, is of the soul. It seeks, by thought and action, to further its passage through time, perhaps eternally. It cares little of this human life, except as a means for observation, marvel and attainment of knowledge. Conversely, the outward self is of this world. It seeks success, happiness and camaraderie. Now, obviously, within these two divisions there are all the varying aspects which make us individuals. Both selves are influenced by environment, although the outward self much more so. Actually, the inward self may not be affected, merely how much influence it has upon a person’s thoughts and actions. But that is a matter of the interplay between the two selves. Before we enter that territory; do you understand what I mean by the inward self and outward self, or am I being too vague?
Mystic: I believe I understand, but let me be sure. It is the inward self that wonders, “Why am I here?”
Agnostic: Yes.
Mystic: And the outward self that thinks, “I am hungry,” “I feel lonely,” or “I wonder if that person likes me?”
Agnostic: Yes.
Mystic: It is the outward self that dreams of worldly success, in whatever fashion those dreams take, and considers fame, desiring that in five thousand years its name may still be lauded as great. It draws plans for the course of this life, for this temporary human life is the journey the outward self treads, beginning with the day of birth and ending with the day of death. The inward self, however, is on a journey upon which the beginning and end are hidden.
Agnostic: Very well said.
Mystic: And, to use a philosopher, as an example. His quest for knowledge, the questions he poses and experiences he seeks are of the inward self, while when he scrawls those thoughts upon a piece of paper and produces them to the world in the attempt to earn a living or gain fame, it becomes the realm of the outward self for the inward self is happy with the expansion of knowledge while the outward self seeks to be rewarded or lauded for having thought those thoughts.
Agnostic: Yes, and a very good example of how the two selves interplay with each other, although for most of us the interaction is not so obvious.
Mystic: How so? We all have our wonderings which are of little relevance to the earthly life. We all grow inwardly in spurts and moments. Yes, not everyone attempts to turn these thoughts into fame or immortality, but the thoughts must arise within every person, even if it is at rare times.
Agnostic: True. And though it may not have been your intention, I realize that human behavior cannot be divided into simply two categories. There must also be a third; the basic animal self.
Mystic: But does this not fall under the outward self?
Agnostic: No, I do not think so, especially as we have described it. The basic animal self is a thing of the present. It has little to do with the construction of hopes and dreams. It feels things. It has instinct. It does not fight, per se, with the outward or inward self; it overpowers them, or is overpowered by them. Part of the outward self’s path is how much to gratify the basic animal self and the inward self, for these two, the animal and inward selves, are almost completely incompatible. At best they are indifferent of each other. It is irrelevant to the animal self whether the inward self exists. It thinks merely of satisfying its own wants and needs. The inward self, meanwhile, considers itself weighed down by the animal self. If only, it thinks, the search for knowledge and continuum of thought did not have to be continuously interrupted by the animal needs of food, warmth, lust and sleep. The outward self, in all of this, attempts to balance the two and interact with the world at hand. The three, united, form a human being.
Mystic: I agree, except that I would not go so far as to say the inward self and animal self have nothing in common. They both are fond of leisure, as is the outward self, although it, in conforming to the world around it, is much more willing to take up the burden of work. The animal self would rather steal than work, while the soul desires freedom from all such burdens that hinder its enjoyment of existence and pursuit of wisdom.
Agnostic: I see your point, and it brings it to consideration the interaction of people in society. For those whom either the animal self or inward self is abnormally strong, it is difficult to be part of the society of man wherein the outward self is king. Of course, like all factors of personality, there are countless variations of the three combining to produce the many different types of people which exist.
Mystic: This raises a question in my mind, and while I realize we cannot know whether there is existence beyond death, let us for a moment suppose there is.
Agnostic: Agreed.
Mystic: My question is this: does a man, moving through death into the afterlife, retain his personality? We have divided his personality, in essence, into three forces which form the person he believes himself to be. How much of this whole remains with who he becomes? What prompts this question is the fact that so many of the iniquities of this world are bred into the personalities of men. If human memory is retained, so then it seems is the inequality of human life. Consider a man raised as a noble man, taught from birth that he is of better blood. This nobility establishes so much of his character, it is almost impossible to separate it from who he is. In death, will he believe himself still above those around him, especially when he sees among them men whom were peasants or slaves in his own life? And these men, having always been taught that they were lower; will they in death, when they see this noble man still look down upon them, believe themselves still less and bow to his wishes as they did in life?
Agnostic: I will admit that such a consideration is new to me and, honestly, somewhat disparaging, for the afterlife most men seek, in which they retain the essence of who they have been, would, on the basis of what you have said, potentially become as hypocritical and abusive as the world in which we live. To give myself hope, I would begin with the inward self. It observes everything a man does. It has memory of the life a person has lived. In that noble man you spoke of that considered himself above others; no doubt his inward self, though deeply hidden, looked at all men and said, “These are my equals. We are all the same in the sense that we all have life and the ability to enjoy life.” Yes, he may have owned slaves, even beat them, but there was in the depths of his heart a consideration, perhaps subconscious, that he had no right to do such a thing. This is the part of man that reads, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and believes it can be done; though who among us has? This is the portion of man that does not fear death. This is the part that abhors war and bigotry. This is the part that loves, not from fear of loneliness or physical attraction, but for the simple fact that in this kindred being exists also the beautiful life that breathes within itself. If man retains this upon traversing through the cascade of death; then all that is remembered of this life shall be the times of joy.
Mystic: Thus, you are saying that the soul would shed itself of both the worldly and animal selves but retain a sense of what this earthly existence has been
Agnostic: Yes, how else could what you have spoken of be prevented? Granted, given paradise in which to live, human society would be different, but given the history of mankind, I find it hard to believe it would be as grand as it could be.
Mystic: Now, perhaps, you understand what I mean when I use the word soul. It is that which you described; the good, divine within each of us. All that is base belongs to the animal and outward selves.
Agnostic: But surely they have their good qualities as well.
Mystic: They have qualities which help them through their path of existence, which we said earlier of the outward self, and I logically apply to the animal self as well, was the human life we live here on earth, from death to birth. That a quality is helpful in this world, or even apparently good, does not mean it will be in the next world. Humanly beauty is a good example. It is very useful to both the animal and outward selves, but what is it beyond the gates of death? Nothing. The carcass of a queen rots the same as a mollusk.
Agnostic: Yet we live now, and thus, to a human being, the sum of three parts inseparable till death, qualities such as these are important.
