. Spinning .

And with a thundering voice that seeks to penetrate my soul:  Let go of that which you cannot possess, but subject to the whims of Fate that wears the mask of others.  And let the riches draw you that are timeproof, theftproof; those of knowledge and of seeking good that nourishes with everlasting bounty.

Happy news: The three a.m. dark garage spirit  has returned with some of its meandering sometimes deep and sometimes ridiculous ponderings.  Besides Boethius’ explanation of the senses picking up empirically on the things around us, he points to reason and intellect as that which will know all these things and more from its lofty position (viewpoint).  I am still fascinated by those two conclusions in Book V:  the hint of an ongoing spirit, and the Divine Knowledge of seeing past, present and future unseparated by man’s perception of time.

"Eternity is the whole, perfect, and simultaneous possession of endless life.  The meaning of this can be made clearer by comparison with temporal things.  For whatever lives in time lives in the present, proceeding from past to future, and nothing is so constituted in time that it can embrace the whole span of its life at once.  It has not arrived at tomorrow, and it has already lost yesterday; even the life of this day is lived only in each moving, passing moment.  Therefore, whatever is subject to the condition of time, even that which–as Aristotle conceived the world to be–has no beginning and will have no end in a life coextensive with the infinity of time, is such that it cannot rightly be thought eternal.  For it does not comprehend and include the whole of infinite life all at once, since it does not embrace the future which is yet to come.  Therefore, only that which comprehends and possesses the whole plenitude of endless life together, from which no future thing nor any past thing is absent, can justly be called eternal.  Moreover, it is necessary that such a being be in full possession of itself, always present to itself, and hold the infinity of moving time present before itself.

(…) For it is one thing to live an endless life, which is what Plato ascribed to the world, and another for the whole of unending life to be embraced all at once as present, which is clearly proper to the divine mind."  (Book V, Prose 6, p. 104)

Previously I likened this concept of Divine Knowledge to a panoramic view of a flowchart, or collage of images in frames.  This morning I see God sitting at his computer studying life on earth as a maze of Storyspace rectangle events connected by lines of free will.  While as Boethius has warned, what is inconceivable to the human mind does not mean it is not possible or does not exist (think airplanes in 1500 a.d.), and that Divine Knowledge may not be achievable by man but should be aspired to, it is easier to relate some sort of knowledge and experience to the unknown to at least simulate a concept.  God or Nature or, if you like, Grand Order, is not keying in the information, not clicking on boxes to follow the paths, but rather watching the whole plan laid out on some giant plasma wall screen as each man chooses his own pattern and hops along from box to box, sometimes able to explore many paths at once–though not on the same decision or topic, but rather the different demands of life, i.e., family, job, chicken or beef for dinner.

It’s sort of a neat idea, isn’t it?  We sometimes live a life unattached to reality in gaming; we open the door and find an weird raw-skinned creature with a stick coming at us in a video game such as Silent HIll.  We make decisions.  The game is the visual result of the production, based on decisions; the layout, such as in Storyspace, is the great plan or map.  Grand Order writes the code. Man writes the script.

"No!  Don’t go there; that’s where the Shaleheads got you before… No, stop, turn around…Holy Shit."

Boethius is depressed, understandably so since he has worked himself in a standing of political status and reputation as a man of principle, and yet he sits in prison facing execution by the same state he has championed.

Philosophy, once his closest ally, then points out to him the meaning of true happiness outside of that which we achieve as honors and possessions, which are temporary and undependable, as well as bestowed seemingly unfairly among both the good and bad.  There too, Philosophy answers the question of why bad things happen to good people, which is exactly the question Boethius worries over.

In answering these, Philosophy has pointed out Providence and the Divine nature of God, which of course brings up the question of free will, which Philosophy has proven is necessary, and preordained Fate under an all-knowing God which would seem to be in conflict.  This point was rather easily (to me, anyway) covered in Philosophy’s explanation of God foreseeing the changes that free will would inevitably bring.  But two things came of this last argument that truly are worthy of note:

First, the notion of a God who is unfettered by time, who can see all as in the present.  This is so foreign to our own knowledge (?) of past, present and future.  But so much of that which seems incomprehensible does not mean that it cannot be–simply that we can’t relate to it.  Think of television, especially live, and the images of that are flying instantly through miles of empty space to show up on your screen.  And Philosophy’s description of a constant present made me think of a chart of life from zygote to infant, or a time lapse seen frame by frame all laid out in a collage.  Not that impossible when you think of it in image form; why impossible in reality?  Wouldn’t it be neat if this possibility is available to man not only to understand, but to enjoy, but merely beyond his current realm of knowledge?

The second point of particular interest was Philosophy’s words that I’ve already mentioned a couple of posts ago that hinted at existence prior to this life on earth as well as one beyond.  I’m always looking for the reincarnation aspect, and this seemed to fit into it.  Of course, I may have missed something within Consolation or in lacking the familiarity with prior writings that Philosophy may be basing this upon, that may point in an entirely different direction in meaning.  But her words that something we knew before we took on the cloud of life may be remembered, beg further learning.

All in all, a thought provoking, reinspiring book.  And, it’s calmed me down a lot.

Wow.  Just finished the final Book V, and realized that it covers much more than a simple rationalization and proof of both God’s divine knowledge and man’s free will.  Though that be a heavy question, in my own half-ass way, had sort of come to the same conclusions offered by Philosophy, in that first, man cannot comprehend on the same level as a Supreme Being, and that free will might change the course of life, God would as well know somehow that this will happen–so no, you can’t trick Him.

But there’s much more to understand in these final pages; a concept of time as being the ever present, that is, the way God supposedly sees it.  This, to be understood clearly,would be in contradiction to our human definition of time, and yet, once comprehendable–even as a possibility–would indeed change man’s perception of life.  And, as Philosophy claims, it is an ideal we should aspire to at least in understanding. 

There’s too much to post the whole explanation here, so I will be rereading it and bringing out particularly concise points.  Much of what Philosophy is saying builds step upon step, and yet the basic premise must be put down in a few statements that I shall seek out, even as I begin to understand the depth to which they reach.

Knowing up front that Boethius was eventually executed, the ending of The Consolation of Philosophy, in its suddenness, makes one see the soldiers marching into his grey, dimly lit cell; he slowly puts down his pen, looks upward, beyond the helmeted heads of his captors, rises from his seat and takes his place between them, and walks calmly and confidently to his death.

This is a more difficult subject, at least in following the words of Philosophy, and I will probably read it through before raising it here, but two things that struck me, for my own unraveling of them:

"When the human mind knew the mind of God, did it know the whole and all its parts?  Now the mind is shrouded in the clouds of the body, but it has not wholly forgotten itself; and, although it has lost its grasp of particulars, it still holds fast to the general truth.  Therefore, whoever seeks the truth knows something:  he is neither completely informed nor completely ignorant.  He works with what he remembers of the highest truth, using what he saw on high in order to fill in the forgotten parts."  (Book V, Poem 3, p. 98)

Well now, while I cannot deny my own beliefs intrude upon my reading, Boethius’ here seems to allude to a former life as well as an after one.  Philosophy, in her opening remarks concerning the question of Free Will versus Foreknowledge by God, is making the point that man again is uselessly trying to arrive at an answer by assigning to God human qualities as they are known to man.  But in this excerpt above, "When the human mind knew the mind of God,…" and "He works with what he remembers of the highest truth, using what he saw on high in order to fill in the forgotten parts" seem to strongly suggest that spiritual man exists both prior and beyond his own human lifespan.  While it can also refer to humanity rather than the single consciousness, the "whoever seeks the truth" does seem to point strongly to the individual.  Interesting…

This statement also implies individual knowledge:

"Everything which is known is known not according to its own power but rather according to the capacity of the knower."  (Book V, Prose 4, p. 100)

This seems to reaffirm not only the difference between God and man, but from man to man himself.

Book V tackles the aspect of Chance, and Philosophy acknowledge the word according to Aristotle’s definition in Metaphysics IV.30, without giving it a place of existence outside of the order of Providence:

"Whenever anything is done for one reason, but something other than what was intended happens on account of other reasons, it is called chance.  For example, when a man digs the earth with the intention of cultivating it, and finds a treasure of buried gold, this is thought to happen by chance.  But it does not come from nothing since the event has its own causes whose unforeseen and unexpected occurrence seems to have produced an effect by chance.  For, if the farmer had not dug the ground, and if someone had not buried his gold in the spot, the treasure would not have been found.  These are the causes of the fortunate accident which is brought about by the coincidence of causes and not by the intention of the one performing the action."  (Book V, Prose I, p.92)

Whether I’ve been beaten into submission or have slowly been absorbing something of the first books of Consolation, I see this clearly and have no argument for it.  If we are to believe in an order to existence, then the rationale here is sound.

I had finished up Book IV, and found that I’d not posted.  Then realized that it was likely since I had accepted Philosophy’s discourse without much argument.  Basically, two things come of Book IV; first, "He only gives it to those who can take it" (I’m not sure where this started or who should be credited, but I heard it first in those words from a salesman named Tony back at Ulbrich Stainless as he left my office.  I quickly wrote it down and it’s been a comfort as well as a cry-stopper in the decades since.)  Also written out as Troubles’ answer to where they fly, "We go where we’re expected." (Francis Allison)  As well, we learn to accept the grief given to the good, and the seeming prosperity the evil enjoy:

"It often happens that supreme rule is given to good men so that infectious evil may be held in check.  To others, Providence gives a mixture of prosperity and adversity according to the disposition of their souls: she gives trouble to some whom too much luxury might spoil; others she tests with hardships in order to strengthen their virtues by the exercise of patience.  Some people fear to undertake burdens they could easily bear, while others treattoo lightly those they are unable to handle; both types are led on by Providence to find themselves by trials."  (Book IV, Prose 6, p. 85)

Likewise, punishment for the evil is both a signal to reform, and rewards to those is an incentive.  Whether one believes in a God who plans and deals out these fortunes or just accepts an unstructured series of events beyond our own control or that of an all-knowing force, what happens will happen either in a plan or as a chain of action and reaction.  The reaction is what we need be concerned with; that is where our mind develops and where our lives will be led.

There is a grand plan for order:

"This divine mind established the manifold rules by which all things are governed while it remained in the secure castle of its own simplicity.  When this government is regarded as  belonging to the purity of the divine mind, it is called Providence; but when it is considered with reference to the things which it moves and governs, it has from very early times been called Fate."  (Book IV, Prose 6, p. 82)

This was a bit confusing to me, as I felt Providence would be the flexible, less dependable force, while Fate, as we’ve come to know it, would be the immovable unchangeable governing force.  But as Philosophy goes on:

"For Providence embraces all things equally, however diverse they are, however infinite.  Fate, on the other hand, sets particular things in motion once they have been given their own forms, places, and times.  Thus Providence is the unfolding of temporal events as this is present to the vision of the divine mind; but this same unfolding of events as it is worked out in time is called Fate.  Although the two are different things, one depends upon the other, for the process of Fate derives from the simplicity of Providence."

Once you get beyond the (my) preconceived notions of Fate and Providence, there is the idea of a good at work that allows other influences such as Fate to bring things to change.  Here Philosophy brings in the example of a body of force (Providence) being the perfect central point, with Fate as orbiting as other spheres around this center.  The further out from the center of simplicity, the more likely Fate is to influence or direct the spheres in their orbit.  The closer to the central force, the less likely it will be influenced by Fate.

"Therefore, the changing course of Fate is to the simple stability of Providence as reasoning is to intellect, as that which is generated is to that which is, as time is to eternity, as a circle to its center."

All connected then in harmony, but going along in a path that can be beyond the reaches of perfect Providence.

Ah, a very good answer from Philosophy in the discussion of understanding the punishments or evils visited upon men of good virtue: 

"But, you ask, what worse confusion can there be than for the good to enjoy prosperity and suffer adversity, and for the wicked also to get both what they want and what they cannot bear?  But is human judgment so infallible that those who are thought to be good and evil are necessarily what they seem to be?  If so, why are men’s judgments so often in conflict, so that the same men are thought by some to deserve reward and by others punishment?

(…) "Now, what is the health of souls but virtue, and what is their sickness but vice?  And who, indeed, is the preserver of the good and corrector of the wicked but God, the governor and physician of men’s minds, who looks into the great mirror of his providence and, knowing what is best for each one, causes it to happen?  Here, then, is the great miracle of the order of Fate:  divine wisdom does what the ignorant cannot understand."  (Book IV, Prose 6, p. 84)

Philosophy has already made it clear that in trying to understand the will of God, man applies his knowledge of his own self, within his own space and time.  It is, as Philosophy suggests, ridiculous to expect a God to think like man.  In the above excerpt, she also reveals that our own judgment is not on the level of a Supreme Being’s, and even amongst ourselves we argue right and wrong, good and evil.  If we either came to understand the will of God on His own level, or accept that "Father Knows Best," than we can come to terms with His direction of Providence, Fate, and free will.

This is getting interesting.

It is clear that Philosophy leads Boethius’ through a series of steps that point to a real happiness in seeking God, and attempts to answer the question of bad things happening to good people. 

"It is no wonder," Philosophy answered, "that a situation should seem random and confused when its principle of order is not understood.  But, although you do not know why things are as they are, still you cannot doubt that in a world ruled by a good Governor all things do happen justly."  (Book IV, Prose 5, p. 80)

This is, of course, often the lament when the just are hit with tragedy.  I’ve not gotten fully into Philosophy’s answers yet, but am dwelling upon the necessity of believing in a more spiritual life beyond our earthly one.  And, in whatever form a God exists, whatever form a life beyond would exist.

In the dark of the garage, my mind wanders.  Are children in fact the soul of man, the only real way in which we live on beyond our own lifespan?  This would seem in contradiction to our individual soul, but there is contradiction in the words of God as written in the Bible as well.  "Be fruitful and multiply" can be taken as man’s purpose, and thus one way to endure.  I wondered if we in fact would commit a suicide of the soul if we were not to procreate.And yet, the celibacy as practiced and espoused by Jesus Christ would go against that doctrine.  Mixed messages then that do not bear out this theory.  Obviously too, all life reproduces itself, but even man as the highest form of life–if we consider reasoning to represent the highest form of life–but cannot create life from nothing.

Just rambling here, trying to use some form of logic to arrive at some common ground to face Philosophy ahead.

This logic may follow, but it is based on a premise that I don’t quite see as solid:

"Perhaps it may strike some as strange to say that evil men do not exist, especially since they are so numerous; but it is not so strange.  For I do not deny that those who are evil are evil; but I do deny that they are, in the pure and simple sense of the term.  For just as you may call a cadaver a dead man, but cannot call it simply a man, so I would concede that vicious men are evil, but I cannot say, in an absolute sense, that they exist.  For a thing which is maintains its place in nature and acts in accord with its nature.  Whatever fails to do this loses the existence which is proper to its nature.  But you may argue that evil men are capable of action.  I will not deny it, but such capability is the product of weakness, not of strength.  For they can do evil acts which they could not have done if they had been able to remain capable of good.  And that possibility of doing evil shows clearly that they can do nothing.  For, if our earlier conclusion that evil is nothing still stands, it is clear that the wicked can do nothing since they can do only evil."  (Book III, Prose 2, p. 71)

Though I’d like nothing better than to believe that evil men do not exist (even in Philosophy’s notion of existence), the logic is not on firm ground.  It sounds a bit like  the "I don’t believe in you" nyah nyah that made Tinkerbell’s light flicker and die in Peter Pan. 

The statement, "For a thing which is maintains its place in nature and acts in accord with its nature.  Whatever fails to do this loses the existence which is proper to its nature" assumes no variation in behavior.  That which does not act in accordance with its nature, doesn’t exist?    I may be nitpicky here, but it appears that most of the human race would not exist if this would be so.  I realize we’re coming up on the notion of free will, but I need to get this aspect set firmly–just as all build one upon the other–before I can comprehend Philosophy’s explanation of free will.

This statement as well seems too overly simple: "For, if our earlier conclusion that evil is nothing still stands, it is clear that the wicked can do nothing since they can do only evil."  There’s no leeway granted here, and the logic doesn’t take everything into account, but rather is dealing in absolutes (even for a black and white person such as I, who can still see a huge grey area in between).  If we accept that evil is nothing, then I don’t see it clearly proven that they do nothing since they do not only do evil.

It’s a head scratcher to fully accept this without question and go further.

No surprise, I’m seeking answers from my readings, particularly from Boethius in his Consolation of Philosophy.  While I study literature to understand the concepts of good writing just as for the expansion of my rather fenced in vistas and for enjoyment, I am intrigued by philosophical theories that further seek to understand the ways of humanity and the world in which we live.  As soon as I can once again resume some formal study, Philosophy is very high on my priorities of learning.

And though this should be more than personal application, I would presume that learning of the mind of mankind both helps one learn oneself, and in its self-referential nature helps one to learn others and accept diversity of thinking as easily as seeing natural instincts and tendencies in us all.

Twice in my life I’ve lost lover, home and employment in a single day; or better said, decision as few events dependent on another’s point of view are made so quickly.  All these "goods" in life to which men strive were, as Boethius suggested, false happiness in that they were bound to Fortune as their source.  His, under the guise of Philosophy’s, reasoning I can follow, and though it’s not a trait of mine to hold to "easy come, easy go," as a lifestyle, I am more willing to let go of that which has not been earned or comes with strings of dependency attached that are manipulated by another’s fingers.

And, I do not resent the wealth of others, come by honestly or not, as it is not something I have ever felt I had a claim to.  My own accumulation of "goods," both material and by means of learning I am less inclined to leave behind or lose so easily, though I do understand that by their nature they are not a guarantee of any sort of happiness except perhaps of temporary space in time.  Bad times as well I’ve been accepting of and long held to "This too, shall pass," to get me through, though little things adding up to mountains given time are more likely to render me useless than major catastrophe I’ve found. 

Still, I argue Boethius’ point of happiness, that seeking things within the nature of the earth cannot bring happiness and therefore should not be sought (or at least, depended upon), and that punishment for evil brings a greater happiness in that it lessens the evil itself. 

I’m getting into Fate and Providence, and Philosophy’s explanation of the justice and order of it all.  Interesting too, how replaceable we are.  Even as I question my own worth within the whole, I am surprised by what seem to be non-random events.  My husband and our close friend Gus are awestruck by the meeting of a woman who looks and acts exactly like me.  I wonder now, how random this truly may be.

After Philosophy has "proved" that a sovereign God can do all things, and that men cannot, but men can do evil, she goes on:

Therefore, since He who can only do good can do all things and those who do evil cannot do all things, it is obvious that those who can do evil are less powerful.  Moreover, we have already shown that every kind of power is included among the things which men desire, and that all objects of human desire are related to the good as the goal of their natures.  But the ability to commit crime is not related to the good, and so it is not desirable.  And, since every power should be desired, it follows that the power to do evil is not a power at all.  From all this it is clear that good men have power but evil men are weak.  Likewise, the truth of Plato’s doctrine is evident; only the wise can do what they want to do; the wicked can follow their desires, but they cannot accomplish what they want.  For they do what they feel like doing, and they suppose that they will find among their pleasures the good they are really looking for.  But they are bound to fail, since shameful behavior does not bring happiness."  (Book IV, Prose 2, p. 72)

Comforting thought for those of us who try to achieve happiness by walking the straight and narrow, but is this reality?  It seems as though if we agree with the theory of good, (and a belief in God is not truly necessary here, but rather some form of force that lies beyond man himself), then Boethius relates the opposite to evil; qualities, desires, etc., all in opposition to what has been held as the good.

"But the ability to commit crime is not related to the good, and so it is not desirable.  And, since every power should be desired, it follows that the power to do evil is not a power at all.  From all this it is clear that good men have power but evil men are weak."  While the logical progression that Philosophy has taken seems to point in this direction, it seems to be fraught with nonrealistic however idealistic and hopeful thinking.  It’s like telling a child that something’s not good for him because something bad can happen.  It’s rationalization (which is what logic is supposed to be) but forcing things to work or sound good to encourage the righteous that they’re not missing out.  "Those grapes are sour anyway" says the fox of Aesop’s Fable.

I see evil people smiling all the time.  Maybe we shouldn’t tell them they’re really unhappy?

As Philosophy moves into the question of evil versus good, and the qualitative theory of yes or no logic, I am most definitely not likin’ it.  This in itself is odd because for one thing, I’m basically non-argumentative (though age has struck me with its doubled efforts towards standing ground), and for another, I’ve never been a middle-of-the-roader; being more true Scorpio of extremes.

But I cannot discount the words quite that easily, just as I cannot discount a writing of fiction that I mght not like, but must agree it is good if it has the elements of language and story.  To argue logic requires the finding of flaw in that logic, and that won’t be quite so easy.  In Consolation, Boethius as author is in fact arguing both sides of the issue, but not as strenuously as one would with an opposing viewpoint.  Playing Devil’s Advocate only goes so far–I know; this is my forte–because it holds the major disadvantage of wanting to prove one line of reasoning rather than wholehearted disagreement.

Back with quotes shortly (unless I’ve turned my thinking around to that of Boethius and have come to accept the path).

As I come to the end of Book III, all the while watching Boethius nodding his head wildly excited in agreement with Philosophy’s logic, I am suspicious of the steps I’ve been taking in the thought process, and wonder indeed if logic itself forms many branches to arrive at a single conclusion.

In this latest idea of unity–the fragments of happiness would not be the whole, and they depend upon each other, are in fact one and the same–is a bit contrived I might suggest.  Then too, Nature and God may be seen as one power, the ultimate good, or having come by the perfection of a Supreme Being, having that nature of inability to accept its opposite. 

This takes more explaining, to you here who have not read or don’t remember, and to me, busy trying to punch holes in the veil Philosophy puts before my eyes.