. Spinning .

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.