The Nourishment Of Life

Halifax Bar Conversation Concluded
July, ‘82


"According to Freud, self-consciousness was a late product of evolution,"
responded Bruce. "As the brain became larger, consciousness grew more
complex, and finally it was mere size that ushered in
self-consciousness. All hell broke lose after that."

"How so?" I replied.

"Before self-consciousness, life was simple," Bruce said. "Hunger and
sex dominated waking consciousness. People lived and died in an
endless pattern. With self-consciousness came the capacity for
self-transcendence and, according to Freud, it was only then that a
sense of meaninglessness entered the world. All anxieties and neuroses
can be traced back to our recognition of impeding disasters, death,
and decay. It was, in fact, that sense of meaninglessness that opened
the birth canal out of which religion dropped. Traumatic events became
bearable with religion. As a result, the psyche, made fragile by
religion's false gods, became vulnerable to psychological tumult. Your
God, I'm afraid, would not impress Freud. Does that surprise you?"

"Not really," I said. "Everything good comes with a price, and
self-consciousness is not exempt. Our freedom to `do the right thing'
pays that price. Call religion a crutch if you want to; no matter though,
without self-consciousness we could not live in the way that God wants
us to live."

"And what, pray tell, is that-- the way God wants us to live?"
responded Bruce.

"To be determined," I replied.

"What does that mean?" exclaimed Bruce.

"The right way to live follows from first principles," I said. "Once
principles are determined—agreed upon—the stage is set for what is to
follow. Principles like `doing unto others as you would have others do
unto you,' `reverence for life,' and caring for the environment are
all guiding principles from which a `religious life' can proceed. Of
course, there are always going to be challenges and controversies. For
instance, how do we define happiness? Even more to the point, when
personal happiness feeds off another's pain, is that justifiable?
Answers to questions such as these arise only after the behaviors in
question are measured against the first principles that
determine `right' form `wrong.' Identifying first principles is the
hard part. Like the freedom principle, first principles tend to be
general in nature, and therefore open to degrees of interpretation.

"Why do you say that? What kind of controversy can come from the
freedom principle?" replied Bruce.

"You should have continued reading your Freud," I said. "Unbridled
freedom has always been a threat. Before civil authority, a system of
taboos kept freedom in check. Obey God or go to hell, or leeches, if
reincarnation is your bag. `The divine enforcer' has always been the
principle behind social control, and on the flip side, behind social
bonding. `Shall we pray;' get the picture? But now it's different. Now
we are on the cusp of a new consciousness. The God that resides in
each and every one of us, simply asks: Look at one another and see
God, then act appropriately."

"And act appropriately," said Bruce, "how exactly do you decipher
that? How am I supposed to tell the difference between appropriate and
inappropriate activity?"

"I'm not exactly sure," I replied, "but, when appropriateness is
determined, it will be both consistent with what has gone before and
unique to that particular moment. Think of it as the stuff that
nourishes life."

"Oh, then its got to be chicken soup, eh!" Bruce replied.

"What? Well, yes, maybe it does, or is, or whatever," I said. "That
metaphor is as good as any I guess. However, the soup I'm talking
about does not require stock. It comes with already added stock.
Freedom and God provide the flavor. To give it more substance, reason,
compassion, and justice need to be added to the mix. And further,
while simmering, season it well with knowledge, consistency, and
first-principles. When ready, serve it hot and often. There is enough
nourishment there to provide for the needs of the entire Commonwealth.
There's enough energy there to sustain a balance between government
and individual autonomy, and to sustain a balance between the law of
unity and the claims of the community. But don't forget the garnish!
This soup requires generous amounts of garnish, --in the form of
educational opportunities. Without a good education there would be no
agreement on what nourishment is as opposed to what it is not.
Providing fair, productive, and sustainable living conditions for all,
that is the goal. Without universal educational opportunities, that
goal—to provide fair, productive, and sustainable living conditions
for all, would be impossible to achieve."

"Ah, romance!" responded Bruce. "Without the Romantics the
world would die a wicked death, or at least I remember somebody saying
that once. But realistically, wouldn't it take a miracle for people to
live like that?"

"It probably would my friend, it probably would!"