“Mystery”
is a well used word, but often “unknown” would serve comprehension. What’s the
difference? There’s no limit to mystery, but an unknown is constrained to the-objective-truth, or actual reality, which can only be discovered rather than constructed from an assumption. However, acting on mystery can change the consequences of the-objective-truth, which conforms to the laws of physics. Physics is energy, mass and space-time. For example, there were no weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq. People might best beware mystery and deceit.
Using
a dictionary[1],
“unknown,” the noun, is "a thing, influence, area, factor,
or person that
is not discovered, explored, identified, or
ascertained." The unfulfilled human endeavors—discovery,
exploration, identification, or determination—respect objects. The
object--thing, influence, area,
factor, or person—must
be real. An actual flying object not UFO, an unexplored island, or a person is
tangible. Influence and actor often present further uncertainty, because
actions without fulfilled endeavors may be erroneous. President G. W. Bush
claimed his god influenced his decision to invade Iraq, but Bush also used mysterious information. Mastering, managing,
or at least comprehending the
unknowns could be both humankind’s most noble work and a key to each person’s
path toward either success or failure.
“Mystery”
means anything that is kept secret or remains unexplained
or unknown. Excepting the case when “mystery” is an
object of fiction, it may be a synonym of “unknown.” Greek and
theological origins and secular conversions are discussed in the etymology.[2] Some people hold the opinion that “mystery” describes any truth that is unknowable except by
divine revelation. However, religious
“truth” may be both subjective and inconsistent with the-objective-truth or
what-is or actual reality. “Divine revelation” is often kept secret or
is anecdotal fiction. If “divine revelation” is a myth, then any
resulting “mysteries” are doubtful if not false. In other words, the mystery might
respect the-objective-truth only by chance. A mystery that is regarded as the truth is
a belief. Similar usages of “mystery” involve masked people, fiction writing,
and fine art. Thus, “mystery” is likely to indicate an intellectual construct,
rather than actual reality, or what-is. However, as I will discuss below, actions
taken on unreality often change subsequent consequences, which conform to the-objective-truth. In other words, acting on falsehood nevertheless has consequences. So far, Bush wars have cost $3 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives.
In theological
debate, “mystery” might comport with a defined god, depending
upon the intellectual construct being advocated, while “unknown” might address
the actual reality behind the religious construct. I use the expression “ defined god” [3] to
indicate that I am writing about either a documented intellectual construct or whatever
is in the proponent’s mind. I appreciate whatever may
be in control of evolution--if there is anything in control---without claiming I know a god. Secondly, I would
point out the circularity of claiming to speak for God: the speaker
does not possess the higher argument. Pascal was pleased with his wager[4],
but did he know the god he bet on? I
could use the expression “the God” to indicate something in control, even though the capital "G" might seem to indicate that what is in control is in the image of a human and needs praise. I do
not know that to be so, and therefore, I avoid the terms: "God," or "the God" rather than "god," except in quotation of others. I think "god" offers comprehension of arguments. Further, it seems to express respect for Exodus 20:7, which also is a mystery.
It
seems both rational and faithful to “whatever is in control of evolution” to accept
not knowing what no one knows. Thus, to the question of what is in control of
evolution, my choice is to admit to myself and declare to my neighbor that I do
not know. And, I behave accordingly. What controls evolution? I do not know. I
spent five decades persuading myself that I would “know God,” but will not
again willfully turn my back on the-objective-truth. I have no faith in
mysteries or secrets, because I placed my trust and commitment in the unknown, actual reality, whatever the-objective-truth is.
A
couple of examples might help the reader consider “god” as a useful expression.
First, in his Second Inaugural address, speaking of the warring parties,
Abraham Lincoln said, “Both
[sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid
against the other.” These thoughts imply several assumptions: God exists; God
hears both parties yet provides no aid; Lincoln believes God leaves control to the more powerful party. I
think Lincoln’s statement would have clarity with the convention that what a
sect prays to is its god, not God, since both 1) it is unlikely that one of
thousands of sects is correct and 2) God may not exist. If so, “His” would not be
capitalized and could be "him/her/it." Earlier, Lincoln had written[5],
“Now, at the end of three years struggle the
nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected.
God alone can claim it.” In context, Lincoln seems to be saying that God is
punishing both sides for not ending slavery. But using “god” to indicate the
object of each side’s prayers would be misleading if Lincoln believes God exists.
On the other hand, it does not seem humble for any man, including Lincoln, to
speculate a statement like, “Only God can claim it.” Lincoln seemed smart enough but too political to write with clarity. In a second illustration,
Noah Feldman’s book, Divided by God,
2005, would seem more humble or less bold with the title, divided by defined gods. The existing title could blame God, whereas the
suggested title indicates that theists are effecting the divide. I think
Lincoln’s example badly influences subsequent writers’ comprehensions of the
issues. It illustrates my claim, above, that “actions
taken on unreality often change subsequent consequences.”
With better leadership from Lincoln, Feldman might have chosen a title other than “Divided by God.” If he had, his book might help citizens focus on the true source of the divide: Christian factions. I think the American divide is the insistence on preserving the legislative Protestantism originating from the political actions of the First Congress in late April and early May, 1789: They unconstitutionally hired chaplains, who were Protestant. They acted against the preamble to establish for themselves the "divine" legislative authority they were accustomed to as subjects of the English Parliament.
With better leadership from Lincoln, Feldman might have chosen a title other than “Divided by God.” If he had, his book might help citizens focus on the true source of the divide: Christian factions. I think the American divide is the insistence on preserving the legislative Protestantism originating from the political actions of the First Congress in late April and early May, 1789: They unconstitutionally hired chaplains, who were Protestant. They acted against the preamble to establish for themselves the "divine" legislative authority they were accustomed to as subjects of the English Parliament.
Humankind
suffered loss when Flannery O’Connor became terminally ill. Her fiction
imagined such unknowns as the finality of an unexpected encounter with
cold-blooded murderers. But I am grateful to
Sally and Robert Fitzgerald for publishing O’Connor’s non-fiction book, Mystery and Manners, 1957, which is about writing. Quoting from
Page 81,
The artist uses his
reason to discover an answering reason in everything he sees. For him, to be
reasonable is to find [in something] the spirit which makes it itself. It is to
intrude upon the timeless, and that is only done by the violence of a single
minded respect for the truth.
I wish I could ask her, “Why ‘violence’?” A friend
speculated violence is beyond passion.[6] Perhaps the experience of juxtaposing her Catholicism in the real
world might have been violent for her. It seems violent when someone says, “Phil,
you hold your opinions because you have no faith,” so maybe merely discussing religion can feel violent. Maybe facing the-objective-truth is violent. On O'Connor's Page 35 note the capital
“T”: “To know oneself . . . is to measure
oneself against Truth, and not the other way around.” I wish I could discuss
with O'Connor the idea that both “Truth,” a sort of deification, and “the truth” are
insufficient: To express what-is or actual reality, it’s best to employ the phrase “the-objective-truth.” The article "the" is critical to the object of discovery. For complete expression, it is often useful to write “the-objective-truth which can only be discovered.” In so doing, the artist isolates
“mystery” as a subjective truth or religious doctrine.
It seems O’Connor was drawn to mystery. Page 31:
It seems O’Connor was drawn to mystery. Page 31:
Belief in Christian dogma
. . . frees the storyteller to observe. It is not a set of rules which fixes
what he sees in the world. It affects his writing primarily by guaranteeing his
respect for mystery.
I wish O’Connor was still sharing such rich personal
development of integrity, but she died at age 39, in 1964. I think she was straining to appreciate physics as energy, mass and space-time and the source of the-objective-truth, wherein undiscoverable mystery is falsehood.
It
is well known that inculcation of religious mysteries—beliefs—is best accomplished
at a very young age, perhaps by six or seven years old. I guess between a hundred
thousand years and under ten thousand years of cultural evolution have provided
the statistical evidence. If religious indoctrination is maintained into early
adulthood, self-indoctrination is likely to continue for life and into the next generation. In America, the
majority of families pass on from generation to generation religious
indoctrination. The ill effects on society, especially the un-neighborliness,
are obvious to many citizens and the aware minority is now large and growing,
currently at about 24% of the population. People would like to develop integrity but don't live in a culture of integrity.
However, the god tradition is maintained by political regimes, because the people in power know that theism is a proven tool for controlling the people. It is well known because Machiavelli[7] wrote about it in 1513 (in sarcasm to protect his life). Most clerics who write about Machiavelli call him evil or worse. The people could break the harmful cycle of fostering mysteries by mastering the list of key unknowns, including: whether or not a god exists; what existed before the Big Bang, some 13.7 billion years ago; the sequence of emergences, such as cosmic chemistry, physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, life; and the interconnected laws that govern evolution’s reactions to a changing universe. With a good perspective of the unknowns, both parents and children would have a better basis for choosing art forms that make life rewarding for each of them—would know better how to select the happiness they would pursue rather than the dictates of some institution. Equal opportunity to responsibly pursue personally perceived liberty is the shared, neglected objective of the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Only the human individual has the authority to choose how to spend his or her energy.
However, the god tradition is maintained by political regimes, because the people in power know that theism is a proven tool for controlling the people. It is well known because Machiavelli[7] wrote about it in 1513 (in sarcasm to protect his life). Most clerics who write about Machiavelli call him evil or worse. The people could break the harmful cycle of fostering mysteries by mastering the list of key unknowns, including: whether or not a god exists; what existed before the Big Bang, some 13.7 billion years ago; the sequence of emergences, such as cosmic chemistry, physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, life; and the interconnected laws that govern evolution’s reactions to a changing universe. With a good perspective of the unknowns, both parents and children would have a better basis for choosing art forms that make life rewarding for each of them—would know better how to select the happiness they would pursue rather than the dictates of some institution. Equal opportunity to responsibly pursue personally perceived liberty is the shared, neglected objective of the preamble to the constitution for the USA. Only the human individual has the authority to choose how to spend his or her energy.
Mystery
is an element in Esther Perel’s popular talk, “The secret to desire in a long
term relationship.”[8]
One point she makes is that human sexuality involves a multifaceted continuum
of desires. Monogamy, a word she does not use, would not exist without mutual
attraction. But commitment to a spouse does not usually terminate chance
attraction to other humans, which can threaten monogamy if shared novelty
fades. If a couple mutually wants monogamy, they must do the work necessary to explore
the unknowns in making love, yet the couple ineluctably share enough opportunity for discovery to last a lifetime together. A simple dance or a glance or the memory in a
photo can be lovemaking, as in a great video for Leonard Cohen’s poetry, “Dance Me to
the End of Love.”[9]
I agree that monogamy is a journey that can last a lifetime with focus on shared
unknowns: each love-making better than the last. A person cannot try both monogamy and promiscuity to select a preference.
Once there is attraction to monogamy, any deviation has two consequences. First,
the offending party has broken a commitment to self and terminated that sense
of worthiness. Second, the exploration/discovery of the benefits of continuous,
monogamous love-making during shared lifetimes has been interrupted, perhaps
terminated by the psychological change. Broken monogamy may terminate the thrill of the kiss---eroticy long after the other sexual organs stopped functioning. Guilt can be overcome, but interrupted
experience may not be restore-able. Maybe there’s no mystery—there’s only noble
work--in the exploration of the unknown delights by a monogamous couple. Beyond
foregoing the advantages of security and fidelity, the person who chooses
promiscuity cannot experience the erotic
benefits of monogamy.
I wish my parents had indoctrinated me in the unknowns
before they taught me their art forms, including Protestantism. That is not to
claim that my trust and commitment for life have led to the correct decisions
for death. For all I know, during my afterdeath, I will face judgment---in
privation. I do not expect it but am prepared for judgment. Also, my view of
monogamy may be selfish: I just won’t know what I missed by not being
promiscuous. Therefore, I do not want anyone to follow my path: each person
must be true to her/his management of the unknown, whether by mystery or by
acceptance. By acceptance I mean admitting to your person, "I do not know," when that is so. Each person has the authority to spend his or her energy according to personal preference, keeping in mind that other persons have that authority for their lives.
Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights
reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions
of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised June 17, 2018
[1]
Online at: http://dictionary.reference.com/
.
[3]
Adapted from similar usage in Online comments by Herb Freiler in 2014, Baton
Rouge, The Advocate.
[4]
Online at: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
[5] Letter to Albert G. Hodges,
newspaper editor, April 4, 1864.
[6]
John Harbo, private conversation, about 2012.
[7]
Online at: www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
. See Chapter XI. CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES.
[8]
Online at: https://www.ted.com/talks/esther_perel_the_secret_to_desire_in_a_long_term_relationship
, 19 minutes.
[9]
Online at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGorjBVag0I
