And Donovan thus finished reciting his piece. The entire population of Prof. H--'s Creative Writings class, with one exception, liked the piece as it is always. Donoval was thus inclined to explain his philosophy, for his piece was perceived by the class (excluding said exception) as being philosophical.
"And everyday as I awake, I ask myself the all important question: who am I?" Donovan said, concluding his brief explanation of his philosophy. "And if I can't answer it, I simply go back to sleep."
The whole class with one exception fell back into a deep meditation upon which to reflect this solemn statement. The exception however, who shall be named Christopher, was carefully formulating his phrases.
"But I ask," Christopher asked, "Why is that a valid philosophical disposition? If you go back to sleep, will you be any better for knowing the all important question? For your own physical and social health, I will answer your question, thus preventing any furthur moments of your life to be wasted on the bed. You are Donovan. Rise."
But Donovan was puzzled.
"Donovan is my name," said he, "And the name of many others, If I am Donovan and they too Donovan, am I they, and they I?"
"I know no other Donovans," answered Christopher.
"I reassert that Donovan is at most a name, not substance," Donovan reasserted.
"But what did you think you were?" Christopher enquired in amazement, "If not a name, what then were thou?"
"True, I am Donovan," said Donovan, "But Donovan is simply an arbitrary sign assigned to me to distinguish me from the others."
"And thus you are that arbitrary sign," Christopher continued, "Chair is a name. Desk is a name. Rose by any other name will smell as sweet, said Shakespeare, but that is the greatest fallacy, for Rose is a name--thus Rose 'by' any other name a paradox. Smell of Rose isn't Rose, remember."
"I do not see your logic," Donovan did not see Christopher's logic, "To me rose is a flower that looks and smells in a certain way that is pleasing to human beings."
"Thus it stands to reason that you have experienced Rose," Christopher stood to reason, "For what you know as Rose is an experience of Rose. Rose as an experience is memory. But the idea of Rose based on empirical knowledge fails to see the real Rose. Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose."
"So when I awake and ask myself what I am, what do I then answer?" asked Donovan.
"You are what you are," Christopher concluded.
The whole class was astounded with this display of rhetoric that has taken place and very much puzzled. No doubt Christopher knew not a word he said, but his words affected the class to recognize him as Knowing. Thus he knew.
"So you see the world as composed of words?" asked one Prof. H--.
"I see the world as a word," Christopher answered.
"Then what do you eat?" Megan was compelled to thus put her question forth.
"I eat what I eat," Christopher said.
"But I want to know, what did you eat today morning," Megan pursued her course with cool patience.
"I ate two halves of a bagel with unknown quantity of peanut butter applied to it," Christopher answered.
"And did it make you less hungry?" Megan continued her pursuit.
"I hunger not when I wake," Christopher answered, "Thus, I was neither hungrier, nor less hungrier for having had breakfast. I eat breakfast not as sustenance but as social obligation."
"But did it have any empirical effects upon your physical person?" asked Megan.
"It had a noticeable but insignificant effect upon my physical person," Christopher answered.
"I am curious," Megan was now ready to pursue more than just cross-examination (a bad idea). "I am curious whether you are more ready to believe in the existence of Bagel not as a Bagel but Bagel as a grain produce that has sudden effects and sudden appearances after having eaten a bagel only this morning."
"Thus Bagel would become an effect and a memory," Christopher was glad that he had a chance to repeat himself. "An identity transcends all aspects of that identity. Bagel as Bagel is the primary idea of Bagel."
"But it isn't possible," Megan said, "To see Bagel as Bagel without some physical aspects of Bagel."
"And the mental aspects of Bagel, too, is necessary in bringing that Bagel into Human existence," Christopher said, "But that is not Bagel, the physical and mental aspects of Bagel. They represent Bagel's actions as perceived by a Being, thus it is a subjective Bagel. An Objective Bagel is what transcends all subjective notions of Bagel." (And thus Christopher was repeating himself again.)
"So what is the objective Bagel? How can you show us this supreme Bagel in Human terms?" Prof. H-- asked.
"I cannot," Christopher loved answering in negatives. "Bagel or Rose or Chair or Donovan, none can be explained in human terms."
"Then how can you explain us what Bagel is?" Prof. H-- wasn't a bit enjoying this, for she did not.
"When I say Bagel is Bagel," Christopher said, "I am establishing Bagel as an identity independent of a Subject. Bagel that creates itself in void and is inturn unseen by a human being would not be a round, tire-like grain-produce with certain tastes and certain effects. It would be Bagel. God is an idea which we accept without effects or memory. All things that transcend their aspects are God. Thus Bagel as Bagel is God."
"But I canst not see how heeding thy words my life improve," Kenneth protested.
"But I cannot improve your life," Christopher was now getting tired of making things up, "For your life, to my subjective person, is non-existent. You exist for me this short time which we call a 'Class.' Outside of this class you exist only when I remember you. I cannot improve Rose's life nor can I Kenneth's for there are no such thing."
"I do not believe that you are making a whole lot of sense," Gina remarked.
"Nor do I believe to that effect," Christopher answered, "But that is the idea central to Buddha's Enlightenment. He cannot communicate his enlightenment to another being, for it is not a memory or an apperance describable by signs assigned to such memories or appearances. Buddha's Knowledge is Buddha."
"I am confused," Prof. H-- said, "Are you dictating the doctrines of Buddha?"
"Not I," Christopher negated the possibility. "Buddha has no doctrine. Buddhism has a doctrine and I know not Buddhism."
"Then what is Buddha?" asked Kenneth, "And how will my understanding of Buddha or you make my life less painful and meaningless?"
"Buddha is Buddha," Christopher answered predictibly, "And you cannot understand Buddha nor me."
"I still await the answer to the latter half of my question," Kenneth alluded to his act of waiting.
"Life exists not in human terms," Christopher was adamant in choosing not to withdraw. "What you refer to as Life is merely the totality of your actions and their consequences. What you refer to as pain is how you perceive the consequences of your actions. What you refer to as meaning is the aim of your actions."
Christopher continued:
"Your aim of your actions, I cannot know. Your standard of pain and loss, I cannot know."
"Then what good does it do me to listen to you?" Kenneth gently put forth his question.
"It does no harm," said Christopher.
The class stood like a single body, forming a parabola of which Christopher was the vertex. At the end of one leg, voice of Jennifer voiced out:
"All things are words, you tell me," she said. "No, all things are itself, that is what you really said, and that this philosophy cannot do anything to a person's life."
"I did not say that all things are itself," Christopher retorted. "I said all things are names. And yes, this philosophy, if this be thus callled, has no effect upon a subjective Being."
"Then how will you justify its existence?" Jennifer sought to learn the justification of Christopherism's existence.
"But it needs no justification," Christopher said. "Existence is absolute, and needs not be judged by its merits or its values it exerts upon a subjective being."
"But that's just talk," Jennifer knew where she was going. "Philosophy is not a thing. Philosophy is way of life, and its aims are to improve that life. Philosophy indeed must be justified."
"That is exactly what philosophy is not," Christopher said, reversing himself without notice. "Philosophy is nothing, for it has no presence of Being that transcends itself. It cannot be justified for it cannot exist."
"Then you talk of a Nothing," Jennifer delivered her words carefully.
"No one can talk of Nothing," Christopher pointed out the contradiction.
"You talk not of philosophy, for philosophy is nothing, but everyone in the classroom, including you, recognize that you are talking philosophy," Jennifer said, "Why the blatant paradox?"
"Because there is no understanding," Christopher said.
"Why no understanding?" Jennifer asked.
"Because there is no communication," Christopher answered.
"But why no communication?" Jennifer asked.
"Because there are no means to communication," Christopher answered.
"Then why communicate?" Jennifer asked.
"We do not," Christopher answered.
"Then why try to communicate?" Jennifer asked.
"To understand," Christopher answered.
If you have any inputs as to how to improve this site, don't tell me. Make your own. If you have any words of admiration for me, you can email me at the address below.
© 1996 clee@hawking.nhgs.tec.va.us
Get your own Free Home Page