The unconditional

The unconditional adjective is a very strange thing. People talk regularly of unconditional love, unconditional devotion, unconditional faith, etc. Let`s get something straight right away. Something that is unconditional manifests itself regardless of the circumstances. This means that it perseveres, does not change over time (i.e. unconditional not in the sense that it has no cause but that, after it comes to be, there is nothing that can cause it to stop being). This is wrong by at least two criteria.

First, let us consider the subject of the unconditional feeling (let`s take love as an example). The subject loves someone unconditionally, which means that no change in the subject can extinguish that love. Counterexample: death. A person stops loving everyone after death. “Yeah, like that counts!” says you, “Of course that death is the outer limitation of that unconditional because there is no subject to feel it!”. Surely, but what about dementia, then? If the subject forgets the memories tied to the person who it is supposed to love unconditionally, will it still feel love? “Ok, then” says you “as long as I am of sane mind!”. Yes, that seems to be implicated in the now-not-as-absolutely unconditional. Any changes in the subject that affect the subject in such a way as to make him unaware of his unconditional love are excluded from the unconditional nature of that love. What the subject means, apparently, is this: “As long as I stay as I am right now, I will love you unconditionally.” Unfortunately, the condition stated is very conditional. Actually, it stops being true as soon as it is uttered because the subject has already changed.

Second, let us consider the object of the unconditional feeling (we`ll stick with love). The object of the unconditional love is loved unconditionally for being what it is. Consider a mother`s love towards a son. “Nothing you do” said my mother to me “cannot stop making you my son. Therefore I love you unconditionally.” “Surely” said I “but would you still love me unconditionally if I were completely the same as I am now, but if you did not know me to be your son?” Fortunately, I have a very honest mother who tolerates my philosophical extravagances.  She said “No, I would not.” The object is loved for being what it is, but it must be loved BECAUSE it is something. Now if that something were to not exist in the object, even with the object being same in all other respects, it would not be the object of that love.

The unconditional (love) is conditioned both by the state of the subject and object. Language is flexible and it is okay to give emphasis to our emotions, but not to the point of logical impossibility.

Going to the movies

Have you ever considered all the different ways of watching a movie? There do seem to exist certain stereotypes which correspond to different people`s approach to this activity. There are those who will read reviews, summaries, critiques and any related material before actually going to see the movie. Those people are also very likely to try to act smart and “predict” what is going to happen as well as giving profoundly deep/deeply profound interpretations of scenes while not really watching. Then there are the “people of action”. As soon as the movie starts they remember a friend to whom they were supposed to write a message, or they have to go to the toilet, or they are hungry, etc. Those people are very likely to interrupt the most important parts of the movie with an insignificant action, comment while not really watching nor letting the people around them watch in peace. The ones that are left (a very small minority) are the ones who really enjoy the movie. Those people never fail to make all the necessary arrangements beforehand (food, toilet, cellphone off), they read a couple of reviews without spoilers just for the sake of making sure that they will actually like the movie and then watch it. It is a very simple and utterly engaging activity, if your original intent was indeed to watch the movie. Unfortunately that is not the case in general.

While thinking these simple thoughts I came back into my domain of choice – philosophy. I wondered if I could use the metaphor to explain people`s general attitudes towards life. And then I came up with a story.

Imagine waking up after dying and being faced with a countless number of possible lives. Each life is like a movie within which you are the main protagonist. Your whole future life is already determined, but not your choice of a particular life. Supposing your life to be a movie of which you are a simple observer, would you rather spend your time thinking about it, trying to anticipate what is going to happen and thereby missing the current moment on the screen, or would you maybe rather try incessantly not to be a passive observer, to do everything except watch the movie so that you could say that you have not wasted a single moment of your time on only one thing, or would you not want to be completely immersed in the scenery, the characters and the action wherein you lose yourself and cease to be as a spectator and simply be what is on the screen. I believe that is the way a life is best led – without tension or distraction and with curiosity and innocence to exhibit wonder and joy at experiencing and living the answer to the question: “What comes next?”

The three cows

Imagine a long road to a slaughterhouse. There are rows of cows slowly moving towards it. As they get closer they can clearly hear or see their fellow beings being put to death. Although they do not really know how it feels, that doesn`t stop them from feeling a sense of fear that is beyond dread.

There are exactly 3 cows in each row. They all know that, however hard they may try, they cannot escape the incessant and slow pace of the line towards death. The people guarding them will not allow it. But, all three cows have a different way of dealing with the situation.

The cow named Identity is kicking and screaming for a way out. She doesn`t notice the world around her, except when it offers her a chance to postpone her inevitable end. Everything she does is in order to establish herself in her position and to remain in it as long as she can. She is basely tied to her green fields, her loving bull, her little calfs, her everyday habits. She is proud of her status of giving the most milk and having the smoothest skin. For her, this is everything. This is what defines her and she cannot let it go. Therefore she will do anything to keep it that way.

The cow named Paradox is bowing her head down in sorrow and pain. She is a close relative to Identity but, unlike her, she knows she cannot change anything by kicking and screaming and is therefore losing her will to live. She keeps crying while remembering all the things she will lose. She does not understand that she had taken all the hope and happiness from the world while she still had the time to enjoy it.

The cow named Transience is looking around, wide-eyed. She is talking cheerfully (or sadly, depending on the situation) to other cows and trying to understand their position. She is aware of both the mistake of Identity and of Paradox. She knows that you can enjoy things exactly because you know they will not last forever. She doesn`t feign to not be scared of dying, nor does she try to claim what happens after. All she knows is where she is and that what she wants can only be done and felt now. She is free from being bound by her experiences and possessions and free from the sorrow that comes from the knowledge that she must, eventually, part with them.

But what will Identity and Paradox do? They cannot insist on their position. Identity would tire out and maybe even accelerate her ending; Paradox would be prone to commit suicide or simply give up altogether. But, there is a cow in a certain row that finds a solution. She talks about ever-green pastures after the slaughterhouse, about everyone being an innocent calf, without any restraint of movement or otherwise, about sweet music and glorious sun.

If Identity talks about it, it doesn`t really matter to her if she is right or not because she doesn`t think about what comes after the slaughterhouse, but only how to stay where she is as long as possible. Therefore she starts talking to Paradox cows in the rows behind her, encouraging them to switch places so they can arrive at the ever-green pastures sooner. And in their eyes, she is a saint or a martyr. While the only thing she is thinking of is herself.

If Paradox talks about it, she doesn`t really know anything more than other cows. What she does know is that she needs some kind of comfort, and comfort cannot be found in transience. Therefore she makes herself believe in something eternal to be able to continue to live. But that belief doesn`t help her life to be better. It can only serve to make her fear of the end less horrifying or even make  her despise her life more and to strip bare her experiences and actions in light of the fact that, when compared with what is to come afterwards, this life is not even a shadow`s shadow of it.

Transience doesn`t think about it. She knows as much as Identity and Paradox about what comes after, yet her character is in no need for a comfort or a strategy for her to need to believe in something like that. She does not listen when other cows talk about it because it doesn`t change a thing in her behavior. Whether it be true or false, it will not make her despise her situation more, make her wish to end it sooner or make her fight for something she has not yet lost. And yet, while both Identity and Paradox believe for their own selfish reasons, they proclaim Transience of having all the bad traits of character they possess.

In the end, even if Transience is stigmatized by other Identities and Paradoxes, she will find happiness right here, right now instead of waiting and hoping based on a promise of a cow that holds no more authority than she does. And has much less peace of mind than Transience in living her own actions, experiences and emotions.

Which one will you end up being?