Why is entropy inevitable, unavoidable in this mortal incarnate life?
The answer is because, in this transitional phase between a purely-spirit pre-mortal life, and resurrected eternal incarnated life in Heaven; our bodies are made from the substance of other Beings.
Because ultimately there are only Beings.
Because these Beings are eternal - the materials from which our bodies are made are only "lent" us, for a while, by other Beings.
Therefore we incarnate by a contingent, always-changing, inevitably temporary, alliance of Beings.
There are no inert "minerals" - all "chemicals" are actually parts of Beings.
And of course there are actual Beings incorporated into our bodies - such as many individual cells, for example the phagocyte white blood cells are essentially autonomous amoebae.
But these (and other cells) exist in a dynamic kind of symbiosis, living and reproducing in the environment provided by our blood; (temporarily) controlled by our regulatory systems, which also include other Beings and parts of Beings.
So; the innate tendency with time, is for the allied Beings and parts of Beings to revert to the purposes of the Beings themselves.
In other words; for these other-Beings, from-whom are bodies are made, to become autonomous agents with a divine destiny; at some point they must regain that primary agency which has been temporarily suspended in forming our bodies.
In this Primary or First Creation that we all inhabit; the ultimate identity of Beings has not changed - even when one Being 9or some part of a Being) is "being used" by another.
This is why entropy is a part of the Primary creation - inevitable, unavoidable.
And this is why Jesus Christ was necessary to create a form of incarnated existence without entropy, without death.
We can understand that resurrection entails a re-creation of our incarnate selves, purely from our own Beings.
And therefore without a tendency for the components to revert to other Beings.
And therefore we - because of the Second Creation of Jesus Christ - may choose Life Everlasting; without the entropy and death which are intrinsic to this Primary Creation...
A creation formed by the eternal commitment of whole-Beings to live in harmony, by love.
12 comments:
i don't see the necessity of ceasing to be partly made from other beings. i think this is one of the givens of creation, any creation. and in fact, i think an existence where we are made solely of ourselves would be a diminished experience. rather, what i think heaven is like is that we become parts of each other from a conscious and loving place, always; never with coercion, manipulation or abandon; whereas here, even among human beings, we rarely achieve this completely and never consistently, and much less so with other forms of life (who really thinks about the soul of a cabbage when they eat it? i try to, but i confess it's not as often as i should; and on and on for every other being in every other situation). heaven, being a place of love, does not negate the necessity and benefit of being partly made from other beings (since this is, i believe, inherent in the very concept of a body, and thus for every existing world that is anything more than pure spirit). but heaven makes it explicit and voluntary (that is, we will make each other out of conscious love for each other).
@Laeth - "I don't see the necessity of ceasing to be partly made from other beings. "
Well, the necessity is in order to become eternal - if that is what is desired; and in order to develop towards fuller and more conscious-and-agentic divinity (divine friendship with God) - if that is what is desired.
In Heaven these must always be *possible*, even if not (at present) being actively pursued.
If not, then the option remains to stay in this first creation - presumably by some version of reincarnation.
If there is to be open-ended eternal development of all Beings, then any permanent state of servitude to the agency of another Being is ruled-out, surely?
i think you misunderstood my point. what i described was the opposite of servitude.
@Laeth - What I am saying is that to have a part of one's Being (or one's whole Being) - operating as some essential part of some other Being's body *eternally* - Would Be servitude.
the smaller parts of one's being would not have to be there eternally, just like here. they would cycle through as they 'evolve' through the chain of being, just like here. the very concept of a body, or of creation, is indissociable from it. (if ofc you believe God did not create everything out of nothing or out of himself; what you're saying is essentially that in the resurrection we will create ourselves out of nothing but ourselves; so you just pushed the question to the future while rejecting it in the origin of the universe. it doesn't make sense to me).
plus, if your scheme is true, then the implication is that a lot of activities, like eating and drinking, or having instruments (and pretty much everything), just cannot happen in heaven, because food, and drink, and instruments (and on and on) consist of precisely this. pure contemplation is the only thing that can be done from oneself alone. it renders, much like the heaven of the theologians, the experience of this life completely meaningless. and i just can't believe that's true.
@Laeth - I can't cover everything in a blog post, but I am assuming as a background that the Mormon theology is correct that we cannot have an everlasting eternal body until we have first had a mortal body.
At minimum this phase of life is necessary because we must incarnate mortally (maybe just a fertilized egg, or dying in the womb) if we desire to have the chance of immortal incarnation.
(If we have already decided for sure against eternal incarnation, we do not incarnate mortally but choose to stay as a spirit Being.)
Therefore, no matter how brief it may be, mortal incarnation is an essential step en route to immortal incarnation.
This could be explained in terms of us first needing the actual knowledge or experience of having a mortal body, before we can have an immortal body.
This post is a more detailed suggestion for why this is the case.
i know your perspective, i'm pointing out the implications.
my point is this: if that decision is really the ONLY reason for incarnation here, then the ideal, surely, would be that we make both decisions in quick succession, choosing to be incarnate here and then deciding to be incarnate forever as soon as possible (as a fertilized egg, presumably), bypassing actual growth, birth, growing up, etc. we can just incarnate, decide, and then die. you seem to be saying this is the ideal, even if in practice unlikely.
the implication of that theoretical ideal is that nothing about this life is of any importance whatsoever to what heaven is, and not even to get there (since we can bypass most stages and still get there). the only thing that matters is the decision, and if it can be taken and is better to be taken as soon as possible, then actual lived experience is only an unfortunate necessity in practice, but in theory one can forget about all of it, every detail and aspect and particularity, which of course partake of the duality you want believe must be excluded from heaven (Jesus never talks about this, as far as i know, but he does use real life examples to illustrate things, which suggests to me they aren't meaningless, only stepping stones, but rather patterns that will also exist in our enhanced resurrected life).
but in that scheme nothing about this life has any value except as a gateway to that... something. (i can't start to imagine what such eternal incarnation might be without any reference to this life either, except as a static contemplation, indistinguishable from a life as pure spirit, rather than as a complete being.)
this, to me, is not that different from the perspective of the theologians. it's the same emptying of earthly life of any intrinsic meaning. but that's not the Jesus i know, from what he said, but more so how he lived, before and after resurrection.
@Laeth - You are making some different assumptions than I do. I don't see there as being an "ideal" - because every Being is unique. Surely this means there can be no ideal scheme of salvation - each must be tailored bespoke.
Also God does not know how any Being will choose, or what will be chosen in future,
On this basis I assume that "just incarnate, decide, and then die" is, if not "ideal", a good scheme for some Beings, given what they actually are, and what they want.
Certainly this has been a very common fate indeed - indeed it is probably the usual fate of most incarnate Beings, including humans.
Any explanation needs to account for what most often happens.
"the implication of that theoretical ideal is that nothing about this life is of any importance" - Because it is not an ideal, it does not have that implication.
The proper form of question is more like "Why does *a small minority* of incarnate beings live for such a long time before dying?" There is not going to be one answer applicable to all instances, but it should be possible to give some general indications for longevity - and I have done this is a very large number of posts here, which you have read, so I'll not repeat myself.
But one generic reason is to have a chance to learn some helpful or necessary lesson/s through life experiences experiences. Another is because the individual has not made up his mind whether or not to accept salvation, or maybe keeps changing his mind about what he wants.
In sum, whatever answers provided by theology need to answer why there is such an incredibly vast range of life experiences even among humans - but even more so when all other Beings are considered. The answer needs to explain why mortal incarnation is necessary at all, and also what value there is in its persistence beyond an instant.
Originally, I was going to ask this question:
Since all Beings are unique, couldn't it be said that those Beings which comprise the body of larger Beings were given the choice to incarnate in such a manner and find their fulfillment in it? Entropy could then be explained as some of these microscopic Beings changing their minds, like many human beings apparently do, and choosing to reject God's plan for Divine Creation. In the Second Creation, our resurrected bodies would comprise those microscopic Beings which chose to enter the Second Creation as well as ourselves.
--
Then I realized, while this is a lovely sentiment, it would make our own resurrection dependent upon the choice other Beings make. So, I see the reason for Bruce insistence that every Being is able to make their own choice for the Second Creation. However, I also think it is crucially important, for those of us who live out full lives in the Primary Creation, that our metaphysical explanations we adopt insist upon the continuing relevance of the particularity of those lives, the acts we perform, and the relationships with other Beings we form for the Second Creation.
@FJ - You make some interesting points.
"Entropy could then be explained as some of these microscopic Beings changing their minds, like many human beings apparently do"
I think this probably does happen. For instance, early-life cancer could maybe be explained thus.
"it would make our own resurrection dependent upon the choice other Beings make"
I think that is indeed probably almost unavoidable, to some extent - for instance abortion or murder.
For such reasons, among others; it seems likely that reincarnation is always a possibility - although probably not the intention of mortal incarnation since the time of Jesus.
With so many possibilities, we can't possibly expect valid answers to all questions regarding other actual and imaginable Beings.
But presumably we can each discover (with God's help) enough about our own situation (and perhaps some of those we really love?) that we can make right choices.
@Fridolin,
"crucially important, for those of us who live out full lives in the Primary Creation, that our metaphysical explanations we adopt insist upon the continuing relevance of the particularity of those lives, the acts we perform, and the relationships with other Beings we form for the Second Creation."
great comment overall, and this bit especially. this is my main preoccupation in all matters theology and metaphysics. any explanation of the before and after and outside must not empty the here and now inside of meaning.
@Bruce,
"we can each discover (with God's help) enough about our own situation (and perhaps some of those we really love?) that we can make right choices."
i agree, and this is of course what must be done. i apologize for being so argumentative in the comments.
@Laeth - "I apologize for being so argumentative in the comments."
You are welcome to be argumentative - responding help clarify things.
In the sidebar it says: "Established commenters are privileged" - That Means You (inter alia).
Post a Comment