A Conversaunt Existence

There is evidence of a different kind that shows everyone how the idea of a rational, complex existence of being has a footing in reality. To do so, I would like to examine a conversation I had with my mother, Lenora Nelson. She had done some thinking, and she made an astute observation about what is real to us. While sitting around the kitchen table one Saturday afternoon, she told two young men—her nephew Don Taylor and myself—an astonishing fact about the nature of self-awareness. She did so without it seeming to be the least bit extraordinary.

My mother said, in reference to time, "I want you boys to know that no matter how old I have become or appear to be on the outside, I have not changed how old I think of myself on the inside." She laid claim to having no age, or giving age no relevance in her perception of herself. She perceived herself as being ageless. Anyone, who is willing to be honest, will admit that they are not thinking about themselves with any regard to the passage of time either— that is, until we look into a mirror.

The idea that we don't perceive age as being an important factor when thinking about ourselves has many interesting possibilities. I think it is useful for defending my position. We somehow automatically aspire to the superlative and forgo the mundane. What this insight highlights is how self-perception and self-awareness quite naturally and quite automatically interject transcendence and rationality into all aspects of our thoughts and perceptions. This level of complexity is absolutely astounding and without comparison.

What undeniable levels of mental complexity do compare to is the fact that humans can reasonably assume the idea of continuing to exist forever isn't some foreign pie-in-the-sky invention. It is a part of our makeup, our psyche, and as such, lends credence to a concept of reality that includes the possibility of life after death, which is rejected outright by materialists and naturalists.

I was recently introduced to a book written by the Christian apologist C. S. Lewis that includes a similar argument. In the book Reflections on the Psalms, Lewis gives the example where we are surprised by the passage of time. The example is about a comment one makes when being reintroduced to a child you haven't seen for quite some time. He says our response usually registers some surprise like, "My, how they've grown." This is another example of the human spirit not quite believing time is strictly a chronology.

A biblical example of the mind understanding time differently is in the book of Ecclesiastes. It makes the proclamation that there is a right time for every act. The passage from Ecclesiastes 3:1 states, "There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven."

The King James Version of that passage uses the word season instead of an appointed time. Some people have used this idea of seasons and tried to reinterpret the passage to suggest that time is cyclical. I don't agree with that interpretation. However, I do believe most human beings innately accept the fact that there is more to life than material physicality and that life in fact has purpose, which is exactly what the King James passage goes on to proclaim. Where does that acceptance come from? Well, the answer cometh in due time and with due diligence.

At this juncture, it can be said that we have exposed inadequacies of the worldviews of the naturalists, materialism, and nonmaterialism (Eastern mysticism). Not only have we found a path through that maze, but in the process, we have discovered how the proponents of materialism and nonmaterialistic mysticism have instinctively used their capacity for reason and transcendence to become "intelligent designers" of their own make-believe worlds.

The materialists produce unsupportable reasons for the gaps in evolutionary evidence, and in mysticism it appears that the individual one (Atman) has unsuccessfully tried to produce the encompassing all (Brahman). So it seems we are now ready to continue our journey by examining more of what this rational and intricately complex and contingent mind/body can successfully uncover.

Q. What is the famous quote attributed to the philosopher René Descartes?
A. "I think, therefore I am."

Q. While Descartes was defending his proposition, what did he claim was impossible to accomplish?
A. He showed that anyone who tried to deny having an existence was in fact confirming that very existence.

Q. What does the author mean when he uses the term transcend or having the ability to transcend?
A. Transcending is about having the capacity to rise above or step outside of your surroundings and give a rational, objective account of the facts and truth of those claims.

Q. What groups believe that the sense data and the events in life are illusory?
A. There are the religions of Eastern mysticism that speak in terms of life being an illusion. Postmodernists also think we create our own reality.

Q. What point did Dr. Lund, Lenora Nelson, and C. S. Lewis all support?
A. Man's mental abilities are more substantive than what is normally ascribed to man's intellectual capabilities. What this also reveals is how those transcendent aspects of commonsense perceptions shouldn't be discounted or ignored.

Q. Are the positions held by the adherents of mysticism and naturalism accurate in their definition of the actual or the factual way to interpret the world we inhabit?
A. The current positions in Eastern mysticism have a major problem trying to match their religion to reality, and the proponents of naturalism/materialism cannot provide any answers that can be trusted. Rather, an endeavor that details and establishes the complexity of man's intellectual and rational abilities and develops this new understanding of how man can ascertain a truthful account of reality would be a far superior pursuit.