5 March 2002

Eternal Nature Of Humankind

To begin with, allow me reiterate a disclaimer. The postulating that follows is just that—postulating. This is speculation. This is guesswork. This is assumption. In no way is this meant to be taken seriously.  Nor are you to believe that I take what fallows to be "doctrine."  

These conjectures deal with the members of humankind having an eternal nature—that is, they deal with the idea that we do not step into creation with the introduction of our fathers’ sperms into our mothers’ eggs. We existed before. If you find this idea blasphemous—then, by all means, DO NOT CONTINUE. Simply LEAVE. Of course, if you are not opposed to entertaining an entirely un-provable idea—then continue reading. 

There is in our world a notion called the Theory of Evolution. This theory implies that all life on earth began with the accidental conjoining of certain proteins into the DNA strand of a single celled organism, and the subsequent mutations of the offspring of this organism. I’ll say no more about this theory at this time. Don’t worry; I’ll come back to it. 

There is also a notion that the universe is composed of two substances—matter and energy. One idea concerning these two substances is that neither of them can be destroyed. Also, neither of them can be created; that is to say, neither of them can come into existence from nothing. Matter and energy can change their states (for matter: from solid into liquid or gas, and so forth—for energy: from heat to potential or kinetic, and so forth), but they cannot be destroyed or created. 

Now, the question that I pose is this: What is the nature of a human being? Descartes has defined humankind as a thinking thing. Of course, Descartes believed in the duality of mind and body. He believed that the mind, this thinking thing, was separate from the body, an extended thing. I have not put the terms thinking thing and extended thing into quotes because I’m not certain that those terms are the exact ones that Descartes uses. However, they capture the idea. 

This brings us to an interesting juncture. Why bring up Descartes philosophies? He did not address the existence of humankind prior to our mothers’ conceiving us. I have done so because I agree with his beliefs mentioned above. The mind and the body are separate. They are two different types of substances. In relation to matter and energy, the mind I will equate to energy, and the body I will equate to matter. I doubt that few people, if any, would claim that the body is not matter. For those interested in why I believe that the mind and body are separate, refer yourselves to “Meditations on First Philosophy” by René Descartes. 

If, as Descartes claims, the mind—the only integral part of a member of the human species—is separate from the body, and the mind is not an extended substance—that is to say, if the mind is not matter—then what type of substance would it be? I argue, or propose, two points here. First, that the mind is the only integral part of a human being. Second, that the mind is energy. 

On the first point, I must conclude that I am not alone on this part. I wish to call your attention to one Science Fiction/Fantasy novel: “Robot Adept” by Piers Anthony. This is only one of the many tales where a man has his mind transferred to the body of a non-human entity. His possession of a body that is not human does not make him any less human. In these stories, the mind, or ego, of a person is all that is necessary to be considered human. 

The second point, however, is not only impossible to prove, but it is also harder to point toward anyone else who holds the philosophy. Therefore I am on my own. I draw the conclusion because, not only do I believe that the mind is separate from the body, I also believe that it is a different substance than the body. I believe that it is a non-corporeal substance. Second I am only aware of two substances in the universe—again, matter and energy. Since I the mind is not matter, it must then be energy. I know—it’s pretty weak. I’ll have to look into mental makeup a little more some day. That day just is not today. 

Well then, if our minds are composed of energy, and if energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then it must follow that our minds were not created, and they will not be destroyed. If, then, this is the case, our minds are eternal. Next, if our minds are the only integral part of our beings, then we are eternal beings. That is to say, we did not come into existence, and we will not step out of it. 

However, that does not imply that we, in this current state are immortal. We will die. That is indisputable. What does that mean, however? What does it mean to say we will die? Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be: our bodies will die, not us. 

What does this mean for us? If we existed, in some form, prior to our present state, why do we not remember anything from before birth? Well, in order to speculate about this, I must first return to the point made earlier on evolution. As I stated earlier, there is in this world something called the Theory of Evolution. I agree with the most basic principle of this theory: things change and mutate. There are species in which scientists have documented changes and mutations that have led some of the members of a that species to survive while the non-mutated members have died off and the mutated members become the new norm and pass these new characteristics caused by the mutations on to their offspring. 

Consequently, I am in no position to entirely dismiss the concept of evolution. I may not entirely agree with the Theory of Evolution. That is, I may not agree with the way it is taught in school. This is, in part, because there are too many gaps in the fossil record. It is far too large a leap to insist that all the varied species on earth evolved from the same single celled organism. Yet, it still has its merits. I am not entirely dismissing the theory. I simply am not blindly accepting it, either. 

That having been said, my point in bringing up the Theory of Evolution is to pose a question. If we could evolve into human beings from single celled organisms, what is to prevent another species from evolving into a life form that’s higher than the human being? Why wouldn’t there be a species somewhere that is, or at least was, higher on the evolutionary ladder than humans? I propose that not only is it possible, but it is a reality. That is to say: there is a species that is higher than us. We, our most integral features, our minds, are members of this same species. 

Ah, now I’ll leave behind the already blasphemous postulates partially influenced by science, logic, and philosophy, and I’ll move on to the even more blasphemous speculations based in both fantasy and theology. I’ll let you decide which parts are pure fantasies and which parts are more theologically influenced. 

We have always existed, on some level, as unique, rational, intelligent beings. However, we did not possess physical bodies. After having experienced our surroundings to the best of our abilities, and after having discovered that there were things we could not do, things that would prevent us from learning and progressing further, we discovered a member of our species that had progressed so far beyond our wildest expectations that we perceived that he (gender neutral he, if you prefer) could progress no more. Indeed, he had mastered everything. He knew all the laws that govern our universe, and could therefore do things that seemed impossible to us. He had reached the end of his progression and found that the only way to continue his progression was to help others to progress to that point. 

We asked him if he would help us to progress to his state and he agreed. He would show us the one path that would allow us to progress to his level. Eventually, we came to the point where we could obtain a physical body, thereby expanding our range of experience and knowledge. 

There was one hitch. We would not be able to handle or control perfect, immortal, physical bodies. We would first need to learn how to operate and control imperfect, mortal, physical bodies—the bodies we have now. Once we mastered this, we would then be ready to have perfect immortal-bodies. But there was a catch; something about these bodies would not allow us to remember anything prior to our receiving them. In fact, while we would store (in our minds) all the information gathered from our experiences in these bodies, the storage faculty of the bodies themselves was faulty. 

This would cause a problem because there would be certain things that we would need to accomplish in this life in order to continue in our progression. While we it would be possible to do these things that needed to be done, we would not actually do them. Our very uniqueness (our agency, or ability to make decisions) impaired—as it would be in these bodies—would inspire us to make wrong decisions. 

However, there was one of us who had been able to progress far enough that, if he had a body that had the attributes of both the imperfect mortal-body and the perfect immortal-body, he would be able to make it through this life without making any mistakes. Furthermore, he would be able to mediate our mistakes. He would be able to take those mistakes on himself, and provide a way for us to progress despite our mistakes. He would be able to make it possible to receive those perfect immortal-bodies. 

There was one other who believed that if only our agency was taken away from us, we could all continue on in progression. The problem with this idea is that what makes us thinking things, what makes us unique, what makes us who we are, is our agency. Our agency is inseparable from our mind. One cannot destroy agency without destroying the mind; that is to say that agency cannot be taken away from the mind unless the mind itself is destroyed. The only way to destroy agency is to destroy the mind. 

Since the mind cannot be destroyed, our agency would of necessity remain intact. This dispute eventually caused one-third of our original group to either forfeit their ability to receive this imperfect mortal-body, or be denied the opportunity of receiving one. We are the remaining two-thirds—our progenitors, our posterity, and us. 

Our bodies will die. Our minds will continue, unfettered by these bodies. We will receive our perfect immortal-bodies. And some of us will be able to continue our progression. Ponder this, what is it that we need to accomplish in this life in order to do so? How could we possibly know what needs to be done? I propose that not only was the one sent to make it possible to do what needs to be done, but a way has also been prepared for us to know the things that we need to know. Ponder that.

I have one final note to reiterate.  While I may believe some of the above postulates, and while some of them may even prove to be true, most of what I have written is pure speculation.  And, while I enjoy speculating about the above topics, I have no solid proof (not even any solid answers) for most of them.  The speculations (on the topics and questions for which I have no answers) become, therefore, useless exhalations of wasted breath—they even border on detrimental, if I have unwittingly slaughtered the questions that they are meant to answer.  I am confident that there are answers to these questions, however we have not been given those answers.  In short, the value of this work, on the whole, does not go beyond entertaining—except for any truths you may be able to salvage from its contents.  

Jefferson Woodland

HOME