Month: February 2004

I came up with a catchy quote the other day, but I suspect it’s not original: “The purpose of life is to learn how to die.”

This was stimulated by a discussion I’m participating in at a local congregation on the topic of teleology, or the question of life’s ultimate purpose. Before you read the discussion contributions, you might want to first read the sermon talk-before introduction. This is all part of Rev. Susan Ritchie’s series of sermons entitled, “Our House, Our Theology,” which I also began reflecting on in this blog last month.

This most recent discussion and sermon is actually part three in the series. The first part was on theology, or Unitarian Universalist understandings of God, or G∞d, or the Holy. The unifying theme in all our various concepts of divinity is that we hold each other accountable for them, whatever they are. We recognize that our construct of that which is greater than us has a lot to do with who we are and how we relate to the world. Rev. Ritchie compares this to the foundation of the UU house in which we members live.

The second part in the series was on soteriology, or salvation. (I’m using traditional theological terms with the understanding that they are historically what have been used to label such topics, while also recognizing that many UUs today would be unfamiliar, if not uncomfortable, with the baggage they carry.) This second session stimulated a lively online conversation, touching on our concept of grace, comparing ‘salvation’ to ‘enlightenment,’ and sharing personal life-shaping experiences. Rev. Ritchie compares this to the roof of our UU house.

This week’s topic of end goals has wound itself throughout the reading and reflection from my first week of classes. (This integration is typical of seminary study, and one of the things I love about it.) In my Intro to Christian Ethics class I learned that there is no experience that is not interpreted; in other words, the only way we know the world at all is through language, which is culturally informed and imprinted. It also follows that the only way we can be self-reflexive or know ourselves is through language as well. Our instructor used the example of Helen Keller as illustrative: until she realized that someone was spelling the word ‘water’ on her palm, she had no idea that there were others in the world like her, she had no individual self-concept. I’ve heard before how infants are supposed to have no understanding of the separation between themselves and their surroundings. Our teacher mentioned that Buddhists view this as not having a self-identity until we’ve told our first lie. There’s isn’t the only philosophy that aims at returning to nothingness or merging back into the impersonal ground of being.

Yet I can’t help thinking that human life is meant for something more than returning to the place where we began. This brings me back around to the discussion on teleology, in which I said that growth is central to my understanding of life’s purpose. If an individual self-identity—and, more importantly, the wealth of relationships made possible by that conception—is something we grow into, why would we think that the goal of life is to get or grow out of it? That seems a bit backward to me, but next Tuesday I’ll be in a class discussion on the ethical implications of these things, which the instructor has already hinted at. I’ll let you know more as it strikes me!

Oh yeah, and Rev. Ritchie compares teleology to the door to our fine UU house.