by Jeremy Batterson, October 2002.
COMPOSER: [Calmly agitated] Tell me, Philosopher, why it is that human beings feel so threatened by the success of others, for these days I have refound some of that same quality in myself that I have so much hated in others. We talk about "borrowed time", but sometimes I think that I am living on "borrowed morality" gained in an earlier age, and that all of my work, some of which is significant in its own right, is but a pale reflection of my earlier self, and is only possible because it trickles down from that earlier and better self. I was happiest as a composer, and from there passed onto physical science, where I discovered new forms and principles which had never been known to man before. I passed from this to other pursuits in science, always fascinated, but always dreading that I might get dragged down to the point that I would never compose music again. I had lost that higher passion nearly unique to composers, and all that was left, which drove all my scientific investigations, was a pale reflection of that higher science which had driven me in former times.
But, now, the winds of eternity are blowing, and, everywhere I look, I hear these winds blowing. When I see the wind blowing the trees and leaves around, I hear my past, and hear the awesome toll of potential failure. I hear the eternity in every sound, in every view I see. When I see the sun rise, I see not the sun, but my own history spread out over the universe, for all future time. You know me well, and so you know that I have never sought help in such a fundamental matter as this, since it always seemed to me, up to now, that any problem must be solved from within myself, alone, by summoning the strength to meet each task. But, the attempt to solve this paradox by such a means now would preclude the very solution which would make its solving possible. For, now it seems that I am called upon to finally overcome all remaining vestiges of that which prevents me from rising above this self-imposed exile from human relations, to become a true philosopher, and servant of mankind. And I know that, somehow, it is the resolution of this single paradox upon which the future success or failure of all of my endeavors rests.
PHILOSOPHER: There is no doubt that this question of cooperation among men is the most essential question of all existence, and must be understood by all serious men; else they might end up like some of those professors with very big egos who we see, who spend their lives trying so hard to appear to be something else than they are, that they end up being scarcely more than nothing, while all that remains of them past their deaths are their pedantic and boring writings, gathering dust on some obscure shelf, until such time as their endless pages of useless drivel rot away into dust, to be known no more. Thus it is that university libraries of our day have the smell of a graveyard of the soul, filled with the ghosts of wasted lives.
But let me ask you whether it is not true that you, yourself, in your youth, apart from being what is called a "loner" and fiercely independent, were also extremely competitive in your academic studies?
COMPOSER: Yes, I am afraid that this is true.
PHILOSOPHER: You always wanted to be the best in every subject, the head of the class, so to speak?
COMPOSER: Pretty much so.
PHILOSOPHER: And, did you not feel threatened when some other student threatened your position?
COMPOSER: In certain subjects, like mathematics, yes.
PHILOSOPHER: And, also in Sports?
COMPOSER: I tried to be one of the best in that. As a matter of fact, I nearly drove myself sick to prove myself the fastest runner, for example, and by sheer craziness, was able to outrun anyone, but only for short times, and not more.
PHILOSOPHER: Hmmm. So you were a fanatic about being the best in everything, but, especially, in academic subjects?
COMPOSER: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER: And, then, when you went to college, you went through a mid-life crisis, when you found that there were many people who were just as smart, or smarter than you, so to speak?
COMPOSER [Laughing] You are not far off the mark, Philosopher.
PHILOSOPHER: But, did you not know that He who is wisest, is not redundant, such that all of his creations are unique from each other, and that, thus, each human soul is unique and unlike any other?
COMPOSER: I did.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, did it not follow that each human soul, being unique, is capable of performing a unique and precious mission on behalf of all of humanity, which none other can perform? Then, why feel threatened by the good of another, if you really love all other? And why not do all in your power to bring out in each that which is unique and precious in them?
COMPOSER: [ Sighs ] Often, we know such things, but don't practice them in the everyday moments of our lives. For, we sink down into a more mundane identity, out of fear, I think.
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, for nothing frightens most people more than the idea that we must love all other, as does God, himself, and that we must conduct our lives only in the ways which are in accordance with this. For most, even greater than the fear of death is the fear of being human, as we see this in cases of suicide, for example. Thus we see that even a person like you finds the perceived loneliness of a true philosopher to be a very frightening thing.
COMPOSER: It is easy to forget the joy that comes of it.
PHILOSOPHER: Let me ask you further, then, whether we have not said before that He, who is wisest, must love all human souls equally, since anything less than this would imply imperfection on His part?
COMPOSER: Yes, for, were he to love any soul to a lesser degree, it would follow that He, as the Creator of this soul, would have created something less perfect than that which warranted his absolute love, which, by its very nature, could not, therefore, be human. But, for him to love any soul lesser than another, would imply he considered it inferior, which would overthrow the entire idea of human freedom, and, thus, the bedrock of all philosophy.
PHILOSOPHER: Because we would then say that, having been created inferior, and, thus being loved to a lesser degree than another soul created by Him, it would follow that it were not freely responsible for being inferior and less worthy of His love?
COMPOSER: Clearly.
PHILOSOPHER: And, thus, that God were unjust in loving any less or more than any other?
COMPOSER: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER: Then all souls are equal, and all are loved equally by Him.
COMPOSER: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER: And, does this include even wicked men, like Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, for example, or even men who are dirty, corrupt and vile, like Rev. Pat Robertson, or Rev. Jerry Falwell?
COMPOSER: As we once said, God loves people like Secretary Wolfowitz and Revs. Robertson and Falwell so much, that, when they die, He condemns them, because of His love for them, to the deep regions of hell, for all eternity.
PHILOSOPHER: Clearly so, for God loves all equally. So, we see, once again, why each man, were he not free, would not be accountable for his good or ill. But God does not love every stone and tree as much as he loves a human soul, for, if He did, it would follow that they must be as unique and precious as is a human soul. Yet, all true philosophy starts with only one premise, namely, that man is divine, and in His image, unlike any other part of His creation, and that all else that is true in philosophy must derive from this one premise. For, were this not true, than there would be no purpose in any philosophy, since if man does not partake in some way in the ultimate divinity, it follows that he is no more than a stone which can do nothing more than the order of the world decrees it must. Further, if this one premise be true, it follows that God desires that each soul become absolutely good, even though each be free to become evil, else why would he love it to the maximum degree? And, we must say that all of creation which be less loved by God, namely all of that which is not human, can only be a function of that which is human?
COMPOSER: Why is that, again?
PHILOSOPHER: In the sense that, being less loved by Him, and, thus, being not as worthy as that which is, we cannot say that it is self-sustaining in giving itself purpose. It can have no purpose of existence other than to be that which makes up the environment wherein that which is most loved, human souls, find their way back to Him. We say that God, loving each man equally, constructs the entire universe, taking each individual human soul into account, such as to provide the maximum possibility of redemption for each soul, and that, in so doing, he creates all of that which is less than the most worthy, including every grain of sand and blade of grass, and even time itself, toward this end. Thus, the cause of His creation of all other than human souls, is to provide the domain within which those souls can be redeemed. We have discussed this before, you remember.
COMPOSER: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, all of creation which is not human, is a function of the human domain, since it only exists owing to God's love of man, and His desire that man shall find his way back to Him, so that thus, ultimately, only the human domain has any intrinsic, or self-sustaining, existence per se, and it is the love between man and God, and vis versa, which is the origin of all substance.
COMPOSER: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, what of human souls, themselves? Only now, are we treading on new ground, which we did not discuss in depth before, although we had implied it.
COMPOSER: You mean to ask whether God creates each human soul for the sake of every other, in the same way that He creates all of that which is not human only because of his love for each man.
PHILOSOPHER: Yes.
COMPOSER: There is something that bothers me about this. Something is different here, than what we discussed before.
PHILOSOPHER: For this question lies at the center of the matter of collaboration among human souls. Perhaps we should see what paradoxes, therefore, lie herein. To begin, do you think that God's creating one person for the benefit of another would violates the freedom of the one who is created on another's behalf?
COMPOSER: Indeed, it does seem that way to me, for, if He creates one on my behalf, if follows that I precede in the order of creation, and the one who is created on my behalf is antecedent. For example, if God, out of love of me, and knowing my particular faults, from his vantage above all time, were to create another man, for my sake, to help lift me from the darkness, can we help but say that I am prior to this man in creation? Does this not take away the freedom of this man, since he only exists for my sake, and is created in just such a way as to help me, without taking his own right to existence into account? Even in the case where the creation of us both occurs in eternal time, such that they are simultaneous from the narrow sense of "clock time", it still follows that one would be ontologically antecedent to the other, in the order of things.
PHILOSOPHER: But, my friend, I would venture to say that your inability to any longer compose music is the same blindness that causes you to fail to see through this paradox instantaneously, for the solution is readily available.
COMPOSER: [ Sighing heavily ] No doubt you are right, Philosopher. I think that I do hear the solution, as a far away music, in the back of my mind, but it is hidden behind much garbage, and, so, I request of you that you elaborate this to me, to help me find my way.
PHILOSOPHER: Very well. To begin, I want to look a bit more closely at the question of human discovery, from the standpoint of the principles we have just laid forth. For example, let us take the example of Edison's invention of the light bulb, which has changed the world in so many incalculable ways that we could not even begin to precisely trace its particular enfoldings to the original cause. The life of every person today has been so utterly changed by the outcome of this invention, that no person alive today would even be here were it not for Edison's invention. Let me ask you this, then, speaking as a composer myself: When Edison sat in his laboratory, with the first running light bulb ever to shine burning late into the night, and looked out into the dark night, out into the world wherein this first working light bulb was burning, what went through his mind? How would you describe this, as a composer, and as one who has made discoveries himself? How does the discoverer feel in knowing that he is the first man in all of history to ever know something which will have enormous power and consequence for all of time?
COMPOSER: It is exactly the same sense as when we create a good piece of music, a feeling of enormous power and inexpressible joy.
PHILOSOPHER: And looking at it from the standpoint of God's creating all which is not human for the sake of the human domain, would we not say that a new discovered physical principle is such a creation?
COMPOSER: A physical principle must have been created by God as part of his design for the ultimate perfection of each human soul.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, when an individual discovers a new physical principle, he is discovering an element of the ordering of God's plan for the redemption of man?
COMPOSER: It would follow from the principle.
PHILOSOPHER: And, in making the discovery, is the discoverer, himself, redeemed, at least partially?
COMPOSER: In making the discovery, the discoverer perfects his mind, removing less of what is false in his mind, and bringing forth more of what is true, for it is impossible to discover a true principle without removing that which is false, namely, the absence of the principle to be discovered. In addition, we all know that the process wherein we make a discovery is rich with many other discoveries we make along the way. This is true not just for the original discoverer of a principle, but for all who replicate it, for each, in his own way, has discovered something new.
PHILOSOPHER: True. And, in terms of the effect of the discovery, does it not increase the power of man over the universe, so that all manners of machines and practices become possible for man that were not before? For example, all space travel were impossible without Kepler's having discovered the laws of gravity and motion?
COMPOSER: Clearly.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, in purifying his mind, and bringing it closer to the Creator's eternal truth, the individual discoverer, by his goodness, creates a circumstance wherein the power of mankind is increased, for all future time, and, thus, changes the outcome of all human lives, both for the future, and for the past, the latter case for the reason that he changes the outcome and result of those who have died before him. But, now let me ask: if by discovering a principle, the discoverer brings about all good results which flow from its discovery, what is the role of the discoverer to the discovered?
COMPOSER: What do you mean, Philosopher?
PHILOSOPHER: Did we not say that all of that which is not human, can only exist for the sake of the human, and that this must include that which orders the non-human domain, namely, physical principles?
COMPOSER: We did.
PHILOSOPHER: And that all effects of these physical principles, thus, are a function of the human domain, for they are only created because of God's love for man, and his desire to create that precise order of things which is most conducive to the ultimate redemption of man?
COMPOSER: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER: And would a principle be efficient in its effect without having been discovered?
COMPOSER: It seems to me that it would still be acting, but that it becomes more efficient once it is utilized by man. For example, gravity existed long before Kepler discovered it, but became more efficient in its universal effect once it had been utilized by man, for man puts it to use in ways that mindless nature cannot.
PHILOSOPHER: And could we say that all of those effects of the existence of a principle which seem to be of a less efficient quality are a function of the maximum and ultimate effect of the existence of the principle, since they flow from a universality of principle which must be universally efficient, but which exists only for the ultimate and maximum purpose of its existence?
COMPOSER: That would make sense.
PHILOSOPHER: But did we not say that the ultimate and maximum purpose of its existence is the redemption of man?
COMPOSER: We did.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, my friend, in discovering the principle, and making it most efficient, the discoverer gives it a cause for having been created, since he brings about all good which flows from its having been discovered, from which it follows that the discoverer not only discovers that which had already existed, but partakes of the very creation of that which he has discovered. Thus, the discoverer is also a creator, for he collaborates with God in creating the redemption of both himself and all other men.
COMPOSER: But, a devil's advocate might ask: 'didn't the principle exist before the discoverer discovered it? How can he partake of the creation of something which exists before himself?' How would you answer that? For my own answer would be less clear than yours.
PHILOSOPHER: Does the discoverer not partake in the ultimate purpose of the principle's having been created, by causing the eternal and joyous result which gives the principle a reason for having been created? Must we not, then, admit that the act of discovery by an individual human mind is an act which is powerfully efficient in its effect upon the entire universe, causing powerful physical effects from one "end" of space and time to the other?
COMPOSER: Certainly.
PHILOSOPHER: Clearly then, while the existence of the principle predates the discoverer's biological existence, we must see our physical existence not as the brief duration of our biological lives, but as the total and ultimate physical effect upon the entire universe that our willful actions during our biological lives cause. Is this not a more accurate and truthful description of our physical "body" than the one we are accustomed to, and must we not, thus, see our biological existence as a kind of singularity of this ultimate effect of our lives, so that, while there is a reason for God's, giving each soul a particular biological form, this reason being that it is part of the environment most condusive to the attainment of redemption for the soul in question, and while, therefore, there is even an eternal significance to the particular biological form each man has, this significance is as close to nil as an eternal truth could be, as measured against the essential and true quality of the soul, in question? For, to not recognize this is to ignore the physical proof that we all have efficient and powerful physical effects on the world long before our births, and long after our deaths, indeed to the very 'origin' of time.
COMPOSER: But, now we are breaking down the walls between the so called 'physical' and the so called 'spiritual' domains.
PHILOSOPHER: Indeed, we are simply recognizing that those walls never existed, but were always vile myths, created in man's naiveté and perpetuated by evil and pernicious men, for there is only one universe, and only one cause and origin of all things. But regarding our question: if our true physical "body", which could also be called our "soul", and which Leibniz called a "higher monad" manifests all effects of our good acts within the world, across all time, then it follows that the physical principle does not exist before the soul of the one who discovered it, but, rather, proceeds ontologically from a collaboration between God and man, with God, of course playing the originating role. And, now, let us put this idea in a yet more precise form: If the willful act of an individual discovery is prior and more efficient than the principles which it makes efficient, does it follow that the act of discovery, by an individual, is, itself, a universal physical principle of the universe?
COMPOSER: A willfully-generated principle!
PHILOSOPHER: What I have sometimes called an "intention," but it is these willful intentions which are the fundamental principles which generate all others, which, perhaps, we could call the "ruling intentions of the created domain." But, if these ruling physical intentions make efficient what we call ordinary physical principles, such that these lower principles are bound ontologically to them, and are, as it were, dependent on them for their efficiency, is it not the case that the higher ruling principles act through them, as from above?
COMPOSER: This reminds me very much of the idea in geometry that each higher power determines that which is below it, so that we say that a line can only be understood from the standpoint of the plane which contains it, while the plane can only be understood from the standpoint of the solid containing it. And when we go above the solid, we venture into the domains above visual space, which, while unseen, can be known by our minds, and which, you have shown us, are more real than what we think of as ordinary visual space.
PHILOSOPHER: And, using this example, we realize, with each higher power discovered, that the domain beneath it--as in the sense that all surfaces be beneath the domain of volumes, or the domain of volumes beneath the domain which includes masses and motions, and so on--is less real than the domain of which it is only a shadow. Thus, we must add that, since each person makes many discoveries, we can only understand the true fundamental "ruling intention" of each person to be the highest power of their mind, which generates all of these different discoveries, so that we see the commonality of principle which generates them all, and recognize this quality to be the person's "mission," or "soul," or "higher monad," the most essential quality of their being, but, furthermore, a quality which must also be understood to be a universal physical principle, and generator, in cooperation with God, of the created domain. And concerning this role of the human mind as the highest power other than the mind of the Creator, do you think we are beginning to get a more wondrous "vision of God" than most have ever contemplated, and one incorporating God's relationship to man in a way far more clear than most are willing to consider?
COMPOSER: I do.
PHILOSOPHER: Now we must further inquire into what role a discovery plays in the cooperation of human souls with one another. For example, if I discover something new, I partake of the good resulting from others' use of my discovery. Both other thinking people, but also the non-human domain are transformed and effected by my discovery, but, in terms of its effect on the non-human domain, we have already shown that this is a function of the human. Thus, by changing the non-human domain, we are participating in God's unenfoldment of the purpose for which this non-human domain is created. But, in the case of the effect of my discovery upon other human souls, we must examine two elements, namely the cases wherein other humans make human use of my discovery without understanding the discovery, and the cases wherein they do understand my discovery, having replicated it for themselves, in their own minds.
COMPOSER: I can see the distinction, although it is not entirely clear why you are making it. In the first case, we could say that countless human souls have benefited and made use of Kepler's discoveries, without ever knowing what they are. For example, anyone turning on a light bulb, whether or not they had ever heard of Kepler, is directly benefiting from Kepler, since the world would not have progressed to the point that Edison's discovery were possible at the time it was made, without Kepler's discovery having been made when it was. Yet, the person who makes use of light bulbs need not necessarily have ever even heard of Kepler, or know his discovery.
PHILOSOPHER: And does this differ from an animal which benefits from the light bulb?
COMPOSER: Yes, because, for the animal, the existence of the light bulb is simply part of his environment, over which he has no control, whereas, for the human, he takes the gifts and discoveries which he has been given by other minds, and uses them to do further good.
PHILOSOPHER: True, although let us examine this further. What of the second case, wherein humans make use of a discovery because they understand it? We have already said that any soul which replicates the discovery of another, discovers something new, in effect.
COMPOSER: Yes, for the discovery is never exactly the same, and has different implications in the mind of another.
PHILOSOPHER: And is the good which flows from the original discovery even possible without countless others rediscovering what he had, with his help? Although those who follow have an easier task, since the first discoverer beats the path into the unknown and provides a trail, yet is it not the case that those who follow have the same type of universal effect as the original discoverer, and, thus, are also co-creators?
COMPOSER: Clearly so.
PHILOSOPHER: So, both the original discoverer and those who rediscover his discovery give cause to the principle discovered's having been created. Then, what is the difference between those who make use of the discovery without knowing it and those who make use of it because they know it?
COMPOSER: [After some thought] Left in any environment, the nature of a human is to do good. Thus, in an environment wherein a principle has been made efficient, he will, depending on the strength of his nature, use all the tools and means about him, to do further good. If he finds himself in an environment wherein the principle in question has not yet been discovered, he creates a certain result from his good intention, while, acting in an environment wherein the principle has been found, he will have another result. The quality of his moral commitment is the same in both cases, and, thus, God commends him equally in both cases. However, the effect of the change in environment leads to a superior result in the case where the principle is efficient.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, is the second man a cause of the superior result which comes from the latter case, or, rather, is this superior result the effect of the discoverer acting through the good intentions of this second man who does not know the discovery?
COMPOSER: It would seem that the discoverer is the cause of the superior result, although not the cause of the second man's moral commitment which causes him to make it. Thus the superior result is a combination of the two.
PHILOSOPHER: An important observation. But, let us also look at yet something else. Let us say that the one who does good is a great composer, like Beethoven, who, nonetheless, does not know, at least fully, the discovery of Kepler, for very few do. Do we then say that Kepler caused the great music of Beethoven, or do we say that Beethoven, by giving further cause for the discovery of Kepler, caused the discovery of Kepler? Looking at it from the standpoint of God, from "above" all time, which of these two great minds is ontologically precedent to the other?
COMPOSER: I am both amazed and made joyful, for I see that neither one is prior to the other, so that we can say that, simultaneously, Kepler's discovery is the cause of Beethoven's and Beethoven's the cause of Kepler's, for neither one could be what they are without the other.
PHILOSOPHER: And, although neither knows fully the science of the other, it must be said that they collaborate, nonetheless, on the highest possible level. And so, if neither is antecedent in the order of things, does it follow that they collaborate with each other, through their Creator, in their own creation?
COMPOSER: It seems so, but let me hear you prove that.
PHILOSOPHER: You were worried, earlier, that one might be antecedent to the other, if he were created for the sake of this other. But if they are both created for the sake of the other, does it not appear that they are collaborating with each other, since they willfully agree to help each other, even from the beginning, from the eternal realm above all time? And, with each new collaboration between men, which always originates at this highest level, the power and effect of any discovery becomes greater and greater over time. Time, then, is only the unenfoldment of necessary succession of ideas, which is why Beethoven must have lived biologically after Kepler, although, in the eternal realm they exist above all time, with God, Himself. And I think that we must add, to make clear, that by "above" time, we do not mean before or after time, for such a Cartesian extension of time could not be. Rather, we must remember that time, itself, is an anterior creation to the human domain, and only a map of relations within that domain. And is it not similar, although distinct for the case wherein some one knows the discovery, although, in that case, he would seem to be participating more immediately in the particular cause of the particular principle discovered?
COMPOSER: It is, and now I am on the verge of joyful tears, and I thank you for this discussion, for now I am beginning to find my moorings again, and think I can once more hear the great music which is my life's purpose, for you have reopened a door which had been closed to me. But I still have one remaining question which I request of you to answer--before we must part our ways and be no longer able to converse like this--namely, whether there is a difference between discoveries in the non-human domain and those which are strictly in the human domain, or whether such a distinction is possible, and, if so, whether the discoveries in the human domain are superior to those that are not?
PHILOSOPHER: To answer this, we would first need establish what is meant by "discoveries in the human domain," since this may not be such a simple matter as it seems. For example, the act of discovering something in the non-human domain is an act, of the discoverer, of discovering something about his own human mind, which makes his discovery possible. The discoverer must discover what is wrong about his thinking that prevents him from knowing the truth he seeks. This, then, is a human discovery, is it not?
COMPOSER: It is.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, how exactly would you define a discovery which is uniquely in the human domain?
COMPOSER: That is hard to answer, for we can say that any discovery has this subjective quality. But are there not discoveries of purely human matters, what we call culture, namely philosophy, music and the like, which are of a higher quality?
PHILOSOPHER: And what do the elements of culture have in common?
COMPOSER: Communication, I think.
PHILOSOPHER: Of what?
COMPOSER [ After some thought ] Communication of the idea of humanity, as understood by the creators of works of culture.
PHILOSOPHER: Hmm, this is a bit unrigorous. I think we are about to run up against a grave paradox. But, before plunging in, let me ask you whether it would be fair, for our purpose here, to make a distinction between discoveries in the human domain wherein we discover the false ideas in our own minds which prevent us from making a discovery, and those wherein we discover what is true about other minds?
COMPOSER: This is good.
PHILOSOPHER: And, is the possibility of understanding the ideas of other minds, the basis of what is called "communication"?
COMPOSER: Most say it the other way around, that communication is the basis for understanding the ideas of others.
PHILOSOPHER: But is this not the paradox that all true composers must deal with?
COMPOSER: You mean to remind that no mind can directly impart any idea to the mind of another.
PHILOSOPHER: Exactly. But, if each mind can only construct, from within itself, an idea, what role does culture actually play, and what exactly is communication between minds?
COMPOSER: You, yourself, have had much to say about this over the years, mainly that, by communicating, we can only lay forth a paradox to the mind of another, such that, if they are good, and desire to know truth, they become agitated by the paradox and desire its resolution, thus setting out to generate this resolution from within themselves. For, since each mind is free, it can only freely decide to understand something or not.
PHILOSOPHER: But, in cases where men do not desire to know truth, they ignore the paradoxes laid forth in communication, or try to pretend that they do not exist, and, thus, learn nothing, somewhat like those professors we were talking about?
COMPOSER: And some of those professors even write very long books about it.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, perhaps, are what you are calling "discoveries of the human domain" discoveries of how to communicate to other human minds, or pertaining in some direct way to this?
COMPOSER: That seems to make much sense.
PHILOSOPHER: But, do you communicate to other minds in order to know them, or in order not to know them?
COMPOSER: [ Surprized ] Why, to know them, for when we do not know them, we have not communicated effectively. We know them because we see that they know the same idea that we do, so that we recognize in them what we know in ourselves. If we just blab information to them, like a boring professor, we have no interest in whether they learn truth. Thus, if they learn from such a boring professor, it is not from him they learn, but rather only from the wise men speaking through this professor, whose discoveries he has related, despite himself.
PHILOSOPHER: But if you communicate only to know other minds, does knowing their minds not mean, fundamentally, knowing their own mission in life, for how can you know their mind otherwise? To know anything less would not be their true mind.
COMPOSER: Yes.
PHILOSOPHER: Then, my friend, what is the most essential discovery in the human domain that any man can make?
COMPOSER: [Stunned] Sweet heavens, I see it now: it is the discovery of another mind; it is to truly know the worth and life's mission of another, and how evil and vile it seems to not serve each man and seek to assist each in finding his way to wisdom, especially the young, who have no hope without us, who soon, when we are gone, shall run the world, and without whom our own good efforts shall perish forever.
PHILOSOPHER: And, as we once discussed, be it not the case that, since no man can force another to be good, it follows that, by enlightening our own mind, and bringing it closer to Him, we provide an example of beauty which others can freely decide to emulate, and that, therefore, the act of creating a good work of art or philosophy, which is the highest form of communication, is an act wherein we appeal to the best in other men, and say to them, as it were: " Behold my own search for truth, and join with me to attain it, for I cannot force you to be good, but can only appeal to you, and give you an example to follow"? For human souls cannot directly communicate with one another, save by self perfection and example, and it is by their pilgrimage back to Him that they, through Him, reach one another, and give guidance to each other. Thus, collaboration occurs only on this highest level, and all else that people might call collaboration is mere foolishness.
COMPOSER: Yes, I see that it is all true.
PHILOSOPHER: Then go forth into the world and never again feel threatened by the good of another, but, rather, seek out and teach to all men all that you are able. Seek to bring forth in each that which is unique and precious in them, for it is only by this that you find your own highest power, and bring your own soul to its most joyous and eternal heights. Learn from all others and discover all that you can, including new principles, neglecting neither the science of the non-human nor human domain, although it be true that you may take a path that follows one more than the other; for, only by cooperation and true love between human souls, do they partake of the ultimate and highest creation, which is God's creation of themselves and all other men, by giving Him cause for having created them, because they are good.