Destiny

While many can give a more generalized meaning to the term, for some of us "destiny" is intimately connected to the supernatural and magical, making it an idea that is more applicable to the worlds of fantasy and fiction than our own.  There are two conflicting desires in the acceptance of "destiny", as I see it: one, the desire for control over ourselves; two, the desire to avoid responsibility by not being in control.  As to the first, we can find a large number of stories that allow the characters to control or change their destiny - any story with a time machine points in this direction.  The message seems to be that only our own decisions can make us happy, and by trusting in fate or the will of others we relinquish the possibility of finding true happiness.  We are encouraged to live actively, put effort into making things happen, shape the very world we live in with our own hands, figuratively or literally.  Probably just as many stories, however, tell us that as much as we try to control our own existence, something outside of us is always really in control and we are helpless to change the path laid out for us to travel on.  The movie "The Butterfly Effect" seems to allude to this, and a number of episodes from shows like "The Outer Limits" show the futility of trying to change historical events.  This idea of helplessness in the face of destiny is quite old; we see it clearly in the story of "The Appointment in Samarra", and it has been referenced numerous times in other works as well.  I tell myself I do not believe in personal destiny, although events might be unavoidable.  That is, the event, like an assassination or disaster will occur, but the individual participants are changeable.  I probably just do not care for the idea of external control over my choices.

Our Doctor began the discussion by saying that is was huge and had no conclusion, as our topics often are.  The True Philosopher was not in attendance, but the Doctor critiqued his short article, saying it was "too cold, too academic".  Yet, he then took us into the territory of biology, mentioning the unavoidable changes and decay of living tissue and the directions we carry with us in our genetic codes.  He warmed up by insisting that for all the coldness of the technology we have developed, and only in the last 50 years, we are on the right track to know ourselves and universe.  We should still be careful, though, about believing we know things now.  A statement like, "Destiny doesn't exist," may be proven wrong in only a few years' time with the advances to be made.  Later he told us that we should compare our present experiences to the past to keep our footing and understand them, since we as humans need some kind of security or point of reference.  Medical destiny exists, in his opinion, since we can predict disease and death, but science does not lead us to certainty.  Rather, real science leads us to more questions, making it philosophy.  The problem with destiny as prediction, he went on, is that the world is constantly changing, as are we, and that change can confuse our predictions and make them less reliable and accurate.

The prediction angle came from the Organizer, who gave it a bit of time in his written thoughts, his opinion, as he called it this time.  He did not feel quite comfortable giving it a more respectable title on this occasion.  He reasoned that we can make predictions using models from the past and call them "destiny" if only to create the illusion that we are in control.  Later he wondered how far ahead we must predict for it to be destiny and not obviously simple cause and effect.  He expressed a bit of frustration with the advancement of science and technology, saying there have not been any real technological discoveries in the past decades, merely refinement of previous discoveries.  There were some huffy defenses of science after this contribution, which he then responded to by trying to clarify that the refinements are not signs of laziness or misguided effort, just the way things are.  Finally, he reminded us that we are incapable of seeing our universe objectively, therefore our predictions are always skewed.  As for exerting control over our destiny, we fool ourselves by believing we have that control, but even by doing nothing - that is, giving into the feeling of being controlled from beyond -  we still influence things around us.  It is not complete or perfect control, but influence means we are not completely controlled either.

The Constant Ponderer divided the issue into "destiny", which is rather personal and which gives us pleasure to think we can control, and "Destiny", which is outside of any human attempts to control.  He predicted we would return to magic after these centuries of reason and science, but without throwing out the lessons of logic and critical thought.  Another contribution revealed the idea that cause and effect is a myth for him, or if not a myth, something that has been given much greater importance than it deserves.  Destiny, capitalized or not, is not actually handled through effort, but with quiet contemplation.  By reaching mental stillness, we access destiny.

A more Pragmatic Participant stated that the idea of destiny is only necessary for human beings because of the limitations of the human brain.  By narrowing the possibilities to only one destiny, we feel a sense of security, imagining we have some stability.  This sensation is necessary for us to develop our intelligence and to be happy as human beings.  Although destiny is a mystery, this Participant put no stock in magic.

The Source spoke very little, preferring to listen to other opinions.  She did reference the Koran and the religious concepts of destiny as divine will, which manifest to different degrees in different faiths.  It seems the Koran says everything that happens is the will of Allah, but at the same time each person chooses the path that will lead to the destined events.  The mention of Islam produced a predictable reaction of smug sarcasm from the ever-present Blabbermouth, who snidely said we all knew that Islam was much, much better than any church we'd been to in our lives.  It must be his destiny to be offended by everything that does not play by his Euro-centric, 19th century rules.  At the very least it is predictable and modeled weekly.