The nature of suffering

Any model that says "there shouldn't be suffering" must be flawed. That's like saying "there shouldn't be rocks." Obviously, there SHOULD be rocks because there ARE rocks. The probability is 100%.

Let me rephrase that to "any model of reality" or "any world view".

So a world view has to account for suffering. Some world views have dealt with suffering as a punishment for sins, [malicious] acts of Satan, or tests of patience. These have gone in and out of fashion over generations because it we would rather be miserable for a reason than just be miserable. but these don't last because they don't really match up with people's experience. WHAT could we possibly have done to deserve this pain? (Since we can't think of anything, maybe a past life?) WHY would Satan bother afflicting people so? (Well, he is Evil personified so what else would he do?) WHY do we have to be constantly tested? Basically, we don't see anyone benefiting which takes some wind out of the sails of purpose.

My favorite of these purpose models is a meditation that was given in a vision to an Episcopal nun. I have gotten years of spiritual growth from pondering and wrestling with this. If there is a purpose to suffering, I think this is it:

From Suffering to Glory (in five hard lessons.)
1. The purpose of suffering is wisdom.
2. The purpose of wisdom is freedom.
3. The purpose of freedom is compassion.
4. The purpose for compassion is love.
5. The purpose of love is glory.
- Ellen Stephen, OSH

I suspect the rock metaphor is more appropriate. Pondering the purpose of rocks may be a useful spiritual exercise, but more usually we consider rocks simply a state of minerals after being formed in the earth, broken up by volcanic or tectonic action or glaciers, and not yet worn down to sand or dirt and combined with plant matter to be cycled back into the earth and recompressed.

Applying this metaphor, suffering could be a transitory state between formation of our existence or condition and resolution by acceptance or conclusion of the condition or existence. We can apply it to the individual experience, to humanity or community. We can explore several levels of conditions or existence. Rather than looking for purpose, we can look for the nature and implications. We can see it as a dimension over time.

Yes, there's food for thought here. I'm hungry and off to snack.

Appropriate use of models and metaphors

In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that theories of elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. My husband periodically reminds me that Gödel's incompleteness theorems have a rather narrow scope and formal applicability, but I have found it both useful and practical to apply the general principle to any and all models. I don't work in a formal enough environment to require an actual proof of the wider application, so I am open to the possibility that it will be DISprooved. Until someone presents such to me, though, I will freely use the principle.

Jeanne-Anne's extension: Any model or metaphor will hold "true" only up to a point. It will not explain everything or, if it tries to, it will have inherent contradictions and inconsistencies.

This is not to say models and metaphors are not useful. They are extremely useful communication tools for describing and analyzing reality. We just need to remember they are merely tools and not confuse the tool with the reality being described. Frankly, the boundaries where a model breaks down can be interesting highlights toward understanding the actual nature of reality.