Ambiguous Loss

 Meeting Date:  February 18

Two of our BQ regulars suggested we discuss the topic, Ambiguous Loss.  Originally they referred me to a New York Times article on the subject, which discussed and quoted Dr. Pauline Boss, the originator of the idea, which I read.  Now, I am not a mental health therapist or psychologist of any sort, only a simple philosopher.  I was asked, however, to lead the discussion, so here is my attempt to do so. 

The first link above is for a dedicated website to this topic supplied by Dr. Boss, and it includes a video of her explaining the idea, where it came from, and how it has formed the basis of her life's work.  Additional tabs take the site visitor to different areas that explain and expand on the ideas she has developed, and some offer access to training and other resources if someone really wanted to take the Deep Dive into this topic.  I have not taken the training, so I can't comment on it.  You can suit yourself, I suppose.

The key idea is that some relationships end without a closure that allows an emotional end to the relationship.  If a romantic relationship ends where one partner just walks away, that might be an example.  Or if a parent dies in some distant place, of if they pass away from dementia or Alzheimer's, then the slipping away does not happen in a way that a final goodbye conversation can occur.  The best way to wrap your head around the topic is to click on the links and read more about it.

(Note:  Jane E. Brody is the author of several articles in the NYT on this topic, and she references conversations and resources from many sources.  I signed up for a NYT account as several people have been sending me links to articles there, and I have exceeded my limit on free access.  $1/week.  I can afford that.)

Special Note:  Scheduling.  I apologize for moving this meeting forward a week, but it turns out that we have a conflict for 2/25.  I hope we don't get to many folks missing the change.

Stardust and the Big Bang

 In recent Sunday services the idea that everything we know about the Universe and all its contents arose at the time of the Big Bang, and with the expansion of matter into an empty cosmos, the flinging about of elements and energy has created the environment we see and experience.  Stars, suns, planets, moons, galaxies, and so forth are all products of this original act of creation, so that the matter of which we are composed is just "the stuff of stars," hence we are made from stardust.

This Big Bang idea is on every philosopher's List of  Big 10 Key Questions.  Ethics, consciousness, meaning of life, life after death, and so forth make up the whole list, but first among them is the question, essentially, Where did we come from?  If you click on the link just shared you will find a website where everyday people (non-philosophers) ask life's hard questions, and philosophy students and instructors answer them in as common a language as can be managed, to make the answers "understandable."  In the Ivory Tower of the university the modes of speech can become quite jargonistic, especially so in philosophy, so the effort of making the key ideas accessible is welcome.

If you click through to the discussion of the Big Bang on this website there are a series of questions posed by people that are answered, and I think in a main-stream sort of way, exposing what is known and thought by most philosophers.  Key ideas, for me, are the presumption that the expansion of the universe after the BB was into a nothingness of empty space, that the eternal expansion of the cosmos will continue (pending the influence of dark matter and expansion-curbing gravity), and the concept that there was no possibility of the existence of time before the BB.  Many of these topics are addressed in a very accessible way in the novel mr. g by Alan Lightman, which I think I mentioned before.  He uses the concept of god as an eternal, all powerful being who is behind it all, but he doesn't control its every action.

That we are made of the stuff of stars seems indisputable.  What other stuff is there?  That we inhabit a planet were life developed and grew is self evident.  That some of us developed consciousness, which feels like something other than a purely physical thing (like most of life feels), which gives rise to philosophy.  So there you have it - the circle of existence explained in a few simple sentences.