On an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) TV show about advertising (ABC2, “The Gruen Transfer”, 1 April 2009), Todd Sampson, one of the advertising panellists, made this remark about advertisements for bottled water based on images of the water’s source:
“…but origin is a really good strategy: so it’s more about the perception of what the origin is rather than the actual origin and they are often very different. I mean, I’m still trying to get my head around the fact that Mt. Franklin [bottled water] doesn’t come from Mt. Franklin, and my favourite one is Everest water from Texas [USA presumably, rather than Texas, Qld in Australia]. These water companies use glaciers and snow mountains and lots of beautiful blue and crystal images; that’s their strategy to communicate their symbols…”
The question of origins is a basic question; the answer orientates us fundamentally. It structures our view of self and world, and provides the context against which we understand everything, whether people believe an image presented to them, or the truth, the outcome is the same: the answer delineates our limits and sets what is basic in our relationships. Our origin is comprehensively definitional of who we are, why we are and what we are.
Needless to say, most people probably have a sub-articulated view of origins, with vague beliefs or understanding of the origin of the life and the cosmos, let alone humanity and its connections.
Others have a clear view: our origin is in the will of God and is brought by his word; we are created to enjoy life and our relationships (with God and each other). In this frame, personhood is basic, and love the mode of relationship. Life in this setting is far more than an outworking of material processes (this reflects how most of us live).
Still others reject this and believe our origin is material, where the basic modality of life is material: the molecules and energy we are made of represented in the collection of processes that in and of themselves imply nothing beyond their mechanical routines and interactions. Needless to say, this view is the orthodox and culturally dominant view today.
For these people, life, if it has any explanation, can only be purely physical, and material is primary, all else is dependent upon it. Truth, if there is any such thing, is merely the report of what is, materially, and to the extent that any belief is a result of material interactions in the brain, presumably, then it is true to the extent that it is a report of the material state at a moment. Of course, there is no ‘value’ in this framing of life, life just is. No oughts can flow from that (which is not how most of us live).
