Last in a series on Revelation and Scripture.
My presentation on this subject might be summed up in this way: Revelation and real art are closely linked phenomena, closely enough linked so that one might say that they are different words for the same basic experience. The big qualifiers here are, One, that “real art” is difficult to define sharply and itself requires an awakened heart. I’ve discussed this subject in two earlier postings here and here. Two, revelation is equally difficult to separate from moral harangue, legalistic suasion, advocacy and admonition, and other forms of discourse the aim of which is to shape other people’s behavior. I do not hesitate at all to view true revelation as Divine Inspiration. But scriptures are filled with much more mundane writings (harangue, suasion, etc.) which I find difficult to associate with the divine and easily identify with the human.
Thus I would put Revelation and Art to one side and Persuasion (to use a single word for the human part) to the other. Now I would propose that recorded persuasions, once they have been integrated into a society’s collective memory, are gradually transformed into Ideology. And an ideology is always an attempt to shape and control behavior—but with sanctions added for disobedience.
In the first post in this series, I noted that the objections to revelation include two general arguments. One is that the social results of religion (thus of revelation) are wars, persecutions, pogroms, etc. The other is that they present contradictory views of God or of God’s will. And I suggested that the critics’ attacks can be answered satisfactorily. If we accept the division of the phenomenon as I have done—into a presentation of the higher reality as art or as the story of religious experience on the one and into persuasion and ideology on the other hand—the critics’ attacks can be seen correctly. They are directed at those results which arise from ideology. Human beings will always resist coercion. When the religious experience has been transformed into an ideology and thus has assumed a coercive form, it will be resisted. Conflicts will arise, and these, ultimately, will result in mayhem. This will explain why religious phenomena often have bad results. Let’s next turn to contradictory views of God.
These views also arise from the hardening of revelation into ideology. I am a staunch adherent to negative theology, namely the assertion that the Divine is unknowably transcendent. At the same time, as an individual, I too have a picture, as it were, of the cosmic arrangement; it’s only human to make things understandable to oneself. Forcibly to impose my picture on others, however, would be to act against my strongest intuitions—which is that I do feel something but I do not know it as hard fact. I claim the right to see things as I do—and grant that same right to others. People must form their own pictures in their own ways. All claims, therefore, of infallible knowledge arise from the human side of the equation—not from Divine Inspiration. Claims that one view is right and all others are wrong arise from a desire to impose control—thus, again, to shape behavior, loyalty, adherence, and conformity. Granted. Social life benefits from consensus and unity of purpose. But to obtain that illegitimately also introduces in seed conflicts that will later blossom into wars, persecutions, pogroms, etc.
I will conclude this with the splendid analogy I have from Arnold Toynbee, the historian. He suggested that the creative leader resembles the Pied Piper who draws others to himself by the music that he plays. That music, which people willingly follow because it is beautiful and moves their hearts—that is what I call revelation. Toynbee then suggests another kind of leadership, that of the drill sergeant. The drill sergeant’s harsh commands, his power to make you drop and give him ten (push-ups, that is)—that is what I call ideology.
These two modes of communication are, alas, hopelessly entwined in each other in the human experience of religion—also of art. Sorting them, paradoxically, requires that you hear enough of the music, and respond to it enough, so that you can make the necessary distinctions and obey the sergeant when the ordinary circumstances make that rationally sensible. Those who cannot hear this music must also be cut plenty of slack. They are the materialistic critics who simply don’t have an ear for music. Therefore they declare all revelation as pure nonsense and balderdash. But knowing why they cannot hear, those who can must give them time.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Am I a Heretic?
Sixth in a series on Revelation and Scripture.
Many religious people who read the last posting and understand its argument, may well say, somewhat impatiently, “Yes, yes—but then it isn’t real.” For them revelation is only meaningful if it is the word of God, taken more or less literally. My view of revelation is therefore seen as heretical. It pretends to be sympathetic to religion but denies it by removing its very force. The word itself, heresy, comes from the Latin meaning “school of thought, philosophical sect.” The Latin came from the Greek for “taking” or “choosing.” That very word was applied to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Christians in the New Testament (according to the Online Etymology Dictionary accessible here), but the word is translated as “sect” in English versions of the Bible. Heresy therefore is the belief of those who do not hew to the prevailing dogma. But let’s look at the distinction here between revelation and dogma.
Dogma is determined by organized bodies, such as councils of bishops. These bodies take their de facto authority from the population of believers who appointed or elected them; the councils are a social creation and some distance removed from the experience of inspiration. Councils make law. Their rulings have an arbitrary character: Thou shalt. It is by means of dogmatic rulings that revelations, already written down, turn into scriptures. By the time that happens, an extensive consensus has already developed that the writings are holy and carry truth. They are then given additional force by an authoritative body. This is the process whereby the very mysterious experiences of individuals are transformed into writing and then, stamped by social structures, into the word of God. This phenomenon is present in one tradition only, the Western forms of religion, all based on the Judaic revelations that first touched Moses. The peculiar character of inerrancy does not attach to other scriptures produced in other parts of the world; those are not held to be literally God’s word, but they carry the authority of consensus.
When revelation turns into dogma, the inspiration that reaches humanity is on its way to being materialized, reified. Such at least is my view. The content of revelation therefore carries two kinds of authority. It carries an inherent force, that which it actually says. The words may speak to me personally. I may respond to them because my own intuition tells me that truth has reached me. In other words, at some low level, I too am sharing in the revelation. The other authority is that of an official stamp of approval. The church affirms it. In this latter case, however, I have no choice but to accept the revelation, whether I resonate with it or not. As a member of a church community, I am under sanctions if I withhold my total consent.
Revelation, once it has been socialized in this way—especially when it has become dogma—is very far removed from the situation in which it entered this world from the world next door. The problems of religious conflict arise in this process of socialization—the supercharging of an inspiration with legal implications and sanctions. Let me offer an illustration.
Many poetic works of humanity contain inspiration of high potency, but let’s just select one author, Shakespeare, widely quoted by thousands upon thousands of people to convey truth to one another. Shakespeare’s writings have never become dogma. His quotes are presented on a “take it or leave it” basis by speakers and writers. Those who have ears will hear the message. No religious wars have ever been fought, no population harmed by the sword because someone denied the truth of some Shakespearean story or fragment.
My own take on revelation, therefore, is indeed heretical in the context of dogma. But I am a heretic in two ways. On the one hand I view the religious interpretation of revelation as arbitrary law-making in a realm where personal judgment must remain sovereign. On the other I assign genuine truth and transcendental value to revelation and thus become a heretic to the dogma of materialism. The socialization of revelation, however, does have a value. It causes the high inspirations of the past, initially shared by many—because these inspirations affected many people—to be preserved, printed, and distributed widely and over centuries. Thus socialization, including dogma, acts as a channel by means of which revelation reaches me. But here I am reminded of a Sufi saying: “The channel doesn’t drink.” No, indeed. Only people can drink, and each one on his or her own; and you can lead the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink.
Many religious people who read the last posting and understand its argument, may well say, somewhat impatiently, “Yes, yes—but then it isn’t real.” For them revelation is only meaningful if it is the word of God, taken more or less literally. My view of revelation is therefore seen as heretical. It pretends to be sympathetic to religion but denies it by removing its very force. The word itself, heresy, comes from the Latin meaning “school of thought, philosophical sect.” The Latin came from the Greek for “taking” or “choosing.” That very word was applied to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Christians in the New Testament (according to the Online Etymology Dictionary accessible here), but the word is translated as “sect” in English versions of the Bible. Heresy therefore is the belief of those who do not hew to the prevailing dogma. But let’s look at the distinction here between revelation and dogma.
Dogma is determined by organized bodies, such as councils of bishops. These bodies take their de facto authority from the population of believers who appointed or elected them; the councils are a social creation and some distance removed from the experience of inspiration. Councils make law. Their rulings have an arbitrary character: Thou shalt. It is by means of dogmatic rulings that revelations, already written down, turn into scriptures. By the time that happens, an extensive consensus has already developed that the writings are holy and carry truth. They are then given additional force by an authoritative body. This is the process whereby the very mysterious experiences of individuals are transformed into writing and then, stamped by social structures, into the word of God. This phenomenon is present in one tradition only, the Western forms of religion, all based on the Judaic revelations that first touched Moses. The peculiar character of inerrancy does not attach to other scriptures produced in other parts of the world; those are not held to be literally God’s word, but they carry the authority of consensus.
When revelation turns into dogma, the inspiration that reaches humanity is on its way to being materialized, reified. Such at least is my view. The content of revelation therefore carries two kinds of authority. It carries an inherent force, that which it actually says. The words may speak to me personally. I may respond to them because my own intuition tells me that truth has reached me. In other words, at some low level, I too am sharing in the revelation. The other authority is that of an official stamp of approval. The church affirms it. In this latter case, however, I have no choice but to accept the revelation, whether I resonate with it or not. As a member of a church community, I am under sanctions if I withhold my total consent.
Revelation, once it has been socialized in this way—especially when it has become dogma—is very far removed from the situation in which it entered this world from the world next door. The problems of religious conflict arise in this process of socialization—the supercharging of an inspiration with legal implications and sanctions. Let me offer an illustration.
Many poetic works of humanity contain inspiration of high potency, but let’s just select one author, Shakespeare, widely quoted by thousands upon thousands of people to convey truth to one another. Shakespeare’s writings have never become dogma. His quotes are presented on a “take it or leave it” basis by speakers and writers. Those who have ears will hear the message. No religious wars have ever been fought, no population harmed by the sword because someone denied the truth of some Shakespearean story or fragment.
My own take on revelation, therefore, is indeed heretical in the context of dogma. But I am a heretic in two ways. On the one hand I view the religious interpretation of revelation as arbitrary law-making in a realm where personal judgment must remain sovereign. On the other I assign genuine truth and transcendental value to revelation and thus become a heretic to the dogma of materialism. The socialization of revelation, however, does have a value. It causes the high inspirations of the past, initially shared by many—because these inspirations affected many people—to be preserved, printed, and distributed widely and over centuries. Thus socialization, including dogma, acts as a channel by means of which revelation reaches me. But here I am reminded of a Sufi saying: “The channel doesn’t drink.” No, indeed. Only people can drink, and each one on his or her own; and you can lead the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
A Chosen People
Fifth in a series on Revelation and Scripture.
My own grasp of revelation—as I’ve already laid it out—is that some people are able to have contact with a higher realm and receive inspiration which they personally feel as unusual, from a higher dimension, and filled with energy. This makes the inspiration notable, indeed a singular experience. It will be interpreted as authoritative. Now I want to go beyond that. It also seems to me that the inspiration conveys a value—but that that value is not specifically spelled out. Rather, it is a feeling of exaltation, a meaning but without sharp detail. Therefore it needs a certain kind of reduction to the conceptual level. It will require interpretation, particularly if it is to be conveyed to others. The interpretation is by the recipient—but it will be filtered through that person’s consciousness, knowledge, concerns, and circumstances. By way of example, I want to look at the concept of a chosen people as laid out in the Old Testament, most explicitly in Exodus and then in Deuteronomy.
The recipient is Moses, and the initial instance is the prophet’s mystical experience of a burning bush in which an “angel of the Lord” (initially) appears; but in the same passage this angel is the referred to as “the Lord.” Here the Lord refers to “my people,” meaning the Jews, and speaks of leading these people from Egypt to “a land flowing with milk and honey.” Later, after the great tribulations of the Exodus, on Mount Sinai, Moses hears God say to him:
To doubt that Moses had an experience is to suggest that he was a thoroughly cynical and ambitious would-be leader who invented an experience in order to influence others. That suggestion I reject for multiple reasons. For one, I doubt that such a man would have achieved what Moses did in fact achieve. At the same time, I have serious doubts imagining that the Ultimate Being would choose a people in the manner here depicted. I would also doubt that God intervenes in his creation in the manner in which Moses revelation would have it.
This, of course, is also the demarcation line between the believer and the unbeliever. If there are only these two possibilities, I am an unbeliever. But I think there is a third way, and I choose to understand the facts before us in another way. It is that we have access to guidance from a higher realm, but that guidance reaches us in such a form that we ourselves must interpret its meaning, in detail, based on what we know and understand. Therefore it is possible to value revelation at one level and to critique it on another: namely on the level of interpretation. Exactly the same rules apply, it seems to me, to the lowest forms of inspiration, such as intuitions. These also carry a feeling of authority, but it is always sensible to test them rationally. Conversely, our reasonings should also have the nod of intuition.
My own grasp of revelation—as I’ve already laid it out—is that some people are able to have contact with a higher realm and receive inspiration which they personally feel as unusual, from a higher dimension, and filled with energy. This makes the inspiration notable, indeed a singular experience. It will be interpreted as authoritative. Now I want to go beyond that. It also seems to me that the inspiration conveys a value—but that that value is not specifically spelled out. Rather, it is a feeling of exaltation, a meaning but without sharp detail. Therefore it needs a certain kind of reduction to the conceptual level. It will require interpretation, particularly if it is to be conveyed to others. The interpretation is by the recipient—but it will be filtered through that person’s consciousness, knowledge, concerns, and circumstances. By way of example, I want to look at the concept of a chosen people as laid out in the Old Testament, most explicitly in Exodus and then in Deuteronomy.
The recipient is Moses, and the initial instance is the prophet’s mystical experience of a burning bush in which an “angel of the Lord” (initially) appears; but in the same passage this angel is the referred to as “the Lord.” Here the Lord refers to “my people,” meaning the Jews, and speaks of leading these people from Egypt to “a land flowing with milk and honey.” Later, after the great tribulations of the Exodus, on Mount Sinai, Moses hears God say to him:
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. [Exodus 19:5-6]We encounter the word “chosen” in Deuteronomy, used my Moses in addressing the people of Israel. The passage is:
For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. [Deuteronomy 14:2]Now I will stipulate that Moses had a mystical experience—possibly two, one by the burning bush and another on Mount Sinai. The question I would raise is this: Was the inspiration that reached him as specific as the scriptures record it or was it, rather, an authoritative feeling of value which energized a man who was, already, deeply concerned with the state of suffering of his people? The inspiration he received ultimately led to his rise to the leadership of his folk. But was that portion of his revelation by which the Ultimate Being selected one tribe as its people, as its peculiar treasure, as those chosen to be a people “unto himself” and “above all the nations”—was that content specifically in the inspiration? Or was that an interpretation?
To doubt that Moses had an experience is to suggest that he was a thoroughly cynical and ambitious would-be leader who invented an experience in order to influence others. That suggestion I reject for multiple reasons. For one, I doubt that such a man would have achieved what Moses did in fact achieve. At the same time, I have serious doubts imagining that the Ultimate Being would choose a people in the manner here depicted. I would also doubt that God intervenes in his creation in the manner in which Moses revelation would have it.
This, of course, is also the demarcation line between the believer and the unbeliever. If there are only these two possibilities, I am an unbeliever. But I think there is a third way, and I choose to understand the facts before us in another way. It is that we have access to guidance from a higher realm, but that guidance reaches us in such a form that we ourselves must interpret its meaning, in detail, based on what we know and understand. Therefore it is possible to value revelation at one level and to critique it on another: namely on the level of interpretation. Exactly the same rules apply, it seems to me, to the lowest forms of inspiration, such as intuitions. These also carry a feeling of authority, but it is always sensible to test them rationally. Conversely, our reasonings should also have the nod of intuition.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The World Next Door
Fourth in a series on Revelation and Scripture.
To derive a fully formed subtle world—inhabited by discarnate spirits yet—just by talking about artistic inspiration—and that in order to justify revelation—must seem extraordinarily presumptuous to many. But cut me some slack. Conventional ways of thought are narrow. My projection (but let me say that it isn’t my invention) is derived from the experience of consciousness. And it’s no more outlandish than other projections. Another, equally weird, is to presume that matter can organize itself by accident into living and reproducing species for no reason whatsoever—and that, when the sun goes into nova, all of them will disappear, sight unseen, with no one to remember or to know. Religious systems that project a hierarchy of beings represent just one attempt by humans to understand the world; the evolutionary theory is another. In religious systems the starting point is the personal experience, of being, thus of consciousness. In the evolutionary, the starting point is matter. I’m with Disraeli on the side of the angels—another way of saying that consciousness is prior to matter; without it we wouldn’t even have the concept of matter. Consciousness gives us a sense of meaning. Looking at our life on earth, we see no permanent personal meaning for ourselves. Not surprisingly, we project it beyond our current existence—thus into the world next door.
The point I want to make today is that revelation is always based on a cosmological account. All religions project at least one other world, and if one then it is always higher than this one. They assert that we have either descended or have fallen into this one. And the substance of their teaching is to guide us in our re-ascent. Materialism considers this a delusion and justifies it by saying that hope is more adaptive than despair. Religion will therefore wither away only after the mass of humanity has reached a secure and high standard of living. Troubles multiply? People flock back to church. Adaptive behavior. But it isn’t as simple as that. Some won’t be quite so easily bribed into sleep by panem et circenses. Meaning, dammit! Give me meaning.
Religions offer meaning—and they base themselves on revelation. And those who produce the revelations claim to have obtained them from on high, thus from the world next door. Now here I would like to make a distinction. It is between precise and specific kinds of revelation and the symbolical essences these revelations carry. A precise revelation is that of the fall of humanity by disobedience of a divine command taking place in a specific Garden where the forbidden fruit of the Knowledge Tree of Good and Evil was consumed. Another is the Song of the Pearl, concerning the son of a king sent from the “East” to “Egypt” to obtain a precious pearl guarded by a devouring serpent. I’ve written about that myth here. Yet another is the myth of Mazdaism; it suggests that we are volunteers, descended from heaven, to fight on the side of Light against the uprising revolt of Darkness. Here we have one story of a fall and two of a descent. In all of these stories the central figure of the drama is assisted in its struggles to regain the height by messages (read revelation) provided from the highest point directly by intermediate agents or ministers.
The essence here may be rendered by saying that (1) there are at least two distinct worlds; (2) the lower of the two is inferior to the higher; (3) we are in the lower, engaged in conflicts, for good and sufficient reasons; (4) the aim is to ascend again after some job is accomplished; and (5) those of us engaged in this task get help and guidance from above.
The first and constituting element of this essence is that a world next door really does exist. Without it there is no story at all, no project, no accomplishment, no meaning. But now let us suppose that the real message is the essence—and all of its renderings and elaborations are to be assigned to us, to the people of this world. That is my working premise. What the inspiration from on high really carries to us is this essence. We then formulated it into stories, elaborate it, apply to ordinary life, reify it, in a way—and as we begin to do that, that is when all of the problems of religion begin.
To derive a fully formed subtle world—inhabited by discarnate spirits yet—just by talking about artistic inspiration—and that in order to justify revelation—must seem extraordinarily presumptuous to many. But cut me some slack. Conventional ways of thought are narrow. My projection (but let me say that it isn’t my invention) is derived from the experience of consciousness. And it’s no more outlandish than other projections. Another, equally weird, is to presume that matter can organize itself by accident into living and reproducing species for no reason whatsoever—and that, when the sun goes into nova, all of them will disappear, sight unseen, with no one to remember or to know. Religious systems that project a hierarchy of beings represent just one attempt by humans to understand the world; the evolutionary theory is another. In religious systems the starting point is the personal experience, of being, thus of consciousness. In the evolutionary, the starting point is matter. I’m with Disraeli on the side of the angels—another way of saying that consciousness is prior to matter; without it we wouldn’t even have the concept of matter. Consciousness gives us a sense of meaning. Looking at our life on earth, we see no permanent personal meaning for ourselves. Not surprisingly, we project it beyond our current existence—thus into the world next door.
The point I want to make today is that revelation is always based on a cosmological account. All religions project at least one other world, and if one then it is always higher than this one. They assert that we have either descended or have fallen into this one. And the substance of their teaching is to guide us in our re-ascent. Materialism considers this a delusion and justifies it by saying that hope is more adaptive than despair. Religion will therefore wither away only after the mass of humanity has reached a secure and high standard of living. Troubles multiply? People flock back to church. Adaptive behavior. But it isn’t as simple as that. Some won’t be quite so easily bribed into sleep by panem et circenses. Meaning, dammit! Give me meaning.
Religions offer meaning—and they base themselves on revelation. And those who produce the revelations claim to have obtained them from on high, thus from the world next door. Now here I would like to make a distinction. It is between precise and specific kinds of revelation and the symbolical essences these revelations carry. A precise revelation is that of the fall of humanity by disobedience of a divine command taking place in a specific Garden where the forbidden fruit of the Knowledge Tree of Good and Evil was consumed. Another is the Song of the Pearl, concerning the son of a king sent from the “East” to “Egypt” to obtain a precious pearl guarded by a devouring serpent. I’ve written about that myth here. Yet another is the myth of Mazdaism; it suggests that we are volunteers, descended from heaven, to fight on the side of Light against the uprising revolt of Darkness. Here we have one story of a fall and two of a descent. In all of these stories the central figure of the drama is assisted in its struggles to regain the height by messages (read revelation) provided from the highest point directly by intermediate agents or ministers.
The essence here may be rendered by saying that (1) there are at least two distinct worlds; (2) the lower of the two is inferior to the higher; (3) we are in the lower, engaged in conflicts, for good and sufficient reasons; (4) the aim is to ascend again after some job is accomplished; and (5) those of us engaged in this task get help and guidance from above.
The first and constituting element of this essence is that a world next door really does exist. Without it there is no story at all, no project, no accomplishment, no meaning. But now let us suppose that the real message is the essence—and all of its renderings and elaborations are to be assigned to us, to the people of this world. That is my working premise. What the inspiration from on high really carries to us is this essence. We then formulated it into stories, elaborate it, apply to ordinary life, reify it, in a way—and as we begin to do that, that is when all of the problems of religion begin.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Inspiration - Concluded
Third in a series on Revelation and Scripture
What I managed to say yesterday is simply that inspiration comes from “the beyond,” and in trying to explain it, I’ve produced a model of sorts. How to picture this model? I picture it as two dimensions that interpenetrated each other. One is physical; the other I simply call mental but could also call spiritual. I call the mental “higher.” Furthermore I claim that we are in bodies (rather than that we are bodies)—and that the body’s processes interfere with an unobstructed vision of the “higher realm.” What else did I assert? That our entire soul life—the workings of our minds, understanding, consciousness, and willing—draw their energy or sustenance from this hypothetical higher region or dimension. Our bodies draw their sustenance from the physical world. This is not the traditional description we encounter in religious doctrines. In those doctrines, at least as popularly understood, higher and lower do not interpenetrate. They are distinct locations. The higher (heavens, purgatories) are above us; the hells are below. Dante’s Divine Comedy places them this way. The philosophical structure undergirding western traditional views pictures a hierarchically arranged reality in which entities range from pure matter to pure spirit; to be human is to occupy an intermediate position, a matter-spirit fusion. In this view to be embodied entities is our rightful and permanent condition. We shall always be embodied, even after death—when, after the End Times, we assume our resurrection bodies.
The traditional view, largely based on the Aristotelian concept of substance (form-matter duality) in which neither form nor matter are permanent, has been modified to recognize an immortal, indestructible soul. And this soul alone—not the entire spiritual dimension—interpenetrates the body. In post-Aristotelian religious thought, embodiment is still held to be the natural state of human souls, but physical bodies decay and resurrection bodies are divinely created later. The model I proposed yesterday differs from this one in suggesting that the entire soul-dimension interpenetrates the entire physical dimension, not merely the soul the body. But that, as humans, held in tight unity with bodies (the whys of that we need to discuss too, by-and-bye), the bodily functionalities filter out most of the “higher” dimension so that we don’t ordinarily see it or perceive its presence all about us sharply.
(Here, finding that I used the word “higher,” in quotes, yet again, I would insert a clarifying note. I use that word to indicate a realm of higher subtlety, not necessarily or invariable a better, a morally elevated realm. In my mode of thought, the spiritual dimension also includes hell.)
Now, still in an attempt to make my conception more vivid, let me note that as souls we depend on the soul-dimension as our natural habitat. We live and breathe it, as it were—we live in it spiritually (our bodily life comes from matter) and we breathe its rarefied airs (thus we use its energies). Thus I propose that we are constantly inspired: waking, sleeping, working, playing, etc. But we are unaware of this. What we call inspirations are episodes of unusually intense contact with that dimension when, for some reason or another—exposure to works of arts, an inner striving, a crisis requiring extreme physical exertion, or circumstances when our filtering mechanisms weaken—we are suddenly exposed to stronger manifestations of a dimension in which we naturally live at least the human part of our mixed human-animal life. Our need for sleep may be evidence for this model. In waking states we are more isolated from our native dimension because our bodies more actively filter out that dimension so that we shall pay closer attention to the needs of physical survival. We must restore our spiritual balance at regular intervals by shutting down the noisy machinery. Not surprisingly, many inspirations come in the night.
This much will suffice to make a case for inspiration—and for particularly strong and unusual manifestations of it. But what about the notion that inspiration of the religious kind comes to us from agents, not from environments: from God, angels, saints, and other transcendental figures who act as messengers of God. This is the religious claim. I will get into that subject in the next post in this series. For the moment I will sketch an outline.
The broad framework might be stated as follows. If the soul-dimension is a real world, if we are destined to enter it after we die, that “place” may be conceived of as a genuine realm complete with all of the features of a “world” as we conceive this: thus a composite of environments analogous to those we know in this life as well as other persons, agents, like ourselves. All those elements interpenetrate this dimension, but we don’t see it. If we can enter that dimension now and then while still alive, it makes sense to assume that, from time to time, we may have actual contacts and communications with other being there who, like us, are selves and agents. I’ll say more about this in the next post.
What I managed to say yesterday is simply that inspiration comes from “the beyond,” and in trying to explain it, I’ve produced a model of sorts. How to picture this model? I picture it as two dimensions that interpenetrated each other. One is physical; the other I simply call mental but could also call spiritual. I call the mental “higher.” Furthermore I claim that we are in bodies (rather than that we are bodies)—and that the body’s processes interfere with an unobstructed vision of the “higher realm.” What else did I assert? That our entire soul life—the workings of our minds, understanding, consciousness, and willing—draw their energy or sustenance from this hypothetical higher region or dimension. Our bodies draw their sustenance from the physical world. This is not the traditional description we encounter in religious doctrines. In those doctrines, at least as popularly understood, higher and lower do not interpenetrate. They are distinct locations. The higher (heavens, purgatories) are above us; the hells are below. Dante’s Divine Comedy places them this way. The philosophical structure undergirding western traditional views pictures a hierarchically arranged reality in which entities range from pure matter to pure spirit; to be human is to occupy an intermediate position, a matter-spirit fusion. In this view to be embodied entities is our rightful and permanent condition. We shall always be embodied, even after death—when, after the End Times, we assume our resurrection bodies.
The traditional view, largely based on the Aristotelian concept of substance (form-matter duality) in which neither form nor matter are permanent, has been modified to recognize an immortal, indestructible soul. And this soul alone—not the entire spiritual dimension—interpenetrates the body. In post-Aristotelian religious thought, embodiment is still held to be the natural state of human souls, but physical bodies decay and resurrection bodies are divinely created later. The model I proposed yesterday differs from this one in suggesting that the entire soul-dimension interpenetrates the entire physical dimension, not merely the soul the body. But that, as humans, held in tight unity with bodies (the whys of that we need to discuss too, by-and-bye), the bodily functionalities filter out most of the “higher” dimension so that we don’t ordinarily see it or perceive its presence all about us sharply.
(Here, finding that I used the word “higher,” in quotes, yet again, I would insert a clarifying note. I use that word to indicate a realm of higher subtlety, not necessarily or invariable a better, a morally elevated realm. In my mode of thought, the spiritual dimension also includes hell.)
Now, still in an attempt to make my conception more vivid, let me note that as souls we depend on the soul-dimension as our natural habitat. We live and breathe it, as it were—we live in it spiritually (our bodily life comes from matter) and we breathe its rarefied airs (thus we use its energies). Thus I propose that we are constantly inspired: waking, sleeping, working, playing, etc. But we are unaware of this. What we call inspirations are episodes of unusually intense contact with that dimension when, for some reason or another—exposure to works of arts, an inner striving, a crisis requiring extreme physical exertion, or circumstances when our filtering mechanisms weaken—we are suddenly exposed to stronger manifestations of a dimension in which we naturally live at least the human part of our mixed human-animal life. Our need for sleep may be evidence for this model. In waking states we are more isolated from our native dimension because our bodies more actively filter out that dimension so that we shall pay closer attention to the needs of physical survival. We must restore our spiritual balance at regular intervals by shutting down the noisy machinery. Not surprisingly, many inspirations come in the night.
This much will suffice to make a case for inspiration—and for particularly strong and unusual manifestations of it. But what about the notion that inspiration of the religious kind comes to us from agents, not from environments: from God, angels, saints, and other transcendental figures who act as messengers of God. This is the religious claim. I will get into that subject in the next post in this series. For the moment I will sketch an outline.
The broad framework might be stated as follows. If the soul-dimension is a real world, if we are destined to enter it after we die, that “place” may be conceived of as a genuine realm complete with all of the features of a “world” as we conceive this: thus a composite of environments analogous to those we know in this life as well as other persons, agents, like ourselves. All those elements interpenetrate this dimension, but we don’t see it. If we can enter that dimension now and then while still alive, it makes sense to assume that, from time to time, we may have actual contacts and communications with other being there who, like us, are selves and agents. I’ll say more about this in the next post.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Inspiration
Second in a series on Revelation and Scripture
Let me continue on this subject and, specifically, look at “inspiration.” As I’ve noted in the first of this series in the last post, revelations are said to be inspired. The first task then would seem to be to examine if inspiration has real standing in human experience. I think it does. And I’ll offer a theory of it.
But let me start with a working definition. A good point of departure is to look at ordinary inspiration as the word is used in the arts and in discovery, not least in science. This word, as usually used, refers to insights. They are almost always sudden and spontaneous; the artist disclaims being their source, thus as having “thought them up”; her or she will, however, acknowledge that a certain preparation came ahead of the inspiration, not least a readiness to receive, a listening attitude. We find many examples of this experience in the creative professions: every artist will agree. Inspirations also have an energetic character. They wake us up, delight us, they amaze us. Recognizing them as integral parts of experience, that experience, always, is a clear and immediate intuition that now we “have something,” also that that something didn’t come from us.
This said, opinion the splits. Some will argue that inspirations do not, repeat not, come from any outside source; to the contrary, they are the end result of subconscious brain activity. This view is legitimate enough, but if brain activity is viewed as purely naturalistic—thus if combined with a denial of mind as a separate reality—it forces the conclusion that many of our most astonishingly creative insights are the consequence of random chemistry. We’re forced to a decision here because we don’t really understand these processes mechanically—if they are purely brain-based. To assign them to the subconscious amounts to substituting one word, easily associated with brain activity (a word like reflex, which also is), for another word, inspiration, which hypothesizes some kind of higher mental realm. In our direct experience inspirations have a creative aura that puts them in the mental realm; they are exceedingly complex on examination and always surprising; they don’t resemble unconscious outcomes, like reflexes, which are adaptive rather than creative.
A decision is needed. Hence what follows is addressed to people who feel spontaneously drawn to the view that mental operations have an immaterial grounding. Those to whom the materialistic explanation sounds innately more reasonable won’t see any merits in the hypotheses I’m about to offer—despite the fact that what I propose also adequately explains their leanings.
My own theory of inspiration might be put this way. Our selves, our souls, belong into another and higher region. Even in these bodies, our mental operations are therefore grounded in another region or dimension. We don’t draw on its energies much, certainly not in our mundane activities, but when we are engaged in creative ventures, our use of higher energies increases and the filtering processes that keep it more or less inaccessible and certainly invisible get in the way of our creative endeavors. The listening stance that we assume when we’re trying to produce arts, understand difficult problems, understand the physical world beyond the kinds of actions we have in common with chipmunks, in creating arts of all kinds—in words, sounds, or visions—that attitude of listening is testimony of our effort, somehow, to reach a dimension native to us although we’re unaware of it except as motions of our will. Here I would stress two things. One is that active involvement in a problem often interferes with its solution, especially when we hit a snag. Inspirations often arise precisely because we turn aside from the problems, release them from active consideration, when we let our minds wander, or sleep, or engage in relaxation. While we thus remove some of the interference, some element of our mind or self is able to contact a more energetic realm, our native dimension. There the elements of the problem are resorted, new linkages form, and visions that don’t reach us in waking states appear. The solution, more or less complete—but by no means fully worked out—then suddenly presents itself in time. The Aha! moment follows. Sometimes we remember participating in this process while we are asleep but dreaming.
This theory fits experience rather well. It explains why inspiration sometimes reaches us suddenly and, at other times, flows like a river. In the first case it was blocked, had to be allowed to cumulate; in the other our personal openness to a higher energetic streaming was greater and therefore every note was perfect and every stroke of the brush brought delight.
I note that these entries require more space than I like to devote to a single blog entry. Therefore, to go on, I’ll need another day.
Let me continue on this subject and, specifically, look at “inspiration.” As I’ve noted in the first of this series in the last post, revelations are said to be inspired. The first task then would seem to be to examine if inspiration has real standing in human experience. I think it does. And I’ll offer a theory of it.
But let me start with a working definition. A good point of departure is to look at ordinary inspiration as the word is used in the arts and in discovery, not least in science. This word, as usually used, refers to insights. They are almost always sudden and spontaneous; the artist disclaims being their source, thus as having “thought them up”; her or she will, however, acknowledge that a certain preparation came ahead of the inspiration, not least a readiness to receive, a listening attitude. We find many examples of this experience in the creative professions: every artist will agree. Inspirations also have an energetic character. They wake us up, delight us, they amaze us. Recognizing them as integral parts of experience, that experience, always, is a clear and immediate intuition that now we “have something,” also that that something didn’t come from us.
This said, opinion the splits. Some will argue that inspirations do not, repeat not, come from any outside source; to the contrary, they are the end result of subconscious brain activity. This view is legitimate enough, but if brain activity is viewed as purely naturalistic—thus if combined with a denial of mind as a separate reality—it forces the conclusion that many of our most astonishingly creative insights are the consequence of random chemistry. We’re forced to a decision here because we don’t really understand these processes mechanically—if they are purely brain-based. To assign them to the subconscious amounts to substituting one word, easily associated with brain activity (a word like reflex, which also is), for another word, inspiration, which hypothesizes some kind of higher mental realm. In our direct experience inspirations have a creative aura that puts them in the mental realm; they are exceedingly complex on examination and always surprising; they don’t resemble unconscious outcomes, like reflexes, which are adaptive rather than creative.
A decision is needed. Hence what follows is addressed to people who feel spontaneously drawn to the view that mental operations have an immaterial grounding. Those to whom the materialistic explanation sounds innately more reasonable won’t see any merits in the hypotheses I’m about to offer—despite the fact that what I propose also adequately explains their leanings.
My own theory of inspiration might be put this way. Our selves, our souls, belong into another and higher region. Even in these bodies, our mental operations are therefore grounded in another region or dimension. We don’t draw on its energies much, certainly not in our mundane activities, but when we are engaged in creative ventures, our use of higher energies increases and the filtering processes that keep it more or less inaccessible and certainly invisible get in the way of our creative endeavors. The listening stance that we assume when we’re trying to produce arts, understand difficult problems, understand the physical world beyond the kinds of actions we have in common with chipmunks, in creating arts of all kinds—in words, sounds, or visions—that attitude of listening is testimony of our effort, somehow, to reach a dimension native to us although we’re unaware of it except as motions of our will. Here I would stress two things. One is that active involvement in a problem often interferes with its solution, especially when we hit a snag. Inspirations often arise precisely because we turn aside from the problems, release them from active consideration, when we let our minds wander, or sleep, or engage in relaxation. While we thus remove some of the interference, some element of our mind or self is able to contact a more energetic realm, our native dimension. There the elements of the problem are resorted, new linkages form, and visions that don’t reach us in waking states appear. The solution, more or less complete—but by no means fully worked out—then suddenly presents itself in time. The Aha! moment follows. Sometimes we remember participating in this process while we are asleep but dreaming.
This theory fits experience rather well. It explains why inspiration sometimes reaches us suddenly and, at other times, flows like a river. In the first case it was blocked, had to be allowed to cumulate; in the other our personal openness to a higher energetic streaming was greater and therefore every note was perfect and every stroke of the brush brought delight.
I note that these entries require more space than I like to devote to a single blog entry. Therefore, to go on, I’ll need another day.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Revelation and Scripture: The Problem
None of us approaches reality without at least having heard traditional answers to the basic questions. These certainly include the one: Why are we here at all? That question may be put in very basic terms: Why do we exist? Another and potentially more answerable form of it might be: Why are we here on earth?
The traditional western answer is that we are creatures willed to exist by God, a being of infinite power, knowledge, and perfection whose deeper motivations we cannot ever hope to plumb. If we seek the roots of this assertion, we encounter scriptures, literally writings; they assert the answer in mythological forms. Being scriptures, people had to have produced them. To lift these writings to a level above mere storytelling, the tradition calls scriptures inspired writings. The meaning of that word, inspiration, suggests a transmission of meanings from a being or beings at some higher level than the human; the meanings were perceived by some one or several people gifted in some way. They formulated what they perceived; later the substance was written own.
I use both being and beings because, in the case of the Muslim tradition the Angel Gabriel was the conduit of the teachings of Mohammed; and in the Bible angels also play a role as messengers of God. This suggests a hierarchy of higher beings culminating in the Most High who, at various times, most notably addressing Moses from the burning bush, manifested directly and named itself I AM. The western tradition, therefore, may be summed up as holding that a hierarchy of being exists. Its peak is Ultimate Being. The meaning of our existences flows from that peak. And the details are the revelation of that meaning as recorded in the scriptures. Which of the many holy books properly or legitimately belong to the category of scripture is, to some extent, a consensus that has developed over time. It has also changed over time and may well change again.
Now the question I pose today is this one: Is it legitimate simply to dismiss all this as nonsense? The argument for doing so might run as follows: Scriptures are just writings by people, and higher inspiration is simply a claim. The claim may be innocent or calculating. Innocent claims may come from sincere but deluded people who think themselves in communication with God or with angels; they really believe it, but lacking any third party confirmation (good journalistic practice, that) the claims carry no special authority. To the countering argument that sometimes such figures perform miracles, the skeptic answers that miracles are mostly due to natural causes—especially healings; and that proofs of such miracles—when available, which is rarely—are always ambiguous. The second tack, namely that the claimants are calculating, needs no detailed presentation: such people are seeking power and influence and are merely engaging in one form of persuasion that works well on the gullible. Dismissal of revelation is then followed by two more general arguments.
One is the assertion that the results of such teachings in social life produce at least as much evil as good: religious wars, persecutions, pogroms, inquisitions, the arbitrary suppression of scientific discovery, the exploitation of the poor to enrich a priestly class, the oppression of women, the maintenance of authoritarian government, etc., etc. The crowning objection is that scriptures present contradictory images of God or of God’s will, reflect the social consensus of their time (e.g., as regards the status of women) and that different religious traditions have contrasting doctrines. Mazdaism is dualistic, for example; Judaism and Islam are monotheistic; and Christianity produced a Trinitarian deity.
Is there possibly a third way of seeing all this? I think there is. Neither the dogmatic nor the materialistic stance here seems to me to capture the essence of what is going on. I think that revelation is real enough if properly defined and understood; scriptures, similarly, are genuine enough and carry truth—but not if rigidly interpreted and dogmatically enforced. If both—revelation and scripture—are viewed from a higher perspective than is usually the case, their origins and merits gradually emerge. And the skeptics’ attack can be answered point by point, not least the two general dismissals based on bad results and contradictory teachings. But to carry out this task will require at least one and perhaps more posts. Stay tuned.
The traditional western answer is that we are creatures willed to exist by God, a being of infinite power, knowledge, and perfection whose deeper motivations we cannot ever hope to plumb. If we seek the roots of this assertion, we encounter scriptures, literally writings; they assert the answer in mythological forms. Being scriptures, people had to have produced them. To lift these writings to a level above mere storytelling, the tradition calls scriptures inspired writings. The meaning of that word, inspiration, suggests a transmission of meanings from a being or beings at some higher level than the human; the meanings were perceived by some one or several people gifted in some way. They formulated what they perceived; later the substance was written own.
I use both being and beings because, in the case of the Muslim tradition the Angel Gabriel was the conduit of the teachings of Mohammed; and in the Bible angels also play a role as messengers of God. This suggests a hierarchy of higher beings culminating in the Most High who, at various times, most notably addressing Moses from the burning bush, manifested directly and named itself I AM. The western tradition, therefore, may be summed up as holding that a hierarchy of being exists. Its peak is Ultimate Being. The meaning of our existences flows from that peak. And the details are the revelation of that meaning as recorded in the scriptures. Which of the many holy books properly or legitimately belong to the category of scripture is, to some extent, a consensus that has developed over time. It has also changed over time and may well change again.
Now the question I pose today is this one: Is it legitimate simply to dismiss all this as nonsense? The argument for doing so might run as follows: Scriptures are just writings by people, and higher inspiration is simply a claim. The claim may be innocent or calculating. Innocent claims may come from sincere but deluded people who think themselves in communication with God or with angels; they really believe it, but lacking any third party confirmation (good journalistic practice, that) the claims carry no special authority. To the countering argument that sometimes such figures perform miracles, the skeptic answers that miracles are mostly due to natural causes—especially healings; and that proofs of such miracles—when available, which is rarely—are always ambiguous. The second tack, namely that the claimants are calculating, needs no detailed presentation: such people are seeking power and influence and are merely engaging in one form of persuasion that works well on the gullible. Dismissal of revelation is then followed by two more general arguments.
One is the assertion that the results of such teachings in social life produce at least as much evil as good: religious wars, persecutions, pogroms, inquisitions, the arbitrary suppression of scientific discovery, the exploitation of the poor to enrich a priestly class, the oppression of women, the maintenance of authoritarian government, etc., etc. The crowning objection is that scriptures present contradictory images of God or of God’s will, reflect the social consensus of their time (e.g., as regards the status of women) and that different religious traditions have contrasting doctrines. Mazdaism is dualistic, for example; Judaism and Islam are monotheistic; and Christianity produced a Trinitarian deity.
Is there possibly a third way of seeing all this? I think there is. Neither the dogmatic nor the materialistic stance here seems to me to capture the essence of what is going on. I think that revelation is real enough if properly defined and understood; scriptures, similarly, are genuine enough and carry truth—but not if rigidly interpreted and dogmatically enforced. If both—revelation and scripture—are viewed from a higher perspective than is usually the case, their origins and merits gradually emerge. And the skeptics’ attack can be answered point by point, not least the two general dismissals based on bad results and contradictory teachings. But to carry out this task will require at least one and perhaps more posts. Stay tuned.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Accounting or Mapping Department
Words not only clarify, they may also obscure. I can’t help believing that what the schoolmen called Intellect is but the accounting department of the enterprise we call the soul. The counting house is important, to be sure, but the store or factory matter more. It seems clear to me that, as humans, we gain knowledge not merely and exclusively from sensory experience, which the medievals and moderns both assert; on the contrary, I think we also get knowledge from invisible dimensions. In both cases our knowledge is direct; our understanding flashes up or slowly dawns. I hold that the intellectual operations of abstraction and reasoning arise a little later—an eyewink or much labor later—as we engage in ordering and relating our direct and spontaneous grasp of reality into larger patterns of coherence.
Another way to put this is that the intellect produces maps, but maps are not, as it were, universals. We think of universals or essences—perceptions shorn of accidents, so-called—as in some manner superior to particulars. I see that as an assertion that maps are superior to the landscapes they depict. I’m very fond of maps; I’m devoted to patterns of all kinds; they’re indispensable for orientation but, ultimately, we never visit maps; we visit places.
The interesting fact here is the iterative functioning of what I view as the higher power of the soul, its intuitive grasp. The intellect is a servant; reason is a tool. Intuition first understands the particular and then, once intellect produces its patterns, intuition understands and grasps those in turn—enriched by both but never deceived by what is what: the landscape is the landscape and the map’s a map.
Another way to put this is that the intellect produces maps, but maps are not, as it were, universals. We think of universals or essences—perceptions shorn of accidents, so-called—as in some manner superior to particulars. I see that as an assertion that maps are superior to the landscapes they depict. I’m very fond of maps; I’m devoted to patterns of all kinds; they’re indispensable for orientation but, ultimately, we never visit maps; we visit places.
The interesting fact here is the iterative functioning of what I view as the higher power of the soul, its intuitive grasp. The intellect is a servant; reason is a tool. Intuition first understands the particular and then, once intellect produces its patterns, intuition understands and grasps those in turn—enriched by both but never deceived by what is what: the landscape is the landscape and the map’s a map.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Precognition and Time
I’ve written on this subject before (see Precognition under Labels). The subject fascinates me because awareness of the future is the clearest, most compelling sign that our conventional views of reality are incomplete. I’ve argued earlier that the experience of precognition, for those who’ve had it, is compelling. The only way to avoid this subject is by burying one’s head in the sand. The last entry here, pointing to a case of premonition, got me to thinking about the subject again. I avoid it by and large because no answers seem possible. Yesterday I had a bit of idle time waiting at the doctor’s office, and these stray thoughts occurred to me. They are in the category of pondering the nature of time.
I was remembering earlier sessions of thinking about the subject. Time and again, I start by dividing the concept of time into two categories. One of these is that time is the necessary complement of enduring existence, meaning that we can’t imagine anything being unless we envision a kind of invisible environment in which the persistence of something continues. From this comes my notion of time-as-endurance.
We know this time because our consciousness is capable of retaining memories of past moments. The power of remembering is itself something dynamic, however, something analogous to motion. The experience of this moment is stored away—picture it as being put on a shelf. And we can look at the shelf and note a past action, the action of putting the memory there. Never mind that it happens automatically. From this I derive another concept of time, time-as-motion. Just as we cannot imagine persistence without time so, also, we cannot imagine motion without a container in which it takes place. Mental motions, unlike physical, do not require space. To be sure, a purely materialistic viewpoint would deny this. The materialist derives mental actions from neural motions. But I’m personally persuaded that mental actions do not require space—but do require a time container. In physics we speak of a fusion of space and time, spacetime. It is the container. In the mental sphere, time alone suffices as a necessary environment for motion.
Our mental states—as we experience them in this life—are also fused with the physical. For this reason we experience time as spacetime. Now the thought occurred to me yesterday that the experience of time may be closely bound to the dimension we inhabit. Thus in this life, welded to bodies, we may experience time one way—but, possibly, outside of bodies, in another “mansion” of reality—say across the border that I stare at in this blog—it may be quite different.
The justification for this strange thought is that we measure time by motion here. Motion has a speed dimension. And, in this dimension, anyway—if we take Einstein seriously—there is a speed limit. It is the speed of light. Nothing with any kind of mass can travel even at the speed of light. A photon is considered to be a mass-less something. Now if time is measured by motion, in the cosmos we inhabit the passage of time (time-as-motion) is limited to the speed of light at one extreme.
But let us now suppose that other dimensions may very well exist—characterized by different existential laws than those of matter. And let us suppose, just as a thought experiment, that we may have originated in another dimension and are merely temporarily (that word again) encased in matter. Suppose that we are capable of another, higher or different, time perception. Not that it is readily available to us; let’s just assume that we have the capacity, under certain circumstances, to perceive it—and to have that power because we are not originally from this dimension. Most precognitions, for example, reach us in dreams, a state in which, to some extent, we are much more tenuously linked to the physical dimension than we are when awake.
Precognitions may arise from glimpses of this world from another. And from that perspective, which may operate at much higher speeds of change, we may see more of what is already firmly realized than is visible from this dimension while embedded in it.
I was remembering earlier sessions of thinking about the subject. Time and again, I start by dividing the concept of time into two categories. One of these is that time is the necessary complement of enduring existence, meaning that we can’t imagine anything being unless we envision a kind of invisible environment in which the persistence of something continues. From this comes my notion of time-as-endurance.
We know this time because our consciousness is capable of retaining memories of past moments. The power of remembering is itself something dynamic, however, something analogous to motion. The experience of this moment is stored away—picture it as being put on a shelf. And we can look at the shelf and note a past action, the action of putting the memory there. Never mind that it happens automatically. From this I derive another concept of time, time-as-motion. Just as we cannot imagine persistence without time so, also, we cannot imagine motion without a container in which it takes place. Mental motions, unlike physical, do not require space. To be sure, a purely materialistic viewpoint would deny this. The materialist derives mental actions from neural motions. But I’m personally persuaded that mental actions do not require space—but do require a time container. In physics we speak of a fusion of space and time, spacetime. It is the container. In the mental sphere, time alone suffices as a necessary environment for motion.
Our mental states—as we experience them in this life—are also fused with the physical. For this reason we experience time as spacetime. Now the thought occurred to me yesterday that the experience of time may be closely bound to the dimension we inhabit. Thus in this life, welded to bodies, we may experience time one way—but, possibly, outside of bodies, in another “mansion” of reality—say across the border that I stare at in this blog—it may be quite different.
The justification for this strange thought is that we measure time by motion here. Motion has a speed dimension. And, in this dimension, anyway—if we take Einstein seriously—there is a speed limit. It is the speed of light. Nothing with any kind of mass can travel even at the speed of light. A photon is considered to be a mass-less something. Now if time is measured by motion, in the cosmos we inhabit the passage of time (time-as-motion) is limited to the speed of light at one extreme.
But let us now suppose that other dimensions may very well exist—characterized by different existential laws than those of matter. And let us suppose, just as a thought experiment, that we may have originated in another dimension and are merely temporarily (that word again) encased in matter. Suppose that we are capable of another, higher or different, time perception. Not that it is readily available to us; let’s just assume that we have the capacity, under certain circumstances, to perceive it—and to have that power because we are not originally from this dimension. Most precognitions, for example, reach us in dreams, a state in which, to some extent, we are much more tenuously linked to the physical dimension than we are when awake.
Precognitions may arise from glimpses of this world from another. And from that perspective, which may operate at much higher speeds of change, we may see more of what is already firmly realized than is visible from this dimension while embedded in it.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Premonitions
Herewith a link to a straightforward story presented by National Public Radio of a young boy's premonition of his own death (hat tip to a member of my family). For those of us of a modern mind but curious and hardy enough to patrol the borders of this zone, nothing is more interesting than reports from our immediate time of what counts as empirical evidence of a wider sphere of reality than is officially countenanced.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Notes on Existentialism
The formalism that this philosophy seems to represent is that there is a difference between Being and Existence, that earlier philosophies saw being as prior and durable and existence either as secondary or as something “added” to essence; thus essence before existence. Existentialism, to the contrary, turns this around: “existence precedes essence,” as formulated by Sartre.
Despite reading Kierkegaard and Sartre (now also reading Heidegger), I’ve always felt untouched by the above philosophical formulation for the simple reason that, try as I might, I can’t detect a shred of difference between existence and being. That difference must have roots in the philosophical notion that goes back to Plato, namely that form is eternal and matter is changeable and therefore instances of it are “corruptible.” Thus existence requires materiality. My own puzzling over the form-matter duality led me in other directions. Here are some points on that:
In my own thinking about this subject—strictly privately, in hundreds of pages of diary entries extending back decades—the point of departure has always been consciousness, self-awareness, the sharp, alert, awake sort of thing—not the psychologists’ description of mentation. I realize now (my readings of Sartre and Kierkegaard took place in the 1950s and 1960s) that my approach is also grounded in a subjective polarity. I’ve always tended to put the ancient Greeks and the scholastic off to one side—not because their work wasn’t elegant and beautifully developed but because for me it has always seemed to be a game with concepts the direct likes of which I could not detect in myself or in my experience. If I consult my own experience and approach, then my methodology is certainly existentialist. Coming no, going yes—you might say.
Despite reading Kierkegaard and Sartre (now also reading Heidegger), I’ve always felt untouched by the above philosophical formulation for the simple reason that, try as I might, I can’t detect a shred of difference between existence and being. That difference must have roots in the philosophical notion that goes back to Plato, namely that form is eternal and matter is changeable and therefore instances of it are “corruptible.” Thus existence requires materiality. My own puzzling over the form-matter duality led me in other directions. Here are some points on that:
- In the modern understanding of matter, we find structure (“form”) at the lowest possible levels. In other words, we always find matter already formed.
- We understand reality in terms of processes. Any even superficial study of embryology or the development of plants from seeds reveals a process.
- I resolve the form-matter dualism by holding that form is an intention. The intention behind something that “comes about” may begin very fuzzily, but the steadfast intention guides the process of creation, sometimes by fits and starts. Intention fits my observations (and explains things) much better than a static form or matrix existing in some transcendental realm which is then expressed as a materialized form.
- I see things coming about only in two ways: by chance or by intention. Production of phenomena by chance only requires energy and matter; preexisting things have to be in motion. All other entities that come about come about by intention. And in those cases, “intention precedes existence,” not the other way around. So—if I associate intention with form and from with essence and essence with being (esse means being in Latin)—I am an essentialist.
In my own thinking about this subject—strictly privately, in hundreds of pages of diary entries extending back decades—the point of departure has always been consciousness, self-awareness, the sharp, alert, awake sort of thing—not the psychologists’ description of mentation. I realize now (my readings of Sartre and Kierkegaard took place in the 1950s and 1960s) that my approach is also grounded in a subjective polarity. I’ve always tended to put the ancient Greeks and the scholastic off to one side—not because their work wasn’t elegant and beautifully developed but because for me it has always seemed to be a game with concepts the direct likes of which I could not detect in myself or in my experience. If I consult my own experience and approach, then my methodology is certainly existentialist. Coming no, going yes—you might say.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Concentration
It strikes me that one of the distinguishing characteristics of being human, thus of consciousness and self-awareness, is the ability to concentrate at will. Animals are quite capable of concentration too, but it is not under their voluntary control. I observe this on every walk I take, especially this time of year. The squirrels are in the final phase of their preparations for the coming winter. They’re all over the place. And I can see how the environment directs their attention and compels their action. Every squirrel, every time will climb the nearest tree or hide under the nearest bush if, as I walk by them, I get close enough to them.
Voluntary action is the hallmark of transcendence. It requires a kind of separateness from the physical. The separation is rarely very great, but there it is. It is that “cubic millimeter” of separation Carlos Castaneda attributed to his real or invented sorcerer-guru, Don Juan. I am, of course, not talking about reflexive actions; controlling them requires extraordinary training. Nor do I refer to spontaneous heroism in situations of sudden crisis—self-defense or defense of the child. I once saw the strangest sight. It was a chipmunk “standing up” to one of our cats. It had been cornered; there it was, about to be killed. It rose on its hind legs and made warding off motions at the cat while making a hissing sort of sound. The cat, for whatever reasons—perhaps my immediate proximity distracted it—did not immediately act. The chipmunk then absconded. But for a moment, heroically, it was ready to face down the vast predator that over-loomed it. I don’t mean that sort of thing. We—whatever that word means—are tightly woven into our bodies. What is amazing is that we can indeed over-come the material at will.
What this suggests to me is that culture—personal as well as collective—will manifest itself in forms that signal concentration and detachment. By contrast, decadence will manifest itself as an increase in spontaneity, informality, and distraction. My classing spontaneity with decadence will rub some people wrong—rubs me wrong too, you might say. But I’ll say more about that in a moment. Processes that proceed in an automated way, stimulus followed by response, resemble the natural, the lower, the physical. Processes triggered by intentions, where the intention follows and guides the development—these are of a higher order.
The life process itself, as I see it, is the action of something high gathering strength and gradually freeing itself from its entanglement in the lower. Therefore life has direction. It is teleological. It manifests in increasing levels of order—and this order opposes, counters the random arrangement of the physical. Chance operates in the material plane, mind creates order. In humans the first possibilities of genuine detachment occur, and these manifest as concentration and conscious volition.
The process, in the human realm, has a cyclic pattern. Thus it manifests as cultural development followed by exhaustion and decay. Oddly enough our very success in organizing matter leads to decay. The pressures of necessity ease up. In consequence we relax our concentration, let go of our formalities, and permit ourselves to be distracted. Distraction requires much less effort. It is going with the flow, as it were. Ours is an age of exhaustion—and let’s not be deceived by our fantastic wealth, brilliant technology, and celebrated diversity. The whole structure of life today is organized to maximize distraction. That is what a culture of consumption produces. Things, things, things. Faster and faster. Flicker and flicker. Instant gratification is followed by equally instant dissatisfaction. Which calls for an immediate fix. And so on it goes. By contrast any activity that requires sustained, focused attention will appear as boring, old-fashioned, out-of-it rather than with-it. I maintain three blogs. Of these one is amusing, sharp-witted, and stimulating. One is cultural in focus but entertaining on a higher level. And this one is much more concentrated. Which one has the least readership? You guessed it. This one. Why? It requires concentration to follow.
Now a note about spontaneity. There is a lower kind which is reflexive. And then there is the higher kind. It is the higher kind that we actually admire and see manifested in the great works of art. But that kind of spontaneity arises from a great surplus of power built up over long periods of sustained effort, mastering higher forms of expression. And when it begins to operate, it looks effortless and yet produces wonderfully ordered structures. That spontaneity is valuable. The other kind even the drunk displays in various amusing and destructive forms.
Voluntary action is the hallmark of transcendence. It requires a kind of separateness from the physical. The separation is rarely very great, but there it is. It is that “cubic millimeter” of separation Carlos Castaneda attributed to his real or invented sorcerer-guru, Don Juan. I am, of course, not talking about reflexive actions; controlling them requires extraordinary training. Nor do I refer to spontaneous heroism in situations of sudden crisis—self-defense or defense of the child. I once saw the strangest sight. It was a chipmunk “standing up” to one of our cats. It had been cornered; there it was, about to be killed. It rose on its hind legs and made warding off motions at the cat while making a hissing sort of sound. The cat, for whatever reasons—perhaps my immediate proximity distracted it—did not immediately act. The chipmunk then absconded. But for a moment, heroically, it was ready to face down the vast predator that over-loomed it. I don’t mean that sort of thing. We—whatever that word means—are tightly woven into our bodies. What is amazing is that we can indeed over-come the material at will.
What this suggests to me is that culture—personal as well as collective—will manifest itself in forms that signal concentration and detachment. By contrast, decadence will manifest itself as an increase in spontaneity, informality, and distraction. My classing spontaneity with decadence will rub some people wrong—rubs me wrong too, you might say. But I’ll say more about that in a moment. Processes that proceed in an automated way, stimulus followed by response, resemble the natural, the lower, the physical. Processes triggered by intentions, where the intention follows and guides the development—these are of a higher order.
The life process itself, as I see it, is the action of something high gathering strength and gradually freeing itself from its entanglement in the lower. Therefore life has direction. It is teleological. It manifests in increasing levels of order—and this order opposes, counters the random arrangement of the physical. Chance operates in the material plane, mind creates order. In humans the first possibilities of genuine detachment occur, and these manifest as concentration and conscious volition.
The process, in the human realm, has a cyclic pattern. Thus it manifests as cultural development followed by exhaustion and decay. Oddly enough our very success in organizing matter leads to decay. The pressures of necessity ease up. In consequence we relax our concentration, let go of our formalities, and permit ourselves to be distracted. Distraction requires much less effort. It is going with the flow, as it were. Ours is an age of exhaustion—and let’s not be deceived by our fantastic wealth, brilliant technology, and celebrated diversity. The whole structure of life today is organized to maximize distraction. That is what a culture of consumption produces. Things, things, things. Faster and faster. Flicker and flicker. Instant gratification is followed by equally instant dissatisfaction. Which calls for an immediate fix. And so on it goes. By contrast any activity that requires sustained, focused attention will appear as boring, old-fashioned, out-of-it rather than with-it. I maintain three blogs. Of these one is amusing, sharp-witted, and stimulating. One is cultural in focus but entertaining on a higher level. And this one is much more concentrated. Which one has the least readership? You guessed it. This one. Why? It requires concentration to follow.
Now a note about spontaneity. There is a lower kind which is reflexive. And then there is the higher kind. It is the higher kind that we actually admire and see manifested in the great works of art. But that kind of spontaneity arises from a great surplus of power built up over long periods of sustained effort, mastering higher forms of expression. And when it begins to operate, it looks effortless and yet produces wonderfully ordered structures. That spontaneity is valuable. The other kind even the drunk displays in various amusing and destructive forms.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Immortality
When we speak about the real, we are using a word derived from the Latin word res, meaning thing. The common designator “real estate” points to the most basic object of ownership, the fixed, permanent, physical, and immovable. When we use a phrase like “airy-fairy,” we mean the poetic, the imaginary—the insubstantial products of the human mind that cannot be pinned down because they’re not “concrete.” It is thus rather curious that the belief in some kind of immortality is so ancient and persistent. This belief takes various forms. In Asia the body is thought to perish but the soul or essence to move on, taking up another body to inhabit, unless the person has succeeded in escaping the Wheel of Karma and therefore rises to some higher realm. In the West we have a curious structure of beliefs. The soul is held to be immortal; the body dies; the soul exists in an imperfect manner after death; but at the end of time there is also a resurrection of bodies.
When the philosophers get involved, things get more complicated. Aristotle had the idea that if anything survives after we die, it is some “intellectual core.” As best as I can make out, this view is incompatible with Aristotle’s general scheme of things—the scheme of matter-form substantiality in which only the combination of the two is real; unformed matter and immaterial form exist in a kind of limbo called potentiality. Aristotle can be interpreted to say that personality remains in that surviving “intellectual core”—or that what survives is an impersonal intellect, hence the person disappears with death. In Plato’s view the survival of the soul is derived from its very definition; the soul is defined as simple; the simple cannot be corrupted because it has no parts, hence it is immortal. That is a neat argument, but beyond that it throws no light.
The understanding of the man on the street—and I class myself with him—is that immortality is meaningless unless we, ourselves, personally survive and have capacities for thought, memory, feeling, will, and action. Thus immortality for me is essentially linked to consciousness, and by consciousness I mean all of its usual tooling. In theories of reincarnation there is a radical forgetting between death and birth. Functionally that sounds equivalent to materialism for me unless more is asserted. The essential something that I am is lost in the process. Therefore this kind of “survival” lacks content and meaning.
I think that belief in immortality arose because, without it, all meaning disappears. Immortality is neither narcissistic nor a self-pleasing delusion. It is a necessary condition for any kind of meaning to be present at all. Consider. We live, strive, suffer, and hope; we love others, we work together, struggle, and share joys. What is the point of all this if it leads to nothing? Why did my Mother live, love, struggle, and suffer? And yes, she did suffer a great deal. What was the meaning of her efforts, the love she dispensed to four generations, the sacrifices she made—if she just vanished, after all that, without a trace? So that immortal genes could propagate—as some would have it? So that immortal memes could pass through her mind? If her existence is considered terminal, all of her acts had meaning in a process of life viewed impersonally, but she did not.
Life takes its deepest meaning from its directional flow, its end-seeking character. All of its moment to moment experiences also take their meaning from the onward flow. If the end of life turns out to be nothing—disappearance, cessation, vanishing—then the entire process loses its meaning as well. We understand this in our depths but, faced with the rude fact of death, we find it abruptly contradicted. It doesn’t take too much puzzling about the matter to conclude that the answer to this process must lie hidden in another dimension, on that side of the borderzone.
This line of thought is of the very essence of at least personal philosophy. The public, professional forms, of course, range over a much wider field of concepts; passions run high, schools compete, egos strive, etc. I am an old man at present, over seventy, so it might be thought that this sort of thing gets urgent when you’re nearing the ultimate passage. But, I must confess, this kind of thought preoccupied me even when I was a mere youngster in the Army and quite a wild man and about as far removed from philosophy as you can get.
When the philosophers get involved, things get more complicated. Aristotle had the idea that if anything survives after we die, it is some “intellectual core.” As best as I can make out, this view is incompatible with Aristotle’s general scheme of things—the scheme of matter-form substantiality in which only the combination of the two is real; unformed matter and immaterial form exist in a kind of limbo called potentiality. Aristotle can be interpreted to say that personality remains in that surviving “intellectual core”—or that what survives is an impersonal intellect, hence the person disappears with death. In Plato’s view the survival of the soul is derived from its very definition; the soul is defined as simple; the simple cannot be corrupted because it has no parts, hence it is immortal. That is a neat argument, but beyond that it throws no light.
The understanding of the man on the street—and I class myself with him—is that immortality is meaningless unless we, ourselves, personally survive and have capacities for thought, memory, feeling, will, and action. Thus immortality for me is essentially linked to consciousness, and by consciousness I mean all of its usual tooling. In theories of reincarnation there is a radical forgetting between death and birth. Functionally that sounds equivalent to materialism for me unless more is asserted. The essential something that I am is lost in the process. Therefore this kind of “survival” lacks content and meaning.
I think that belief in immortality arose because, without it, all meaning disappears. Immortality is neither narcissistic nor a self-pleasing delusion. It is a necessary condition for any kind of meaning to be present at all. Consider. We live, strive, suffer, and hope; we love others, we work together, struggle, and share joys. What is the point of all this if it leads to nothing? Why did my Mother live, love, struggle, and suffer? And yes, she did suffer a great deal. What was the meaning of her efforts, the love she dispensed to four generations, the sacrifices she made—if she just vanished, after all that, without a trace? So that immortal genes could propagate—as some would have it? So that immortal memes could pass through her mind? If her existence is considered terminal, all of her acts had meaning in a process of life viewed impersonally, but she did not.
Life takes its deepest meaning from its directional flow, its end-seeking character. All of its moment to moment experiences also take their meaning from the onward flow. If the end of life turns out to be nothing—disappearance, cessation, vanishing—then the entire process loses its meaning as well. We understand this in our depths but, faced with the rude fact of death, we find it abruptly contradicted. It doesn’t take too much puzzling about the matter to conclude that the answer to this process must lie hidden in another dimension, on that side of the borderzone.
This line of thought is of the very essence of at least personal philosophy. The public, professional forms, of course, range over a much wider field of concepts; passions run high, schools compete, egos strive, etc. I am an old man at present, over seventy, so it might be thought that this sort of thing gets urgent when you’re nearing the ultimate passage. But, I must confess, this kind of thought preoccupied me even when I was a mere youngster in the Army and quite a wild man and about as far removed from philosophy as you can get.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
China’s Religious Experience
I’ve always considered the religious forms native to China the most sophisticated—at least in comparison with religious forms in India and in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world. The last three, of course, are closely related. The specifically Chinese forms are a belief in spirits, especially those of the ancestors, and Taoism, a much later mystical form, in which the ultimate is pictured as a transcendental All. The chief similarity of Chinese and all other religions is that it is based on a conviction that a spirit world exists beyond this one. The chief difference lies in the absence of a personified God, a God whose characteristics are based on the human model. The great benefit of the religious view for the Chinese people has been that a sophisticated view of the All High is almost impossible to exploit for political purposes. Hence China has been spared the vicious religious wars that have plagued other parts of the globe.
Of course, as many, many people have observed over time, The Chinese temperament is practical and down to earth. Indeed, calling it a “temperament” is probably wrong. It is a cultural blessing, in a way—and in China the culture has been pretty continuous for at least 4000 years. No lesser person than D.T. Suzuki has elaborated this very point. Suzuki, a Japanese, is the chief introducer of Zen Buddhism to the West, and in his Essay in Zen Buddhism, he too stresses the point. Zen, as he points out, is as much a Chinese creation as an Indian, and Zen Buddhism is practical and down to earth.
This works out well. Ancestor worship enlarges the sense of living in this dimension by extending it into the invisible. The ancestors are seen as able to influence one’s banal fortunes in this dimension—and we can please ancestors by upholding the ethical norms. So at the bottom of society. At its highest levels, the concept of Heaven, impersonal but not unaware, has been developed as the sanction of rule. Those whom Heaven favors, have the Mandate of Heaven. Those whom Heaven would depose are deprived of the mandate and, no matter what they do, they will swept away. It is the only culture on the planet in which the personal virtue of the ruler is conceived of as directly related to success in governing a realm—and in which the ruler’s chief activity is to let ordinary people live while keeping the lesser lords from exploiting them. That works for me.
And then, at the very highest levels, the mystical and philosophical, the conception of divinity is appropriately high, always reverent, never inclined to suggest that you can bribe, fool, or otherwise influence the highest. It shall prevail, through any and all contingencies at precisely the distance from us which we also feel when contemplating our own puny selves.
Of course, as many, many people have observed over time, The Chinese temperament is practical and down to earth. Indeed, calling it a “temperament” is probably wrong. It is a cultural blessing, in a way—and in China the culture has been pretty continuous for at least 4000 years. No lesser person than D.T. Suzuki has elaborated this very point. Suzuki, a Japanese, is the chief introducer of Zen Buddhism to the West, and in his Essay in Zen Buddhism, he too stresses the point. Zen, as he points out, is as much a Chinese creation as an Indian, and Zen Buddhism is practical and down to earth.
This works out well. Ancestor worship enlarges the sense of living in this dimension by extending it into the invisible. The ancestors are seen as able to influence one’s banal fortunes in this dimension—and we can please ancestors by upholding the ethical norms. So at the bottom of society. At its highest levels, the concept of Heaven, impersonal but not unaware, has been developed as the sanction of rule. Those whom Heaven favors, have the Mandate of Heaven. Those whom Heaven would depose are deprived of the mandate and, no matter what they do, they will swept away. It is the only culture on the planet in which the personal virtue of the ruler is conceived of as directly related to success in governing a realm—and in which the ruler’s chief activity is to let ordinary people live while keeping the lesser lords from exploiting them. That works for me.
And then, at the very highest levels, the mystical and philosophical, the conception of divinity is appropriately high, always reverent, never inclined to suggest that you can bribe, fool, or otherwise influence the highest. It shall prevail, through any and all contingencies at precisely the distance from us which we also feel when contemplating our own puny selves.
Monday, November 2, 2009
On Love: Well Worth Reading
Herewith a pointer to what I consider to be a superb, brief post entitled “Aquinas on Amor” on Siris. It is a repost of an entry that first appeared last year. Aquinas had a crystal-clear vision, and here it is summarized with skill and parsimony. Click here to see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
