Sunday, February 08, 2009

I Once Was Blind, But Now I See

As I mentioned last week, February '07 was a fairly fruitful month, so I think I'll repost things on both Saturday and Sunday until further gnosis.

Or, since we had more stale comments than usual for a Saturday, just consider this a fresh open thread.

FYI, here is part III of David Klinghoffer's takedown of Queeg and his crude scientistic anti-intellectualism.


When we talk about "leading a spiritual life," we are not necessarily referring to a conventionally religious life per se; nor do we wish to confuse it with any kind of new age exercise in larcenous pneumapathy, a la Deepak and Tony Robbins. Rather, what we are really talking about is vertical transformation and the conditions that make this transformation possible. Those conditions are embodied in religion, but it is clearly possible to practice a religion and miss out on the transformative element.

While religion obviously involves "faith" and "belief," these are not intended to be merely static and saturated "containers." Rather, properly understood, they should be fungible into a different sort of experiential (or ontonoetic) knowledge and should facilitate a real transformation. In other words, it seems that dogma is not the end of religious knowledge, but only the beginning. Truly, we believe in order that we may know.

In the past, I have discussed dogma in terms of Polanyi's analysis of scientific models, which he compares to the cane of a blind person -- to a probe in the dark. If you can imagine being blind for a moment -- which, of course, you are -- think of how the cane would quickly become an extension of your hand. At some point, you wouldn't even be aware of the cane's impact on your hand. Rather, these raw sensations would be instantaneously transformed by the brain into a three-dimensional image of your spatial surroundings. At the same time, it would expand your world and allow you to move through it in such a way that you could further expand your world by degree.

Clearly, scientific knowledge works in this way. Consider, for example, the equations of subatomic physics or quantum cosmology. In the case of the former, this mathematical language allows us to extend our senses and see "beyond" or "behind" the solid material world the senses give to us. Likewise, these scientific probes allow us to "visualize" the temporal arc of the cosmos, extending back to a time long before human beings even existed -- in fact, to the very timelessness that begot time, when One's upin a timeless, without a second to spore, and noplace to bang anyway.

But you will notice that we always convert this scientific knowledge -- again, think of the probe in the dark -- into a human vision. When we think of a "big bang," that's what we think of, even though, if you could somehow have been there at the moment of the big bang, you would have been too small to have been anywhere, plus you wouldn't see any banging anyway, for the same reason you don't see it happening now. After all, the cosmos is still banging away at this moment -- i.e., it is expanding -- but we don't experience this through our senses. Rather, we only know it by using the scientific equations as a probe in the dark to extend our senses.

But the universe is not merely a form of our sensibility. In other words, no matter how far science extends its probe into the dark, it is still going to be a human hand grasping a slightly longer cane. And, needless to say, the universe is what it is, regardless of -- or in addition to -- what we say or think it is. This is something materialists and metaphysical Darwinists always forget -- that is, they confuse their probes with reality.

To put it another way, science extends our senses forward, backward, and below, in so doing "widening" our conception of the cosmos, both spatially and temporally. But religion serves a different purpose. It too is a probe in the dark, but it specifically probes the inward and the upward. This is the great confusion of both scientific fundamentalists and religious literalists. The former imagine that the horizontal probes of science exhaust all that may be probed, whereas the latter imagine that religion is meant to probe the material world. Thus, for example, they attempt to use Genesis to probe the horizontal, just as scientists imagine that they can explain anything of a non-trivial nature about the vertical by relying solely upon their sensory probes.

This is something I actually understood when I began studying psychoanalysis. I began doing so at a time when psychoanalysis had fallen out of favor among strict scientific types, who regarded it more as a "mythology," even a sort of cult invented by Freud. What I realized is that the concepts of psychoanalysis are precisely analogous to probes we may use to explore consciousness, as we try to extend our knowledge from the well-lit area of the ego, across the subjective horizon into the darkness of the unconscious. There are a number of different psychoanalytic schools, and they each "work." Why is this? How can this be?

I believe it is because it is not so much the explicit theory that counts, so long as it may be used as a probe to explore the unconscious and to widen that part of consciousness that we have "colonized." The unconscious is just as dark and silent as the subatomic world until we have developed a "language of achievement" with which to probe and illuminate it. (I might add that one of the virtues of Bion is that he attempted to convert these "concrete" theoretical probes into something more abstract, which is precisely what science does as it moves from induction to deduction, or from particular, to general, and back to particular.)

I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of psychoanalysis, but let us transfer the same general idea to religion. To try to understand psychoanalytic concepts as an objective description of the mind is to misunderstand them, precisely. Again, they are subjective probes we use to reach into the darkness of the unconscious mind. Likewise, a religious system must be similarly understood as probe we may fruitfully use to reach into eternity, the vertical, the interior, the great within, heaven, whatever you wish to call it. Even if you don't consciously realize you are doing this, this is what you are doing when you "indwell" religion. You are expanding your consciousness and thinking about things that are otherwise unthinkable in the absence of the religious system.

Indeed, this is why religion persists and will always persist, because human beings, alone among the animals, have a built in need to reconcile themselves to the vertical, on pain of no longer being human. I was thinking about this the other day, in considering the first humans who awakened to the vertical. In fact, in every sense, "awakening to the vertical" is synonymous with "becoming human." I am currently reading a book, Before the Dawn, that I will soon be reporting to you on. It goes into the latest research on human origins, and I wanted to use it to update or correct any outdated information in Chapter 3 of One Cosmos.

The author confirms one of my main points, that anatomically modern humans emerged by approximately 100,000 years ago, and yet, there was no evidence of what we call genuine "humanness" -- which coincides with the discovery of the interior vertical world -- until it suddenly burst upon the scene some 50,000 years ago. Just as we have forgotten the experiential intensity of the early Christians, it's easy to dismiss the intensity of what it must have felt like for the earliest humans to awaken to the vertical -- the mother of all (?!)s, as it were. As Joyce said in his meandertale, they must have been completely astoneaged!

Consider some of the famous cave art that emerged in Europe after our great awakening. What force prompted our furbears to do this? Consider the fact that some of these caves are accessible only by long tunnels that extend deep into the earth, and are hardly wider than a human body, not as bad as boarding an airplane, but close.

Someone -- again, compelled by what mythterious force? -- had to be the first to wriggle down that tunnel into pure darkness, where he was eventually released into an underground cavern. His newly awakened soul then felt compelled to adorn the walls of this cavern temple with beautiful, fully realized works of art -- with mankind's first "masterpieces." Upon seeing the Altamira paintings, Picasso -- who was in a position to know about decadence -- famously remarked, "after Altamira, all is decadence." For this was art in its purest sense, in that it was obviously completely divorced from any commercial or egotistical motives. Rather, it was a purely spontaneous attempt to probe the interior reality to which humans had gained unique access, and to reconcile man to the vertical.

Now, where was I? Something about leading a spiritual life in the modern world. Now that we have more of an idea of what spirituality is intended to do, we are in a better position to come up with a way to organize our life around that endeavor -- to create conditions in which we may experientially "probe the vertical" with our cooncanes, so to speak.

Frithjof Schuon has said that "The chief difficulty of the spiritual life is to maintain a simple, qualitative, heavenly position in a complex, quantitative, earthly setting." When we chase after the exterior world and its shadowy phenomena, this has the effect of both externalizing and dispersing our consciousness, when the essence of a spiritual practice involves centration, interiorization, and assimilation -- as mentioned a couple of days ago, living from the top down and inside out. It is an "ascending descent" or "descending ascent."

In externalizing and dispersing our consciousness, science tends to get lost in time, in phenomena. But the vertical is only accessible in the present moment that is given to us, and the present is not actually a part of time, but at a right angle to it. A kind of remembrance must take place in this present moment -- vertical remembrance, which is what prayer, meditation, and contemplation are all about. This is what Schuon calls the "liberating center," but it is only available to us through 1) centration, by whatever means necessary, and 2), ascent (of the awakened soul) and/or descent (of grace).

It follows that a simple life, free of needless distractions, is best. I see it very much as creating stable boundary conditions so that something higher may emerge from the lower -- just as we can only speak meaningfully by relying upon stable rules of grammar, or create music by relying upon fixed scales. This is why I mentioned yesterday that my outward life may not look like much -- trophy wife, accessory baby, and bitchin' stereo notwithstanding -- but is in fact a continuous interior adventure that would be impossible if my life were more complicated, or if I were married to someone who, say, preferred fancy restaurants over the NHL playoffs. The one reality would eclipse the other, and I'd be blind as a moonbat.


jwm said...

Speaking of cave art, which placed a little transcendant beauty in a dark and hidden place, we now have it's inverse, the un-makers' uglification of free and open places, which like all inverted leftspeak is called "street art". Well, remember that commie prop looking poster picture of the 0 with the "HOPE" thang? It seems the artist ripped off the image. Not only that, The cops just busted his worthless ass for -you guessed it-



Dougman said...

"It follows that a simple life, free of needless distractions, is best. I see it very much as creating stable boundary conditions so that something higher may emerge from the lower--"

Not only a simple life but free of chaos.
I lead a very simple life,..correct that. I'm following as my wife leads our Family in a simple life overflowing with chaos and discord.
(She was also stricken with BDS and was in the tank for President Obama.)
As soon as I enter a state of inspiration i'm dragged back into her insanity.
But I would not have taken the road that has lead me here if it had not been for her birthing the Kids that her doctors said she would never have. Snared, I was.

I should feel glad though because the more resistance I face, the longer the journey.
Like chewing on a carmel as apposed to swallowing it whole.

Viva la resistance!

a used carmel ?! Eeeewww

jwm said...

Dougman: You have my sympathy, and empathy regarding the domestic political rift. I've created my own sort of political lacunae to keep peace in the household. To put it plainer terms. I just don't go there. But it is difficult.


Zoltan said...

"Truly, we believe in order that we may know."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a mis-representation of Augustine's famous observation, credo ut intelligam.

Augustine's obervation is a true one. This mis-representation of his is not.

Augustine meant to say, as usually translated in English, "I believe in order to understand." He did not mean to say I believe in order to know in the sense of gnosis, a complete participation of one in the being of the "other.

He was dealing in this instance with the mundane rubrics of understanding in the sense of intellection.

He was well aware of the difference between intellection and participation (agape or gnosis).

Had he meant gnosis, knowledge by participation, he would have used a form of scio or noero/noro instead of this form of intelligendo.

The difference is important and he picked his words carefully, as always.

He did not intend to say or say, "I believe in order to have knowledge, to know." He would not have made such a statement because it would not be a true statement.

Had he meant to remark the prius of knowledge in the sense of gnosis, he would have said something along the lines of, "I am saved by God in order that I may have knowledge of HIm, myself and my world."

The difference between intellection and agape participation is pronounced. Grasping the difference is one task of mental housekeeping that forestalls the collapse of religion into mere geometry.

walt said...

I often wonder why it seems such a challenge to remain in the present moment - or even if I can remain "in the vicinity," to have a clear sense of NOW, rather than the complete sense of being in passing-time.

What is the "attraction" of past and future, of memory (past) and imagination (future), that keeps us there rather than HERE, where we are (obviously, when we pay attention)?

C.S. Lewis wrote, "For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity." If that is so, then we gno where to aim.

It seems like more than just habit, or culture. Personally, I link it to a deficit, a weakness of attention -- of centration, as the post says. Without that, everything proceeds willy-nilly, and we are "lived" by what stimulates us, by what comes our way.

Thanks for the Sunday post!

ximeze said...

Take a look at The Obama Aesthetic for other sources ripped-off by de Berrasites.

Gagdad Bob said...


I wasn't actually referencing Augustine. I was quoting Petey. Where he got it, I believe I don't know, and I don't know if I'd believe him anyway.

QP said...

Walt- How to allocate one's attention is a concern of mine as well, as was it of William James, who wrote “Wisdom is the art of knowing what to overlook”. This interview of the author of Distracted: The Erosion of Attention caught my attention earlier today.

I need to allocate more attention to "executive" attention.

Serr8d said...

A comment here led me to your blog.

I'll continue reading it now.

walt said...

Good article, QP! Thanks!

He said, "In our country, stillness and reflection are not especially valued..."

Ha-ha, gee, d'ya think?

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks, Bob!
I love these rePeteys, and the Queeg takedowns are fun to read. :^)
It's good to read the decent and classy (and rational) Klinghoffer (in contrast, to Queeg's shrill and paranoid tantrums which never address any significant points even on a horizontal level).

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Welcome aboard! You got a nice lookin' blog! :^)

River Cocytus said...

serr8d, long time no see.

Zoltan said...

Bob, I regret occasioning concern.

In composing the comment I was aware that you were not referencing Augustine deliberately, nor necessarily in approbation of the quote itself, whatever its source.

My purpose was of general principle, to highlight and observe the verisimilitude but actual disloyalty of the quote to Augustine's intent and archetypal verity.

Walt, a thought for remaining in the present: do what you want to do.

Anonymous said...

Walt, you are ready for Tolle's "The Power of Now" or "Sialence Speaks."

Bob has panned Tolle but I think the B'ob missed the boat. These Tolle books can be extremely helpful.

As for the simple life: yes, if you can get it. Most can't. In fact, the most difficult feat of arms in the spiritual battle for Earth is to be peaceful in the face of external provocations.

Do that, and you have much done much more than if you had achieved peace via the simple life.

God wants us to confront chaos; it his His gift to you. Each thorny problem is a love tap from Him.

Any adverse person, place or thing can be used to become more peaceful, more centered, more silent,and more surrendered.

julie said...

Zoltan, that could be dangerous advice...

walt said...


What (oh WHAT) could Julie possibly mean by that?

(Thanks Zoltan! That suits my personality type!)

River Cocytus said...

I think its safe to go against Augustine's intent.

Some things he had right, others he had very wrong.

Also, Zolt: I have a vocabulary sufficient to read your comment, but its wording makes it almost illegible.

Is that done on purpose?

Zoltan said...

"Is that done on purpose?"

Yes, for your benefit.