Have Faith: Word is Saving Unity

20 Guests, 0 Users

Where lipstick is concerned, the important thing is not color, but to accept God's final word on where your lips end. ~ Jerry Seinfeld

Advanced search

Dilber MulticolorMarley TPSMF Default Theme -

[Francis]

About the title: I wrote the essay that follows on a borrowed laptop, titling it simply “Unity.” As I composed the piece, I would frequently type ‘ctrl-s’ to save changes. This initiated a message from the software telling me that “Word is saving Unity.” As a superstitious person, I took this as a sign that I was on the right track.

As a mystic, I know only this; everything is connected. There is not the slightest separation that was ever possible or ever will be. Everything is connected into One Thing. The scientist calls this the Universe. It’s an apt moniker, if you ask me. However, some people prefer other names. Some even say that the ‘true name’ is a powerful secret. 
 
Regardless of terminology, the unity of creation is so fundamental to mysticism that the two ideas are nearly identical. As Golas says: “Whether you realize it or not, you are at one with all that exists and all that doesn’t exist.” We cannot even escape our connection to nonexistence, much less to existence. Resistance is futile; you are, right now, fully assimilated. Even death changes nothing in this equation.
   
Could all this be wrong? Of course it could be, but the implications are staggering. It would mean that the Universe does not exist.

Why do people feel isolated if they are not? Most mystics agree that this feeling is the result of a narrowing of consciousness. Others simply call it an illusion, which amounts to the same thing. Illusions are created when some aspects of experience are ignored. Since the mind is never able to accommodate all aspects of an experience; illusion is part and parcel of the human condition. We don’t have all the facts; we cannot have them all because they won’t all fit into our consciousness. There simply is not enough room. Therefore we must ignore some aspects of our true condition. This ignoring, this ignorance, gives rise to the feeling of isolation. This is all standard metaphysical fare.

The expansion of consciousness that characterizes the mystical experience allows a glimpse at the unity of creation. For a brief time, the mystic transcends the bounds of ignorance and experiences the unity of creation. He doesn’t do this by gaining all the facts. Rather, he begins to see that all of the facts presented are intimately connected. Despite the recalcitrant residue of his lingering ignorance, he is now only one step away from the conviction that all facts, both visible and hidden, are connected. This step requires faith, a faith typically born, on wobbly legs, of the mystical expansion of consciousness. Such is the genesis of the concept of universal unity. 

[Nickeson]

Francis,
One doesn't have to be a mystic to arrive at your conclusions. Even a minimally functioning set of sensory faculties, a minimally functioning sense of quantum physics, and an eye for process, when combined with a hint from somewhere to think about it for a few minutes, will congeal the whole scene empirically. Res ipsa loquitur. What is nice about this perspective is that it doesn't involve belief or any notion of the truth, both of which are impediments to instinctual functioning.



As with the Cutie and the Crone one can switch the figure and the ground between absolute connection and absolute separation and have a have a totally different scene. Each one is as coherent and satisfying as the other.

Does this swell my heart with rapture? Not particularly. I'm not betting the farm on either proposition because there very well could be a third alternative. But, so what? No matter which scene is playing, I'm still putting my pants on one leg at a time.

Ciao.
Steven (note the 'n')

P.S. What is this "sense of isolation" about. It sounds to me to be a phrase concerning one who thinks before looking.

[Francis]

Hey thanks Steven. Please allow me to explain...

The evidence is all around. No doubt. But I think that the evidence is undermined by certain common processes.

The intellect in general, and science in particular, both tend to atomize the Universe. What I mean is that they both have a tendency to cleave connections in the mind, creating models that isolate ideas, objects and relationships, for the purpose of analysis. The word ‘define’ means to divide, typically right at the nexus.

As with the Cutie and the Crone one can switch the figure and the ground between absolute connection and absolute separation and have a have a totally different scene. Each one is as coherent and satisfying as the other.

 I don't see a cutie and a crone; I see a cutie and a 'cougar'...just kidding...

There is no absolute separation, but the process of intellection requires the assumption of arbitrary separations for the sake of analysis. Such separation doesn’t really exist. Yet, it often works, because the connections that are ignored can often have a negligible effect on the problem under consideration. For example, we might be able to ignore the effect of air resistance on the trajectory of a bowling ball dropped out a window. The air is in direct contact with the ball the whole time. Yet we choose to ignore this for the sake of convenience and get the benefit of a less cumbersome calculation.

Thus we tend to proliferate a sense of isolation with respect to all objects, including individuals. The individual is just another bowling ball, as far as the intellect is concerned.

In short I’m saying that absolute connection is always the case, and that true physical separation can not exist, except as an idea. Yet thinking in terms of separation becomes habitual and undermines the feeling of unity. This happens despite the fact that the idea of separation is merely an expedient that deliberately, and with full knowledge, distorts the real situation for the sake of convenience. It’s like a so called white lie, told as an expedient, to avoid explaining everything that is the real case. After awhile, people forget that it’s a lie, assume its absolute vercity, and end up feeling isolated because they believe the lie. I guess you could call it a form of repression and thus, technically speaking, a mental illness. 

[Nickeson]

Francis,

A nicely done explanation, thanks; however I understood all that from the beginning, bowling ball through the air and whatsoever.

My problem was...still is, I guess...with this concept called the truth. I don't understand what truth is outside of a few basic 1+1=2 kind of things. So I don't pay it the same kind of attention as I would a functional aphorism like "Man is the measure of all things." And I usually measure my stuff in terms of pragmatic functionality and utility with a privileging of something like, "Do whatever works."

If I am doing an open-eyed meditation then it is with unity that I am measuring the universe.

If I am doing a forge-weld on my anvil then I am conforming the universe to an entirely different style of measurement. (I am not saying my mind creates the universe, but it can manipulate certain of its qualities to maximize the attainment of my needs.) In those close moments it would be irrelevant to the situation, a little inane and probably dysfunctional to think to myself, "I know I am operating under false assumptions and this is not the way the world is at all."

And like I said before I don't have to believe in either perspective. I don't care what the truth of the matter is. Each perspective is a tool, like a wrench when nuts and bolts are under consideration and  a hammer when nails are in the picture. If both bolts and nails are absent then I'm not thinking of either a hammer or a wrench much less maintaining a thought like, "A wrench is okay in its place, but through it all a hammer is The Truth."

Ciao,
Steven

[Francis]

Steven,
Yes, well the blind worship of expediency and pragmatism certainly can take on a “damn the torpedoes” type of tyrannical power over the mind. Science and engineering are no strangers to this trap. As a precaution, I treat pragmatism as if it only works as a way to compromise on principle, but never as a substitute for principle. Otherwise the ends justify the means, and pragmatism becomes an end in itself. Once aroused, the unbridled tide of pragmatism consumes everything in its wake. No light can ever escape its self-referential cocoon. It’s all fun and games ‘til karma comes a knockin’ – if it ever does. In case it does, I’m hedging my bets. Consider a little Tolstoy:

During the long and painful process of death, Ivan dwells on the idea that he does not deserve his suffering because he has lived rightly. If he had not lived a good life, there could be reason for his pain; but he has, so pain and death must be arbitrary and senseless. As he begins to hate his family for avoiding the subject of his death, for pretending he is only sick and not dying, he finds his only comfort in his peasant boy servant Gerasim--the only person in Ivan’s life who does not fear death, and also the only one--apart from his son--who shows compassion for Ivan. Ivan begins to question whether he has, in fact, lived rightly.
In the final days of Ivan’s life, he makes a clear split between artificial life, the life of himself and his family that masks the true meaning of life and makes one fear death, and authentic life, the life of Gerasim. Authentic life is marked by compassion and empathy, artificial by self-interest. Then “some force” strikes Ivan in the chest and side, and he is brought into the presence of a bright light. His hand falls onto his nearby son’s head, and he pities him. He no longer hates his son or wife, but rather feels sorry for them, because he has found at last a joy in authentic life and they will continue their artificial lives, fearing death. In the middle of a sigh, Ivan dies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Ivan_Ilyich
   

[Nickeson]

Francis,
Yours is a stock answer to the stock, conventional wisdom about Pragmatism. But what you have in mind is not pragmatic.

Real pragmatism is kind of like a principle, but I won't dwell on that for "principle" is, like "truth" and "justice," such a whore word...all three, and many other sentimental favorites, will put out for anybody who will pay the little energy it takes to use them. I would rather think that "pragmatic" is an adverb that describes behavior that embraces respect, cooperation, compassion, generosity, love and mutuality as well as toughness and (Tah Dah)...sovereignty, the major pitfall to which is belief in the illusion that we know anything at all. All of these things work while the other things that you suggest to be pragmatic don't work. Richard Rorty said he was a pragmatist and others thought him to be Utopian. How does that connect to the dire onset of karmic retribution that you seem to foresee in exercise of the "P" word.

I don't know whether it is sad or funny to see how people are so conditioned by herd-thought that derives from the careless or manipulated use of language to the point that one could not imagine the word "pragmatic" describing the behavior of people treating each other well. Do you think this comes from the fact that what is said to be taught as critical thinking is actually the teaching of political propaganda...left, right or center? I have theorized that the only true critical thinkers are nihilists, those whose sole attempt at a belief is to say, "This appears to be what is happening now." So, who really needs more assurance of anything but that?

As always, yours in the spirit of Yevgeny Vasil'evich Bazarov,  (There are times when Turgenev trumps Tolstoy.)

Steven

P.S. Jana, if you happen to read this and you are talking up the Taoist perspective, don't forget that all the best Taoists are nihilists and vice-versa. Could it be any other way?

[Francis]

I would rather think that "pragmatic" is an adverb that describes behavior that embraces respect, cooperation, compassion, generosity, love and mutuality as well as toughness and (Tah Dah)...sovereignty

Of course you would rather think that. That is, rather than face the fact that pragmatism has only one agenda; expediency at all cost. To me, 'pragmatic' implies: respect for only the goal; generosity toward, and cooperation with, only those who can help attain the goal; with love and mutual affection reserved for those who expedite attainment of the goal. ‘Pragmatic’ is an adverb, an adverb that indicates an approach that discounts everything but the goal.

If any or all of these things (respect, cooperation, compassion, generosity, love and mutuality) are more important than the goal, then pragmatism is perhaps in its proper place. In general, pragmatism does not bow to respect, cooperation, compassion, generosity, love or mutuality, unless someone demands it. Pragmatism sees only the goal, and would prefer to proceed directly at it, in an unfettered manner.

Without some pragmatism; nothing ever gets done. With too much emphasis on pragmatism; we risk losing too much as we try to achieve the goal, whatever it is.

It seems to me that pragmatism's proper place is to serve as the bitch-slave to respect, cooperation, compassion, generosity, love and mutuality. It's a pawn, not a king.

Cheers,
F

[Nickeson]

Francis,

"Welcome to my parlor said the spider to the fly..."

It has been a long time since I have read such passionate adherence definitions promulgated out of conventional wisdom and impotent idealist metaphysics.

To me, 'pragmatic' implies: respect for only the goal; generosity toward, and cooperation with, only those who can help attain the goal; with love and mutual affection reserved for those who expedite attainment of the goal.

So goes it "for you" and those others who seem not to understand the principle of the perspective.

This did not go for John Dewey, by far the greatest proponent of Pragmatism, or his bulldog, Richard Rorty, or for me.

The following is a long quote from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy re: Dewey:

"Dewey rejected the atomistic understanding of society of the Hobbesian social contract theory, according to which the social, cooperative aspect of human life was grounded in the logically prior and fully articulated rational interests of individuals. Dewey’s claim in Experience and Nature that the collection of meanings that constitute the mind have a social origin expresses the basic contention, one that he maintained throughout his career, that the human individual is a social being from the start, and that individual satisfaction and achievement can be realized only within the context of social habits and institutions that promote it.

"Moral and social problems, for Dewey, are concerned with the guidance of human action to the achievement of socially defined ends that are productive of a satisfying life for individuals within the social context. Regarding the nature of what constitutes a satisfying life, Dewey was intentionally vague, out of his conviction that specific ends or goods can be defined only in particular socio-historical contexts. In theEthics (1932) he speaks of the ends simply as the cultivation of interests in goods that recommend themselves in the light of calm reflection. In other works, such as Human Nature and Conduct and Art as Experience, he speaks of (1) the harmonizing of experience (the resolution of conflicts of habit and interest both within the individual and within society), (2) the release from tedium in favor of the enjoyment of variety and creative action, and (3) the expansion of meaning (the enrichment of the individual’s appreciation of his or her circumstances within human culture and the world at large). The attunement of individual efforts to the promotion of these social ends constitutes, for Dewey, the central issue of ethical concern of the individual; the collective means for their realization is the paramount question of political policy.

"Conceived in this manner, the appropriate method for solving moral and social questions is the same as that required for solving questions concerning matters of fact: an empirical method that is tied to an examination of problematic situations, the gathering of relevant facts, and the imaginative consideration of possible solutions that, when utilized, bring about a reconstruction and resolution of the original situations. Dewey, throughout his ethical and social writings, stressed the need for an open-ended, flexible, and experimental approach to problems of practice aimed at the determination of the conditions for the attainment of human goods and a critical examination of the consequences of means adopted to promote them, an approach that he called the “method of intelligence.”

"The central focus of Dewey’s criticism of the tradition of ethical thought is its tendency to seek solutions to moral and social problems in dogmatic principles and simplistic criteria which in his view were incapable of dealing effectively with the changing requirements of human events. In Reconstruction of Philosophyand The Quest for Certainty, Dewey located the motivation of traditional dogmatic approaches in philosophy in the forlorn hope for security in an uncertain world, forlorn because the conservatism of these approaches has the effect of inhibiting the intelligent adaptation of human practice to the ineluctable changes in the physical and social environment. Ideals and values must be evaluated with respect to their social consequences, either as inhibitors or as valuable instruments for social progress, and Dewey argues that philosophy, because of the breadth of its concern and its critical approach, can play a crucial role in this evaluation.

"In large part, then, Dewey’s ideas in ethics and social theory were programmatic rather than substantive, defining the direction that he believed human thought and action must take in order to identify the conditions that promote the human good in its fullest sense, rather than specifying particular formulae or principles for individual and social action. He studiously avoided participating in what he regarded as the unfortunate practice of previous moral philosophers of offering general rules that legislate universal standards of conduct. But there are strong suggestions in a number of his works of basic ethical and social positions. In Human Nature and Conduct Dewey approaches ethical inquiry through an analysis of human character informed by the principles of scientific psychology. The analysis is reminiscent of Aristotelian ethics, concentrating on the central role of habit in formulating the dispositions of action that comprise character, and the importance of reflective intelligence as a means of modifying habits and controlling disruptive desires and impulses in the pursuit of worthwhile ends.

"The social condition for the flexible adaptation that Dewey believed was crucial for human advancement is a democratic form of life, not instituted merely by democratic forms of governance, but by the inculcation of democratic habits of cooperation and public spiritedness, productive of an organized, self-conscious community of individuals responding to society’s needs by experimental and inventive, rather than dogmatic, means. The development of these democratic habits, Dewey argues in School and Society and Democracy and Education, must begin in the earliest years of a child’s educational experience. Dewey rejected the notion that a child’s education should be viewed as merely a preparation for civil life, during which disjoint facts and ideas are conveyed by the teacher and memorized by the student only to be utilized later on. The school should rather be viewed as an extension of civil society and continuous with it, and the student encouraged to operate as a member of a community, actively pursuing interests in cooperation with others. It is by a process of self-directed learning, guided by the cultural resources provided by teachers, that Dewey believed a child is best prepared for the demands of responsible membership within the democratic community."

~~~~~~~

I see nothing here that vaguely relates to Francis's "To me..." definition of pragmatism. Now if you had developed the specific philosophy and principles of pragmatism instead of Dewey, developed them along the lines as expressed in your last post, you would certainly have the advantage. But you didn't. Dewey did. The advantage goes to Dewey. Your "To me..." has no weight except as conventional wisdom and so it can be dismissed.

As for Rorty the following is a brief overview (also from the IEP) of his path to pragmatism that result in tolerance and freedom...not in the single minded attainment of a personally idiosyncratic goal.

"Richard Rorty is an important American philosopher of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century who blended expertise in philosophy and comparative literature into a perspective called “The New Pragmatism” or “neopragmatism.” Rejecting the Platonist tradition at an early age, Rorty was initially attracted to analytic philosophy. As his views matured he came to believe that this tradition suffered in its own way from representationalism, the fatal flaw he associated with Platonism. Influenced by the writings of Darwin, Gadamer, Hegel and Heidegger, he turned towards Pragmatism.

"Rorty’s thinking as a historicist, anti-essentialist found its fullest expression in 1979 in his most noted book, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Abandoning all claims to a privileged mental power that allows direct access to things-in-themselves, he offered an alternative narrative which adapts Darwinian evolutionary principles to the philosophy of language. The result was an attempt to establish a thoroughly naturalistic approach to issues of science and objectivity, to the mind-body problem, and to concerns about the nature of truth and meaning. In Rorty’s view, language is to be employed as an adaptive tool used to cope with the natural and social environments to achieve a desired, pragmatic end.

"Motivating his entire program is Rorty’s challenge to the notion of a mind-independent, language-independent reality that scientists, philosophers, and theologians appeal to when professing their understanding of the truth. This greatly influences his political views. Borrowing from Dewey’s writings on democracy, especially where he promotes philosophy as the art of the politically useful leading to policies that are best, Rorty ties theoretical inventiveness to pragmatic hope. In place of traditional concerns about whether what one believes is well-grounded, Rorty, in Philosophy and Social Hope (1999), advises that it is better to focus on whether one has been imaginative enough to develop interesting alternatives to one’s present beliefs. His assumption is that in a foundationless world, creative, secular humanism must replace the quest for an external authority (God, Nature, Method, and so forth) to provide hope for a better future. He characterizes that future as being free from dogmatically authoritarian assertions about truth and goodness. Thus, Rorty sees his New Pragmatism as the legitimate next step in completing the Enlightenment project of demystifying human life, by ridding humanity of the constricting “ontotheological” metaphors of past traditions, and thereby replacing the power relations of control and subjugation inherent in these metaphors with descriptions of relations based on tolerance and freedom."

~~~~~~~

Again I see nothing here that justifies my acceptance of what pragmatism means "to you." My definition of pragmatism is what works for me and how I operate in the world. If you want to shout its negation from my sidelines, hey, knock yourself out for all the good it will do you.

Ciao
Steven

[Francis]

"The central focus of Dewey’s criticism of the tradition of ethical thought is its tendency to seek solutions to moral and social problems in dogmatic principles and simplistic criteria which in his view were incapable of dealing effectively with the changing requirements of human events. ...

"Imagine the audacity of these, backward-thinking, intransigent moralists! Telling me, John Dewey, the acclaimed intellectual, that murder and torture are wrong!  These simplistic, one-size-fits-all rules don't apply to me. I'm from a new age. Now, where's that black-hood and jumper-cables...anybody seen my water-board around here..."

Dewey can criticize all he wants. I'm critical of people who forget the lessons of the past, and people who waste time reinventing the wheel. Without simple, rigid rules; we get bogged down with interpreting caveats. Ever read the tax code?

[Dewey felt that the] conservatism of these approaches has the effect of inhibiting the intelligent adaptation of human practice to the ineluctable changes in the physical and social environment.

Sure it has that effect, and that's the price, but the upside is that we avoid having to waste time continuously reinventing the wheel and we avoid making costly mistakes because of poor judgment. I don't think the hope for security is all that forlorn. Rather, the hope for security is even more forlorn when we indiscriminately throw away all the rules. Dewey could learn a few things from Super-Nanny, if you asked me. Did you ask me? Anyway, I answered.

http://www.supernanny.com/TV-Show/Clips/Clips/The-naughty-step-in-action.aspx

Rigid rules work fine for flexible people. I find that it's the inflexible people that are always hollering for more flexible rules. Dewey and Rorty are the real prudes. The pot is calling the kettle black, once again. What you resist; you become.

Pragatism is nothing but an engorged parasite on the underbelly of philosophy. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Take that, Spiderman! By the way toucans eat spiders for breakfast, look it up.

[Francis]

Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote:

“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.”

[Nickeson]

Francis,

It was almost heartening to sense the gusto behind your ad hominum comments on Dewey and Rorty. It is a spirit that seems so uncharacteristic of the tedium in the well-modulated misanthropy that colors so many of the post on this forum. Good on you.

Until I read your second post I was thinking there was more here than just the idle need for entertainment between feedings that motivates so much philosophical and spiritual discourse on the internet. I thought this was a personal issue with you; something linked to childhood trauma or perhaps your first love had been stolen away by a nebbish they called Duey. But your second post allayed my fears about the state of your emotional health. Now I know that this gusto comes from a fundamental foundationalism based on the "intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality" whatever that might be. I will not object...whatever gets you through your night.

But I would like to say that after some reexamination of our posts I thought we were wasting time: 1) By not sorting out the difference between Pragmatism as a proper noun signifying a formal philosophy and pragmatism as an adverb concerning the practicality of action. Although there was some bleed-through on both sides my posts privileged the adverb and yours the proper noun. From the third grade on all United Statians know, or should know, that modifiers are the servants of the nouns and verbs. And, 2) a close reading of my sentence that says in part: "..."pragmatic" is an adverb that describes behavior that embraces respect, cooperation, compassion, generosity, love and mutuality as well as toughness and (Tah Dah)...sovereignty..." would have rendered the notion that I was putting a rather abstract concept at the service of some fine human qualities in order to communicate that these positive qualities of humanity are probably more practical in the long run than self-seeking ones. (This is based on my experience from childhood on. Now I don't have the hubris to either know or say how other people should conduct their lives. I have spent 65 years living more or less on the margins of civilization and its various morality factories; religions, spiritual traditions, educational facilities, political parties, governments, social movements and what-have-you and I preferred not to get any of their stuff on me. And in the spirit of brotherhood and altruism I did not see why I should expect others to be doused with what I sought to avoid. I don't need a sangha to front for me, the patented righteousness of Bhikkhu Bodhi notwithstanding.)

Anyway, a close reading, as I said, of the sentence above would have spared you the need to write "It seems to me that pragmatism's proper place is to serve as the bitch-slave to respect, cooperation, compassion, generosity, love and mutuality. It's a pawn, not a king" because it was obviously redundant of what I had written before. But, I understand that at that point your fundamentalism was up and its light might have been too bright for easy discernment of nuances in a sentence that was perhaps (in relation to your own) too sophisticated and obscure...my apologies if you found it to be so.

So, it has been real, but in light of your apparent concurrence with The Rev. Mr. Bodhi's admonition, I see no future in further communication.

Ciao
Steven

[Francis]

From the third grade on all United Statians know, or should know, that modifiers are the servants of the nouns and verbs.

Steven,

How about the adverbs such as "phony", "corrupted" or "imaginary" -just to name a few. Clearly these adverbs completely overwhelm and dominate the verbs they modify, relegating the 'modified' verb to the station of impotent servant-simile. 'Pragmatic love' could be just prostitution, for example. Some modifications strip the verb of all its power. Is this news?

I agree your point quoted above is perhaps compelling for a few slow third graders, so we've narrowed down your target audience. It's only because they haven't yet learned about how Brutus (the servant) betrayed Caesar (the king).

Ba-bye
F 

[Michael]

Thanks for the interesting Fight Club episode guys.  There were a few good moments there...   

There are those around here that miss your razor sharp wit Steven.  I can only hope that you may find more worthy foils...here or elsewhere.

[Nickeson]

Michael,

Thank you for the compliment. You know there are those who would like to read more of your wisdom on this site also.

[Michael]

Thanks Steven,  point taken.