| Adjective Pragmatism |
[19 Apr 2009|08:44pm] |
Ethical Adjectivism:
Adjective Pragmatism as a Reconciliation of the Conflict Between Ethical Objectivism and Ethical Non-Objectivism
Ethical Adjectivism
This text is an attempt to establish a logical framework that can serve as means of reconciliation between contradictory moral objective truths without reverting to a morally meaningless non-objective pragmatism. This is not an attempt at defining moral truths. Adjectivism serves as my model for understanding how contradictory moral objective truths can be used pragmatically in a system that retains moral relevance.
The Etymology of the Term Adjectivism
Adjectivism is the compromise between two opposing schools of philosophical thought, Ethical Objectivism and Ethical Non-Objectivism (Ethical Subjectivism). In order to understand the relationship of these concepts we should first look at the etymology of these words. The words object, subject and adject all come from the same latin root, jacere (to throw to). These words are as follows:
Object= a thing presented (thrown to).
Subject= to be presented (thrown to) beneath, (or where object is presented)
Adject= to add to (or "to throw to" in addition)
The term object is the thing observed. It is “thrown to” the observer. The subject is that which the object is presented or “thrown to”. The prefix ad- then refers to the addition of the observer and the observed. Objectivism is the perception and concept that the universe consists of independently existing objects or concepts that exist independent of an observer (realism is an example). Subjectivism refers to the perception or concept that the universe consists entirely from the perspective of the observer and therefore is relative to the mind of the observer (idealism is an example). Adjectivism therefore, is the perception that the universe is not simply a collection of objects nor is the universe simply relative to the mind of the observer. Instead, the universe and reality exist as the intimate relationship of the observer and the observed and the universe in turn is not merely a collection of subjects and objects, but an interconnected web where subjects and objects are not separate from each other and minds are not separate from the environment they perceive.
The term adjective also has other significant meanings. The noun form of the word adjective means to qualify or place attributes on objects. In Adjectivism, this would describe the relationship of the observer and the observed because the act of observation is what determines qualitative attributes. The adjective form of the word adjective actually means “dependent upon”, or “not standing alone”. Adjectivism therefore also suggests that there are no such things as independently existing subjects or objects. The act of observation is adjective in that the subject and the object are mutually dependent on each other to exist in that relationship.
The Metaphysics of Adjectivism
Quantum Physics has been uncovering a general cosmology of the universe where we no longer see the universe as a collection of independent pieces. An Objectivist in this regard would claim (as Einstein did) that fundamentally the universe is composed of a plurality of independent building blocks that exist inherently independent.
Quantum Physics has determined that it is illusory to see the most fundamental layers of our universe as plurality of particles. In fact, it is more accurate to say that the universe is one interconnected whole with no independent parts.
Some proponents of Quantum Physics actually take a completely Subjectivist viewpoint of the universe (although this is a minority view). A Subjectivist view of cosmology is that the physical universe does not even truly exist unless observed and therefore the entire universe is merely a manifestation of the observer’s mind.
The most accepted view of the Quantum interpretation however, is that there is an intimate relationship between the observer and the environment, and just like there are no independent components of the universe, individual minds are also interconnected in the universe. Therefore, perception of the universe happens between the addition of observer and observed and reality is more correctly defined as the dissolution of the subject and object duality. This would be the Adjectivist view of cosmology. Therefore, Adjectivism is the reconciliation of subject and object duality/plurality by realizing the dependently originating reality of the universe, including the observer (subject) and observed (object).
In many ways this is very similar to John Dewey’s Metaphysics sometimes called Interactive Naturalism. John Dewey claimed the universe was an evolving and changing process where the subject and object duality was an illusion. In this universe, a philosophical pragmatism could be developed based on understanding the interconnection of all things and actions and understanding the consequences and outcomes of actions.
The Problems with Ethical Objectivism
Ethical Objectivism refers to a broad range of philosophies including Christian Theology, Kantian and Utilitarian Philosophy to name a few. They all have their own differences, but common to them all is the idea that there exist independent universal ethical truths that exist independent of individual people. These truths exist unchanging and according to the individual philosophies can be proven in one way or another to be universally true.
Christian Theology relies heavily on Greek Neo-Platonist and Neo-Aristotelian Greek philosophical truths such as Immutability, Omni-Benevolence, Omnipotence, Omniscience. These truths are seen as God’s attributes. In other words, God is perfect and therefore unchanging, all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. These truths are considered to objective truths and exist independently in the universe. God’s Law in turn is considered to have these same attributes because it is from God.
Kantian Philosophy attempts to define a universal logical truth that can be an objective definition of morality based on the treating of people as a means rather than as an ends, and through the strict rigid adherence to the duty of fulfilling ethical principles.
Utilitarian Philosophy suggests we should try to maximize the amounts of pleasure and minimize the amount of suffering in a community and therefore ethics can be determined universally upon this principle. In this way, Utilitarian Philosophy utilizes this as an objective truth that exists independent and universally.
However, all these schools of thoughts have contradictions. The first and most blatant happens when you try to juxtapose the independent objective truths about God. The reality is that these objective truths cannot all coexist without inherently contradicting each other. The simplest contradiction of these is the co-existence of Omnibenevolence, Omnipotence and Omniscience. If God is all good and God is all powerful then what creates evil? If God does not create evil because of Omnibenevolence and evil is created through human free will then God can’t be truly Omnipotent and God can’t be Omniscient because true free-will cannot be pre determined.
These are simple philosophical contradictions of Greek philosophical influences on Christian Theology. The most important point here is that objective truths have a tendency to contradict each other. Sometimes different objective truths from different schools of philosophy will directly contradict each other. This is the central position of Ethical Non-Objectivism. Every claim of a universal objective ethical truth seems to have a contradictory claim by another school of philosophy, or as we saw in Christian Theology, even from within its own principles. Utilitarian Philosophers will claim that their position is an objective truth, but Kantians would argue that their position is the real objective truth of ethics. These two are contradictory in many ways, and therefore a Non-Objectivist will argue that there are no provable ethical truths.
The Problems with Ethical Non-Objectivism (Ethical Subjectivism)
Ethical Subjectivism is the claim that there are no valid universal objective truths. Ethical Subjectivism claims that because contradictory claims of ethical objective truths cannot equally co-exist, ethical reality is ultimately determined solely relative to the individual perception.
Even the simplest claim such as “life is important” creates ethical contradictions. If individual life is important then all life is important. However, the objective universal truth that individual life is important and all life is important cannot co-exist in questions of ethics because inevitably you will be forced to break one of those truths in favor of the other. Sometimes the individual will come before other people (self-defense) and sometime other people will come before the individual (war and protection of others).
Furthermore, and Ethical Subjectivist will claim that even the claim that “individual life is important” cannot truly be proven scientifically or logically. Because ultimately no objective truth can truly be proven scientifically, ultimately every claim of an objective truth claim is actually a statement of opinion. The idea of an objective ethical truth may come from intuition, or emotions but there is no direct logical or scientific reasoning that will truly prove any objective truth. Ethical Non-Objectivists like A.J. Ayer would suggest that ethical truths are not grounded in science but are actually grounded in emotions about how we feel about ethics and philosophy.
For this reason proponents of ethical Non-Objectivism like Richard Rotry have suggested that a pragmatic approach to ethics is the only acceptable approach. Rorty’s Pragmatism suggests because there are no objective moral truths we must weigh the circumstances of a given situation and weigh the outcomes of given actions and determine an appropriate path to take when posed with a ethical dilemma.
Some Ethical Non-Objectivists would even say questions of ethics are entirely meaningless because ultimately they are not grounded in scientific facts and logical reasoning. This becomes the greatest problem of Ethical Non-Objectivism. Ethical Non-Objectivism ultimately leaves us with the notion that there truly is no real basis for ethical truths. In fact, some may go so far as to say ethical questions are meaningless, because all statements of ethics are merely statements of opinion.
Ethical Adjectivism or Adjective Pragmatism
We have seen that when we try to establish moral universal objective truths we end up with contradictory statements that cannot be proven scientifically. However, when we abandon the idea of ethical truths we end up with the conclusion that question of ethics are either meaningless or completely relative to the individual’s opinion. What Adjectivism is, is the attempt to establish a logical system of compromise that allows for the reconciliation of sometimes contradictory objective truth in a pragmatic approach that is not devoid of an objective backbone. In other words, Adjectivism is a way to pragmatically approach contradictory objective truths and determine an appropriate ethical decision based on the circumstances involved.
First, I must state clearly this is not an attempt at Moral Realism. I will not be attempting to prove any objective moral truths. Adjectivism is not an attempt to prove moral truths, it is a logical approach that can reconcile moral truths even when they seem contradictory.
I will be using the simplest contradictory objective moral truths to explain my position: individual life is important, and therefore all life is important. According to the Metaphysics of Adjectivism, the importance of life is established by recognizing the role a life form plays in creating reality. The existence of life is not only rare and unique but integral to the concept of reality itself. Accordingly, when one pushes further one realizes that the individual subjective observer is inherently interconnected with the objective universe. The observer and the observed become one through the process of perception. Therefore, we can establish that individual observers are also inherently interconnected. We then can extrapolate that all life is important and interconnected.
This sounds complete at first, but in questions of ethics these two objective truths become contradictory at times. Therefore, Adjective Pragmatism suggests that we determine a pragmatic solution to problems of ethics, but refer to objective truths when weighing the decision. In this way, Adjectivism is neither purely Objective, nor purely Subjective. Adjectivism is a pragmatic approach with an objective backbone. This solves the problem of contradictory objective truths and a blind pragmatism devoid of meaningful morality. Adjective Pragmatism is the compromise needed to reconcile contradictory objective truths into a pragmatic system that has moral truths in its process.
Adjective Pragmatism would be similar to John Dewey’s approach to ethics. Adjective Pragmatism would require a comprehensive understanding of both the circumstances involved and the outcomes of actions taken balanced with a constant reference to objective moral truths that are to be broken in contradiction when determined to be pragmatically appropriate.
Criticisms of Adjective Pragmatism
Admittedly, the first criticism is the same any ethical non-objectivist would use. The example I used, “life is important”, is not a provable fact. Even though I liked my extrapolation from Adjective Metaphysics, it is not necessarily more than an opinion. For this I restate, Adjectivism is not an attempt at Moral Realism. I am merely framing the logical reasoning needed to reconcile Objectivism and Subjectivism. The fact is Objectivism contains contradictions and Subjectivism can become devoid of meaningful morality. However, one determines their particular moral truths they still need to approach it pragmatically to avoid contradictions. Therefore, Adjective Pragmatism is that compromise.
Secondly, I feel that what Non-Objectivism truly proves is that reason alone is deficient in answering moral questions. Ethical Non-objectivists will claim that because claims cannot be backed up scientifically, ethical questions are ultimately meaningless. I claim that what they actually proved was that reason by itself is not enough to describe the whole of reality, and a pragmatic approach combined with non-logical components such as emotions and even faith are needed to adequately address question of ethics.
Works Cited
"object." Online Etymology Dictionary. 19 Apr 2009 <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=object&searchmode=none>.
Waller, Bruce N.. Consider Ethics. 2nd. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print.
|
|
| Perfection/Immutability, Omnipotence and Omniscience: The Refutation of the Christianization of Gree |
[10 Dec 2008|04:58pm] |
Perfection/Immutability, Omnipotence and Omniscience: The Refutation of the Christianization of Greek Philosophy by Process Theology
Plato’s World of Forms/Being
According to Plato, Ultimate Reality is composed of a dualistic relationship between two separate realities. The first and most important of these realities is typically called the World of Forms or the World of Being. The World of Being is composed of ultimate absolutes that form the prototypes that all created material realities take their “Form” from. The Forms are absolute and unchanging, and in contrast to the created instances of the Forms in the material world, these Forms do not decay, change or exist in motion or time. In this way, the Forms are absolute truths.
In contrast to the World of the Forms, Plato’s second concept in his dualistic worldview is typically called the World of Becoming. The World of Becoming refers to the corporeal and material world of created objects. The objects in the World of Becoming exist in a constant state of flux and change. This is the natural state of our universe according to Plato. The physical universe is composed of temporary impermanent objects that have no absolute form or being. To Plato, the universe is composed of objects that are temporary reflections of the Forms that don’t exist in any absolute sense, and are merely glimpses of the true Being of the Form of that object. In other words, a table is merely a temporary and changing instance of the absolute Form called “Table”. The same becomes true of concepts such “Good”, “Truth”, “and “Justice”. To Plato, these concepts exist in the world of Forms as absolutes that are the supreme and highest instance of these concepts. Earthly manifestations of these concepts are merely reflections of the absolute Form of the concept. For Plato, the Forms are the cause of being in all created objects, and their very being is determined and constructed as a reflection of the absolute Form. In this way, created temporal things are not inherently real, and have no permanent essence or being.
Aristotle’s View of Forms
Aristotle in contrast to Plato did not directly believe that being is caused by universal absolute forms. To Aristotle, created objects are inherently real, but have two types of being. To Aristotle there are essences (from the latin “esse” for being) and substances. Aristotle does not dismiss the Platonic Forms altogether but He clearly felt that the dualism between Form and object was blurred in so much that created objects contained both an essence and individual being. This will later become an influence in Boethius’ description of the concept of Being.
Aristotle did not feel that the Forms were separate and dualistic from the created object that the Form manifests. Rather, Aristotle felt that the Forms manifested within the inherently real objects and that there were no absolute Forms that dictated the how every objects existence manifests.
Aristotle explains Plato’s views on how the Form and created objects get their being or essence by stating,” It is clear that [Plato] only employed two causes; that of the essence, and that of the material cause; for the Forms are the cause of essence in everything else, and the One is the cause of it in the Forms. (Metaphysics Book I.VI pg. 319) Here Aristotle explains that the Forms give rise to the being of all created objects, and the One gives rise to the Being of the Forms. The One becomes referred to as God in Aristotle’s writing’s where God gives rise to all the created objects and is in itself absolute being, but in terms of the Platonic Forms, Aristotle abandons the concept of a dualistic Form/matter relationship, for a more interconnected relationship of a Prime Cause and Absolute Being where the created universe is filled with real objects whose creation is dependent upon the Prime Cause but not inherently dualistic or separate from it.
Aristotelian Theology
Aristotle clearly recognized the distinction between two realities. The material reality was in change and flux just as in Plato’s World of Becoming. Aristotle recognized the impermanence and changing state of the physical universe. However, contrary to Plato, Aristotle felt that Being was infused in the objects of the physical universe and not separate in Forms. However, Aristotle clearly had a concept of creation of physical matter by a greater concept of Being. The Cause of the universe has a “Prime Mover” which starts the creation and the movement of the constantly changing physical universe.
In this quote Aristotle directly calls this “Prime Cause” God, and describes God as the source of Life. “Moreover, life belongs to God. For the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and the essential actuality of God is life most good and eternal. We hold then, that, God is a living being, eternal, most good; and therefore life and a continuous eternal existence belong to God; for that is what God is.” (Metaphysics. Book VII.VII pg. 377).
According to Aristotle, God is a living eternal and good absolute. This description mirrors the Platonic concept of the World of Forms in that God is an unchanging eternal absolute that is not only universal Being, but universally Good as well. This distinction will then become the root of Christian concepts of God, as the absolute and eternal Creator of all ‘things’.
Augustine’s Christianization of Greek Philosophy
St. Augustine converted from Manichean Gnosticism after coming into philosophical disagreement with Gnosticism about the nature of God. The Gnostic vision of God was a Dualistic worldview where the God was an eternal spiritual and absolute goodness. In antithesis to God was the evil physical universe that was the creation of an antithetical God (some schools actually called the God of the Jews this Evil God, Marcionic Gnosticsim). The Gnostic dualistic worldview suggested that the universe was composed of two independent realities that existed in antithesis to each other. One of these realities was eternally good and pure, and one was eternally evil and corrupted. They believed that God could not have created the physical universe because an eternally good God could not create an evil physical universe. God and the Universe stood as two independent antithetical realities.
Augustine abandoned this cosmic dualism in favor of a philosophy about the nature of God where God was eternal and absolute, but nothing could exist independently from God. Besides bringing up the obvious questions about free will and evil, this theology brought up a more important theological question about the concept of “Being”.
According to Augustine, there were two types of Being, independent being and dependent being. God was an independent being, in that God was independent of Cause. Everything in the created universe then was a secondary type of being whose very existence was dependent upon God to be created. This distinction eliminated the problem the Gnostics posed about an independent Evil physical reality.
However, in abandoning one dualism he adopts another dualism in the Greek philosophical teachings. He eliminates the Gnostic dualism of Good and Evil by defining two different types of being, but incorporates Platonic dualism when referring to the qualities and natures of those types of being. For Augustine, God was an eternal unchanging, incorruptible Being, and these were the qualities of God’s nature. Dependent being however had the opposite qualities of corruptibility, impermanence and change.
Augustine is clearly influenced by Plato and Aristotle here because his vision of God’s qualities is identical to how Plato would describe the Forms: permanent, unchanging, absolute and incorruptible. Augustine then defines the secondary type of being in terms that mirror Plato’s World of Becoming, in that, the physical universe is in a state of change, flux and the things in the created universe are dependent, corruptible and impermanent entities.
Augustine then makes an important distinction. Augustine declares in Confessions, “ “I was trying to think of you…. The supreme, sole, and true God. With all my heart I believed you to be incorruptible, inviolable, and immutable, although I did not know why and how. Nevertheless, I saw plainly and was certain that what is corruptible is inferior to that which cannot be corrupted; what is inviolable I unhesitatingly put above that which is violable; what undergoes no change is better than that which change” (Conf. 7.1.1) . Here he makes the clear distinction between the qualities of God as being higher than the qualities of the physical universe thus maintaining the inherent dualism in Greek philosophy that there are two distinct realities with two distinct sets of qualities. He also maintains the superiority of permanence, incorruptibility and absoluteness over the qualities of the physical universe.
Although Augustine is clearly influenced by Plato it seems he is more influenced by Aristotle. Augustine never really refers to Forms. In fact, eternal Being is only attributed to God Himself. To Augustine nothing possesses the qualities of eternal absoluteness other than God. The only mention of an eternal principle is the human soul, and in this relationship you can see more of an Aristotelian influence because Augustine claims that human beings possess an eternal soul and an impermanent individual body and identity in that body. Like Aristotle, Augustine would say we have individual identity but contained in that impermanent identity is an eternal soul. Hence the two types of Being permanent and impermanent manifest in human beings individually.
Hartshorne’s Objection to Greek philosophy
Process Theology begins with and is grounded in a direct refutation of the Greek influence on Christianity. Primarily, Hartshorne and Whitehead reject firmly the inclusion of Platonic Universals in the concept of God. These Universals were first used by Augustine and Boethius in formal philosophical language, but is also heavily present in Epistles in the Bible, which are the letters of Paul to different communities in early Christianity. Paul was a Roman and in turn was thought to be heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy. (This is intriguing because the Catholic Church chose Paul’s theology over Peter’s philosophy, who definitely wasn’t interested in Greek Philosophy).
Process Theology contests that early Christianity became heavily influenced by the Roman concept of Caesar, and Christianity became a hybrid mix of philosophical ideas that created there own philosophical dilemmas. We shall see as we uncover certain philosophical errors proposed by the Christianization of Greek Philosophy that Process Theology effectively explains an alternative view of God and the Universe in general.
Immutability/Perfection
The first a most important philosophical error is the concept of Perfection which in turn implies Immutability. In Plato’s Republic, Plato suggests that God is perfect in existence and therefore cannot change. If God were changing in any way that would suggest that God is not complete and perfect. A changing God would suggest that God were in need of some sort of change, and in turn this would suggest a deficient God. Therefore, God, like the Platonic concept of Forms, needs to be unchanging, perfect and absolute.
This is primarily the inclusion of Universals that creates the theological errors that Hartshorne and Whitehead point to when developing Process Theology. The misconception that God must be somehow unchanging is the basis for Process Theology. Process Theology is based primarily on the idea that God had changing qualities, and is a direct refutation of this Universal in particular.
This can be refuted in scriptural ways as well as in philosophical ways as well. God seems to change all the time in the Old Testament, and this is the basis for the Process Theological arguments: the God that Jesus knew, was not the God of the Greek Philosophers. This in turn is echoed when you read the Old Testament and notice that God becomes emotionally involved due to changes in the world, seems to make mistakes at times, and even changes His mind when making certain decisions.
Whitehead claims that the Medieval Philosophers seemed to think they knew more than the “naive” writers of scripture, because they were privy to Greek Philosophy. As we will see, this assumption will prove erroneous as we unravel the philosophical consequences of including Platonic Universals in Christian thought.
Hartshorne addresses the issue of Immutability with the distinction between different definitions of the word “perfect” He claims that through Medieval Philosophy the term perfect has been defined to mean complete. This in turn means that God cannot change otherwise it is either changing for the worse or the better, and either way this leaves God deficient in one way or the another.
Therefore, Hartshorne suggests that God can be perfect and still be capable of change. It is simply that the definition of perfection cannot imply finished completeness, otherwise God is forced to be Immutable.
Omnipotence
The first consequence of a Universal unchanging and perfect God is that God must therefore have universal and perfect power. Omnipotence suggests that God is all powerful. In fact the very usage of the prefix “Omni-“ suggests the inclusion of Greek Universals because it means “All”.
Omnipotence therefore is the concept that because God is Universal and Perfect, God must be all powerful and its power perfect. Perfect Power then suggests that all things that happen in life happen because of God, and that all things happen as a result of God’s Creation and exist in some sort of perfect design all according to God’s Divine plan.
This concept was refuted by the Catholic Church itself, when the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681 CE convened to address the heresies of the Mono-thelites, which means “one-will”. The Catholic church clearly recognized the existence of a human will separate from God’s will. The Church declared that even Jesus had this second human will, however in Jesus it was perfectly harmonized with Divine Will. Furthermore, Augustine believed that evil was caused by free-will as well.
However, it is still a common practice, especially in Evangelical and fringe Protestant churches to describe the world in terms of God’s Divine Plan. This concept assumes that God creates all things. When tragedy happens it is because of some unfathomable reason that only God knows, and we are expected to assume that God has a reason for everything.
Process Theology directly refutes this and Hartshorne does so in the same way he refutes Perfection. He claims that there are two ways to define Omnipotence. Omnipotence throughout Medieval Philosophy was assumed to means that God had total control of all that happened in the world. In some ways, God set the universe in motion and in turn is responsible for all that happens, and because God is unchanging there must be a Divine Perfect Plan that already exists.
As we will see after exploring Whitehead’s concept of God, Process Theology does not believe that the Will of God remains unchanged in some Perfect Plan that will unfold in its own time. Process Theology actually claims that the World and God help to co-create each other, and work in an intimate way to create the unfolding of the universe.
Omniscience
The third consequence of a Perfect God is the concept of a Perfectly Knowing God. If God is perfect and unchanging, and in turn God’s Power creates a prefect unchanging Divine Plan, it must therefore be that God has perfect knowledge of all that happens, has happened and will happen. It is the “will” happen that becomes the most difficult to prove.
We are learning more and more that the universe doesn’t operate in a mechanistic fashion, and we have also seen that even Catholic Theology includes the presence of a free human will. How then can God be Perfect if God cannot know what is about to happen?
Omniscience can again be seen in two ways. First if God is perfect and unchanging, and is all powerful with a perfect divine plan, then God set the universe in motion and according to God’s perfect and unchanging plan the outcome of the future of all actions are already known to God. The second way to define Omniscience is to remove God from the beginning of time and to see God as an active player in the unfolding of the universe, God can know all outcomes of actions, but actions are not predetermined because a changing God allows for a changing future.
Whitehead’s God
According to Whitehead, God is not a static universal absolute that exists in an unchanging and tyrannical way. Whitehead’s God is a di-polar relationship of two principle qualities. These qualities are the primordial and consequent natures of God.
The primordial nature of God exists in pure potentiality without characteristics or form. It is the absolute nature of God that exists in the same way traditional Christianity would see God. It exists in pure form with pure potentiality as it nature. However, God also has a second nature called the consequent nature. The consequent nature is the actuality of God’s potentiality in the actualized world.
I’ll admit I actually have a problem with Whitehead’s di-polar relationship, but White head claims that there is a direct relationship between the World and God. Instead of seeing God as a distant, perfect all knowing and all powerful entity, Whitehead creates a cosmology where there is an intimate relationship between God and the World and the two essential co-create each other in a “Process” of change and evolution.
He describes this as such: “God and the World are contrasted opposites in terms of which Creativity achieves its supreme task of transforming disjoined multiplicity, with it’s diversities in opposition, into concrescent unity, with its diversities in contrast.” (Whitehead pg. 349). Whitehead sees the relationship of God and the World in a similar way to a yin and yang relationship where each opposite exist in harmony to create a greater unity.
I have a personal problem with this cosmology because you are left with a Gnostic-like duality where the final metaphysical truth is then God and something else. He says this directly here: “God and the World stand over against each other, expressing the final metaphysical truth that appetitive vision and physical enjoyment have equal claim to priority in creation.” (Whitehead pg. 349). Here, appetite vision is referring to the potentiality of concepts and physical enjoyment is the actualized reality in the World.
Hartshorne tries to take this a little farther in his book The Divine Relativity, by claiming God is related to all things, but his vision still never includes the actualized universe and the matter in it as an actual part of God, and therefore, you are still left with a higher metaphysical truth that involves God a s merely a part of the puzzle.
Implications of Whitehead’s God on three philosophical questions
Despite my problems with the basics of Whitehead’s cosmological metaphysics, I still feel that Process Theology offers a concrete solution to addressing the real problem found in the inclusion of Platonic Absolutes. Process Theology offers a ground-breaking series of concepts that answer the philosophical dilemmas that occur with the inclusion of Immutability, Omnipotence and Omniscience. Here is basic outline:
Process in terms of Perfection and Immutability
Process Theology outright rejects the idea of an unchanging God. Process Theology suggests that God is not only active in Creation, but active in the changing and evolving universe we live in. For Whitehead, God had two natures: the primordial and consequent. The primordial nature exists in pure potentiality and is the background for all events in the universe to take place. The universe is a system of changing and evolving events and the potential for events to happen exist in the primordial nature of God.
The consequent nature of God allows God to interact and influence the universe. God can change and make change in the universe, and even react to the changing universe. This changing God and new ability to react to change is what Whitehead calls the Consequent Nature of God.
Process in terms of Omnipotence
Although the Consequent nature of God allows God to create change in the universe and actualize potentialities, it does not suggest that God creates all change in the universe in an omnipotent way. In fact, it directly suggests that the changing nature of the World itself directly affects God’s consequent nature. God’s consequent nature then is can react and respond to the changes in the universe itself. Therefore, the universe has it’s own modes of creation and God and the World work in harmony to create the process of a changing and evolving universe.
God is essentially, the backbone of potentiality and the assisting principle of actualization in the physical world. In this way, God and the world exist in a harmonious dualistic relationship where each influences and define the other.
Process in terms of Omniscience
Omniscience assumes that God exists in perfection and that all things that happen according to a Divine Plan are already known to God. Because Process Theology rejects an unchanging God and an all powerful God, Process Theology also rejects the notion that God knows all that will happen in the future. This is because the future is not determined by a static God, but by a dynamic relationship between the World in flux and the potentiality of God. The interplay of the World and God create reality and the future and because God is not just sitting at the beginning of time with knowledge of what is to come, God becomes an active player in the universe it creates.
Knowledge in Process is not foreknowledge it is the very action of creation that happens continuously in a changing process of exchange between potentiality and actuality in an evolving and changing universe.
Omnipresence?
I felt I needed to add this concept into this treatise. I found it intriguing that the term Omnipresence is not only never addressed by Whitehead, Hartshorne or even Cobb and Griffin (at least not in the texts I referenced), but it is not even in the indexes of those books. This I think is a fatal flaw of this theology. Although I feel they did a great job at addressing the problems with Greek influence in theology, I feel that when you stop at saying the ultimate metaphysical truth is a relationship between God and the World, you limit God to a part of a greater relationship. I feel that inclusion of the World as a function of God or at least the definition of that higher metaphysical truth is still needed. Good thing I still have to write another paper on that subject tonight.
Works Cited
Cobb Jr., John B.. A Christian Natural Theology. 2nd. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
Cobb Jr., John B., and David Ray Griffin. Process Theology: An INtroductory Exposition. Louisville : Westminster John Knox Press, 1976.
Cooper, David A.. God is a Verb. New York : Riverhead Books, 1997.
Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948.
Hartshorne, Chrales. Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Albany: SUNY, 1984.
|
|
| Inclusion of Physical and Feminine Principles in Theology |
[10 Dec 2008|04:57pm] |
Inclusion of Physical and Feminine Principles in Theology
Introduction
Two of the most oppressive and incomplete errors in various theologies of Western culture are the spiritual supremacy and neglect of the physical principles in the universe, and the patriarchal neglect of feminine principles in theology. I will be showing that it is not only acceptable to include physical/ecological and feminine principles into theology but it is necessary to include these in order to have a complete vision of the universe.
In our patriarchal society, God has been given the attributes of the male gender. This not only limits God to a specific set of qualities, but it is in fact inaccurate to consider these qualities strictly male. (All-powerful would have worked better here if Hillary Clinton was elected)
Along with that, the suppression of the physical universe as something to be subjugated has developed unhealthy visions of abstinence that have led to sex scandals in the Catholic Church and left theology with an incomplete vision of the universe that limits God to something less than the ultimate metaphysical truth: the truth of universal interconnectedness. In other words, it has left the paradigm as God vs. the Universe. This duality has to be breached in order to fully recognize the reality of the highest metaphysical truth.
Progression of theological consequences
The progression of philosophical problems with theology begins when the Christian Church expands outside of Judaism into the Roman Empire, and is infused with the dominant school of philosophy at the time: Greek Philosophy. Greek philosophy infused Plato’s images of absolute Forms into theology.
Plato believed that there were two essential realms. The Realm of Being contained the universal absolutes of truth, and the Realm of Becoming was the physical universe that was in a state of impermanent flux and change. This was later revised by Aristotle, but the essential truths about permanence and impermanence between Form and “things” remained the Greek standard.
Augustine, Boethius, and St. Thomas Aquinas all adopted these ideas and incorporated them into their theology about God and Jesus. The Christianization of Greek Philosophy then became the standard for Christian thinking and heresy was determined to be antithetical to these concepts.
The Trinity and The Apostle’s Creed
Christian Theology started developing soon after the death of Jesus and by 150 CE a statement of faith was developed to summarize the basics of Christian Theology. There is little evidence that the Apostles themselves used this statement, but it is called the Apostle’s Creed and is thought to be the earliest formal statement of Christian faith. This is the Apostle’s Creed:
“I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended in heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.”
There are two major concepts to keep in mind here. First the statement begins by defining three major theological concepts: God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Son. Second is the importance of the physical suffering death and resurrection of the physical human Jesus.
In 325 CE Emperor Constantine, who had just legalized Christianity and adopted it as his driving force behind his military efforts, convened the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church called the Council of Nicaea. This council was convened to address certain heresies that were emerging that the Apostle’s Creed did not address directly. The major heresy in question was that of Arianism, which was based on the teachings of Arius, who believed that Jesus was a human being who existed in real time and lived and died like we all do.
Here’s the problem: Because of the inclusion of Greek Philosophy, God had gained certain attributes. These attributes reflected the concepts of the Platonic Forms, mainly absoluteness, perfection, and an unchanging and eternal existence. Well, it was integral to the Catholic Church to recognize the Divinity of Jesus and therefore it must be clearly stated that Jesus had the same qualities of God. Therefore the Nicene Creed was developed to address just this, and to address the heresy that Jesus was simply human.
The Nicene Creed states:
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance of the Father, by whom all things were made, who for men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary……”
The important points to take from this statement is the stressing of the unity of Jesus with the Father, and begotten before all worlds. Begotten not made, before all worlds gives Jesus the qualities that the Greek influenced God now had: eternal existence. Begotten not made means that he wasn’t created at one point in time but existed along side the Father eternally.
The Nicene Creed therefore, established the theological law that Jesus was one with the Father and Holy Spirit, and in turn the Trinity was developed to echo the statement of the Council of Nicaea. The Trinity became to standard for Christian Theology when addressing the nature of God and Jesus, as through universal absolutes in harmonious union.
Besides bringing up the obvious philosophical questions about how there can be three Universals harmonized as One without there being One or Three separate universals, The Trinity posed a new philosophical dilemma. The Apostle’s Creed clearly emphasizes the suffering, death and resurrection of the physical Jesus. If Jesus is one with the Father who can he suffer and die like a human if he possesses the absolute qualities of God?
In 451 CE the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was convened to again address two specific heresies. These heresies were the Nestorians, Monophysites. The Nestorians who followed Nestorius believed that there was a Divine Jesus and a Physical Jesus and they were to be seen as separate. The Monophysites believed that Jesus’ body was a mere illusion, after all, how could the absolute qualities of God be equated to an impermanent physical shell. Therefore, the Monophysites believed Jesus had one nature (mono- one, physis- nature) and that nature was purely divine.
The physical suffering was integral to Catholic theology, so the council was forced to find a theological compromise. This compromise is called Dyophysitism, which means two natures. They declared that unlike the Monophysites claim, Jesus had a human nature as well as a Divine nature, but unlike the Nestorians claim, these two natures were harmonized as one hypostasis. Therefore, Jesus was a harmonious balance of human nature and divine nature that was united in God.
This allowed for Jesus to suffer and die like a human. However the philosophical consequence is now that God now has impermanent qualities. Jesus has impermanent qualities and physical qualities and because of the “one substance with the Father” statement in the Nicene Creed this means that the Father has impermanent qualities as well. All of these problems arise because of the Greek notion that there is a World of Absolutes, which God is the ultimate absolute, and there is a world of impermanence that is the physical universe itself. This dualism created these theological dilemmas. However, this issue was never addressed because the Monophysite churches (451 CE) and the Monthelite churches (681 CE) were in Egypt and were eventually swallowed up by the Islamic Empire. Therefore, there was no reason to revisit these questions. In fact the only reason they were addressed in the first place was to keep the Egyptian churches on the same page as the rest of the Catholic Church.
So I am going to revisit it now. We have seen that because of the Platonic Dualism we needed to address Jesus’ Divinity with the Nicene Creed, and we needed to address the need for Jesus to have a physical component so we said he had two natures. This then brought the question, doesn’t that negate the absolutes by giving them impermanent qualities? Another problem with all this is that I can prove using Quantum Physics that the very atoms that composed Jesus’ body were intertwined within all the atoms of the universe of that time and even today. So if you are to say that Jesus’ body was connected to God through his Hypostasis, you have to also say that the entire universe is connected to God through the same hypostasis because there was no distinction scientifically between his flesh and the atoms that compose even my flesh today.
This then opens up the door for inclusion of the physical universe ion theology because you cannot say God is absolute, Jesus is absolute and united with God but has a physical body, and the physical universe is somehow separate from that body. It is not scientifically or philosophically sound.
Therefore, a greater theological statement is imperative, one that revisits the errors created by the Christianization of Greek Philosophy, and one that recognizes the physical universe as a function of God. The physical universe cannot be separated from God if Jesus had a physical body, because Quantum Physics states that the universe it interconnected with no separations or independent objects.
Inclusion of female principles
As far as the Patriarchal declarations that all the aspects of the Trinity are male, I feel you can use the Apostle’s Creed top get right at the heart of that issue. If you look closely at the first few lines of the Apostle’s Creed you see this:
“I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary”
The Father is credited with “making” the physical universe, whereas the Holy Spirit “conceives” Jesus, and this conception is directly associated with the Virgin Mary. I assert that this wording alone can open the door to suggest that the Holy Spirit is a female conceptual force and principle. With this the Trinity would look more like: Creative Father, Conceptual Mother Holy Spirit, and Son.
This step has been taken by many Catholics through the reverence of the Virgin Mary, but I feel it can be taken as far a s a Yang/Yin, Shiva/Shakti relationship, where the Father and the Holy Spirit represent Cosmic Parents.
Qabalistic IHVH: The Formula of the Tetragrammaton
The Qabalistic Formula of the Tetragrammaton refers to the ineffable name of God IHVH, sometimes pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah. This mystical formula is a union of four principles each associated with different aspects of Jewish Mysticism. The I or Yod is associated with the Divine Father, the first H or He is associated with th e Divine Mother, the V or Vau is associated with individual consciousness, and the final H or He is associated with the physical universe itself.
The Father is the creative will of God and the creative force of the universe, the Mother represents the highest aspect of the human soul and human comprehension and is also the conception of the creative force into a living universe. The individual; consciousness which is in itself asexual represents the direct reflection of God in ourselves, and the physical universe itself completes the four-fold name of God.
This formula is used to describe the four aspects of God that compete the whole of reality. This formula incorporates male and female attributes within The Ultimate, and includes physical principles including Creation itself as a direct extension of God. In this way, there is no exclusion of any principles gender wise or physically.
I personally feel this is the most comprehensive theological statement I’ve encountered, and I plan on running with this for a while until I find philosophical flaws with it as well.
Works Cited
Blau, Joseph Leon. The Christian Interpretation of the Cabala in the Renaissance. Kennikat Press. Port Wasington, NY: 1944.
Cooper, David A.. God is a Verb. New York : Riverhead Books, 1997.
Etter, Christopher. Dyothelemic Christianity. iUniverse, Inc. New York: 2005.
The Cambridge Companion to Augustine. Edited by. Elenore Stump and Norman Kretzman. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge: 2001.
Peterson, R. Dean. A Concise History of Christianity. Wadsworth Pub. Belmont, CA: 1999.
|
|
| John Dewey's Pragmatic Interactive Naturalism |
[04 Dec 2008|06:52pm] |
Dewey’s Naturalistic Metaphysics
It can be said that Dewey’s Pragmatism is an attempt to make a scientific school of philosophy. Dewey begins with a metaphysical approach that attempts to scientifically define the role of an observer and the universe the observer inhabits in terms of scientific processes. Dewey’s Metaphysics provides the philosophical groundwork to provide a scientific way of under standing the consequences of a changing universe, and therefore, scientifically determine answers to philosophical questions in a rational empirical manner.
Dewey’s metaphysics begins in an attempt to define the cosmological universe as a system of interactive processes that is in a constant state of change and flux. Dewey sees the universe as a constantly evolving process, rather than a static stable universe to be rationalized or simply observed. Reality for Dewey a dynamically changing and constantly self evolving system that is not defined merely in terms of absolutes or by pure empiricism. Rather reality evolves in the intimate relationship of events and observers of those events. Reality is not something that simply exists and is passively observed, but instead is actually evolving through the active participation in the observer through the act of observation.
For Dewey, the universe consists of a system of temporal events that through time present an n interaction of objects and observers. Dewey claims that the distinction that the universe is simply atomistic truths to ne passively observed is intrinsically false because of the intimate connection of the mind and the event being observed. It is not simply that one observes an object, but that there is an event of observation that emerges as an interrelationship of observer and observed.
For Dewey, the events that take place in the universe have intrinsic qualities to them because events are assimilated in the progression of events that take place in the process of the changing universe. These events show patterns of change and flux and reflect that change and flux, rather than reflect some sort of absolute static or passive empirical observation. The development of these changing events and occurrences can then be analyzed to determine scientifically the pattern of the unfolding process, and through that analysis a practical pragmatic approach to both the philosophical inquiry of knowledge and philosophical questions of ethics is established. Dewey describes events as such: “When an event has meaning, its potential consequences become its integral and funded feature. When the potential consequences are important and repeated, they form the very nature and essence of a thing, its defining, identifying and distinguishing form.” (LW 1:143)
Dewey’s pragmatism attempts to provide a way to understand philosophical meaning by scientifically analyzing the context of the unfolding events of a particular situation and determine the causal outcomes of that development. By scientifically understanding the causal relationship of the unfolding events one can then determine the outcome and consequences of these events. Dewey’s pragmatism then is a practical way to solve philosophical problems on the basis of utility and practical solutions to preventing future incidences of that problem.
In this way, Dewey’s Pragmatism is a type of Consequentialism in that by understanding the interconnected relationship of a changing and evolving system of events, one can scientifically understand the logical consequences. Typical utilitarian consequentialism merely attempts to establish a moral rule as something which maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. However, Dewey’s pragmatism goes deeper to define a metaphysical relationship that provides the basis scientifically understanding the consequences of changing and evolving events, and the relationship these events have on an observer.
Dewey’s metaphysics also provide an answer to the Mind/Body problem posed in traditional philosophy. There is a dualism of views where some traditional philosophers like Descartes would suggest that the rational mind is the source of reality, and some more modern philosophers such as Russell would suggest the physical universe and the atomic truths of the universe are the source of reality and knowledge. Dewey would argue a middle ground between these two views. For Dewey, the mind is a function of natural biological processes. All the processes of the mind both physical and mental are intertwined in such a way that there can be no distinction between the mind or the body and brain that provide its physical functions. Therefore, for Dewey, the Mind/Body problem is a completely scientific inquiry that is totally dependent on the interrelation of the natural processes that go into a living, observing human being.
This type of view of the mind and the universe then leads to a solution to the metaphysical dualism of subjectivity and objectivity. By understanding that the mind is a system of processes determined by changing and evolving events in a self evolving universe, Dewey dissolves the distinction between the dualism of observer and observed. The fundamental concept in both rationalism and empiricism is that the observer passively observes the outside universe, and through either rational inquiry or empirical data they determine certain truths about reality. However, Dewey claims that the very act of observation is a deep interplay between the processes of the mind and the processes of the changing universe. These processes are so deeply interlinked that one cannot make a distinction between the observer making the observation and that which the observer observes. Dewey argues against the truth of independent essences or substances, and in turn would dismiss the sense reference distinction as well. For Dewey, the interrelationship of the various process of observation completely dissolves the subject/object distinction.
This type of metaphysics can be called interactive Naturalism. Interactive Naturalism suggests: 1. the universe is a self evolving system of changing processes and events. 2. the observer is intimately intertwined with this system through the active natural process of the cognitive mind. 3. By observing these relationships one can determine outcomes and consequence of these events and therefore have a basis for philosophical inquiry.
Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry
Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry, (which he preferred over the term epistemology) was a basic refutation of two extremes of philosophical means of obtaining truth and knowledge. Traditional philosophy tended toward the idea of universal absolutes. Beginning with Plato the idea that the universe somehow was composed of eternal unchanging truth values that could only be understood through rational inquiry dominated philosophy. This view was dominant all the way from Plato through the Middle Ages and the Christian philosophers and even in Modern philosophy. This philosophical view was that there can be established rational absolutes on which to establish grounds for rational philosophical inquiry, and was particularly dominant in the Christian philosophers’ minds because God was seen as the ultimate truth and the source of philosophical truth.
In the 19th and 20th centuries however, movement such as the Positivists and the Atomists emerged out of the “Enlightenment” which was a period of a Social Paradigm shift where science took the central focus in philosophical thought. Both the Atomists and the Positivists main goal was the pursuit of philosophical truth through the empirical use of scientific instrumentation and observation. The Atomist thought that the truth could be found in atomistic truth that can be found through scientific inquiry, and the positivists believed that the only source of truth can be something that can be verified through empirical data. Questions about metaphysics, God or ethics were meaningless if they had no firm grounding in empirically verifiable truths. Foundationalism was the main concept for these philosophers which implied that reality exists in real scientific truths that exist in the observable universe.
For Dewey, what the Rationalist and Empiricist approach represented were two fallible extremes that pursued a non-existent certainty. For the Rationalist, the quest for certainty was in the mind in logical inquiry, and for the Empiricist the quest for certainty rested on scientifically provable experimentation. Dewey felt that this was a fallible dualism. Rationalists relied on the mind for the quest for certainty and Empiricists relied on the observation of the physical universe for the quest for certainty. For Dewey, the mind and the body and the universe that the observer observed all exist in a mutually dependent system of processes and developing events. For Dewey, there is no absolute certainty in rational logic and there is no certainty in the “foundations” of the observable universe. Instead, Dewey claimed that the only true reality is in the interplay between these processes and the consequential circumstances surrounding these processes.
Therefore, Dewey rejected both a Foundationalist approach to knowledge that suggests there is underlying truth in the observable universe, and the Rationalist approach to knowledge that suggests truth is merely a logical construct dependent only on the mind or an external absolute. For Dewey, the pursuit of knowledge can only be found in the complex weighing of circumstances and events that surround a certain philosophical inquiry. The scientific analysis of all the interconnected processes of both the mind of the observer but the processes of the universe around the observer and the possible outcome of future unfolding events was the only true source of knowledge and basis for philosophical inquiry.
“When an event has meaning, its potential consequences become its integral and funded feature. When the potential consequences are important and repeated, they form the very nature and essence of a thing, its defining, identifying and distinguishing form.” (LW 1:143)
Dewey’s Ethical Theory
Dewey’s application of his Metaphysics and Theory of Inquiry into solutions of ethical questions can best be described as Consequentialism because by weighing the changing and evolving events and the by understanding the relationships of the observer to the observed, Dewey thinks you can rationally and scientifically determine the consequences of a particular action. Based on the consequences of these actions an appropriate solution to moral and ethical inquires can then be determined based on utility and practicality.
It is hard to call Dewey’s pragmatism pure utilitarianism. It is probably most appropriate to see Dewey’s pragmatism as a way of determining the consequences of a system of events and determining a practical solution that both solves the situation and prevents future occurrences of that problem. This Pragmatism is naturalistic in that Dewey believes that the outcomes of action are not predetermined and that by understanding the relationships and circumstances of a problem, one can actually determine a scientific solution to change the course of evolving natural processes.
Traditionally, pure utilitarianism is concerned with maximizing happiness. Dewey is intentionally vague when saying what constitutes happiness and goodness. For Dewey, happiness and goodness are determined by the individual and the society, but he seems to lean toward almost an Aristotelian Virtue Ethic (without absolutes) when saying that the individual has a social responsibility to cultivate virtue that help the natural healthy progression of a society.
Dewey rejects the Hobbesian view that social contract is developed by rational and logical minds in search of social stability. Dewey believes humans are a naturally social creature, with a natural tendency towards socialization. Dewey believes that it is in our nature to create social structures not out of logical necessity but out of a natural need to create a healthy social atmosphere.
So for Dewey, the answer to ethical and moral problems rests in the consequences of processes and out of utility and the benefit of social progress one can scientifically determine philosophical answers with the appropriate methods to resolve a particular problematic circumstance.
Dewey on the Quest for Certainty
In Dewey’s Quest for Certainty Dewey underlines the fallibility of the pursuit of certainty in terms of both the pursuit of knowledge and in social terms. For Dewey, certainty can’t be found in logical absolutes or foundational truths. Dewey claims that truth can only be found in applying the principles of his metaphysics to a problem and weighing the context and consequences.
Therefore, in terms of social context, socio-political doctrines that rely on a certain specific stated truth are inherently fallible because they don’t address the true needs of a society and the changing and evolving aspects of a society.
For Dewey, any system that is philosophical or socio-political that relies on the inherent truths of rational absolutes or foundational truths are inherently flawed. Systems need to recognize the circumstances and context of a given system and derive from those observations practical and utilitarian solutions to social and moral problems.
Capitalism and Communism both rely on the supposed inherent rational truth of their stated doctrine, and for Dewey this in itself is a fallible approach, and a “quest for certainty”. An appropriate solution to socio-political problems would include a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach, which out of practicality and utility best addressed the individual and the society.
Works Cited
Cunningham, Craig A.. "The Metaphysics of Dewey’s Conception of The Self." Northeastern Illinois University. 1995. Northeastern Illinois University. 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/pes-yearbook/95_docs/cunningham.html>.
Dewey, John. How We Think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1997.
Field, Richard (Northwest Missouri State University). "John Dewey." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007. 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm>.
Kolak, Daniel, and Garret Thomson. The Longman Standard History of Twentieth-Century Philosophy. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006.
John Dewey, The Later Works: 1925-1953, vol. 1, ed. Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988-1991)
|
|
| Non-Violence in the Christian Church in History and Exegetical Interpretations |
[04 Dec 2008|06:49pm] |
Christopher Etter
Seminar in Non-Violence
12/1/08
Non-Violence in the Christian Church in History and Exegetical Interpretations
Introduction
As Christianity emerged it went through many changes as it evolved theologically, socially, and eventually politically. Christianity began as a pacifistic religion with non-violent peaceful doctrines, but it evolved into a socio-political machine as it became the theocratic state religion of the Roman Empire.
I will first be showing, using the doctrines of three early church fathers that Christianity began as a pacifistic movement, but due to the incorporation of political theocratic rule over the Roman Empire, it was forced to undermine its peaceful doctrines and find justification for antithetical doctrines that would allow the church to advocate war and the usage of force to uphold Christian law.
From there I will show how modern exegetical interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus have been used to either denounce, justify or incorporate violence in Christian teachings.
History of the Early Christian Church
Tertullian (155 CE-240 CE)
Tertullian was one of the first fathers of the Christian church. He lived between 155 CE and 240 CE, and he became one of the primary contributors of theological debates that eventually served to form the basis for the Catholic Church and Catholic theology. He authored many argumentative texts, but it was in “The Apology” that he addressed the question of religion, government, war and Christian ethics.
In “The Apology” Tertullian attempts to address the disconnect between Roman military and social values concerning military service and the standard of Christian ethics at that time. During this time, the Roman empire was ruled by an emperor and the state religion was a Roman pagan religion that considered the emperor to be a human representation of the “gods” on Earth” who directly imparted the law on the people through him. Allegiance to the emperor and obedience was considered mandatory. The Christians however, believed that allegiance to anyone but God and Jesus was a sin, and refused military service for a multitude of reasons. This made the Romans consider the Christians trouble makers because even though they were not violent, they rejected the will of the emperor and refused to take up a sword and commit murder for him.
In “The Apology” Tertullian suggests that government should promote peace and social order, however he argues the main principles of Roman law and suggests that Christians cannot pick up a sword and fight for Caesar and still uphold and live the teachings of Jesus Christ.
He begins by refuting the idea that Caesar has a divine status: “Let the emperor make war against heaven; let him lead heaven captive in his triumph; let him put guards on heaven; let him impose taxes on heaven! He cannot!” (Holmes, 39). In the Roman Empire at this time Caesar is considered divine and this is antithetical to Christian values. He clarifies this by saying: “There is no agreement between the divine and human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters- God and Caesar.” (Holmes, 43-44). Therefore, Christians cannot serve two masters and military service requires allegiance and obedience to Caesar and requires the Christian to commit murder and other crimes under the order of Caesar rather than living by Jesus’ authority.
He is very clear that Jesus never advocated violence and therefore serving the will of Caesar for the sake of committing crimes is completely antithetical to the essence of Christianity. He again states: “Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?” (Holmes, 45).
He considers allegiance to Caesar in military service idolatry and even the vows and rewards of military service idolatry because the vows a soldier under Caesar takes involves praise for Jupiter and other pagan Roman gods.
This remains the popular view among peaceful Christians in the Roman Empire, and they were criticized for dissidence and not living up to Roman standards. Even through all this they remained steadfast and believed in the peaceful non-violent teachings of Jesus.
Origen (185 CE -254 CE)
Origen was another early church father that both contributed to the evolution of Christian thinking, and advocated the refusal of military service and public office for the sake of upholding Christian ethics.
In Origen’s work “Against Celsus” he argues Celsus’s claims that Christians are rebellious for advocated a pacifist lifestyle by refusing military service and public office. Like Tertullian, he argues that it is antithetical to Christian ethics to commit murder, but he goes farther by justifying their position by comparing the Christians to Roman pagan priests. He states: “Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend certain gods, as you account them,. Keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army.” (Holmes, 49). Therefore, it is of spiritual value to be free from murder and a spiritual occupation is as valid as a military one.
When confronted with the argument that refusal to hold public office is to refuse public responsibility and duty, he states: “And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God- for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right.” (Holmes, 50). He clearly sees a need to keep religious spiritual life separate from political life and holds that Christians should refrain from holding political positions.
Constantine and Theocracy
Up until the beginning of the fourth century, Christians maintained this view and remained a peaceful religion in the empire. However at the turn of the fourth century, Emperor Constantine established the Edict of Milan in 313 which reversed the Dicletian persecution of Christians in the Empire. In 325 CE at the Council of Nicea, the Nicene Creed was established as the official statement of faith for the Christian Church. With this socio-political change, Christianity went from a small religion in the empire to the controlling force behind Roman law and the Roman military force enforcing that law.
From this point on, Christianity was shaped as a political and military model to unify the entire empire under on universal (catholic) faith, and adherence to this law was mandatory. Any deviation from theology or law was considered heresy and punishable by the Roman authority. Where before the church fathers advocated refusal of military service and political positions, the church was thrust to the forefront of the largest political and military machine the world had ever known.
At this point, the synthesis of religion and politics forced the Christian Church to face the inevitable fact that had plagued politics ever since the beginning of civilization: war is an inevitable reality of politics. Faced with this reality, the church was forced to reconcile the disconnect between Christianity and politics that had existed due to doctrinal disputes concerning the nature of politics, war and murder. How can the Church justify war and still remain true to the pacifist doctrines of Jesus Christ? Therefore, the “Just War” theory was born.
St. Augustine (354 CE-430 CE) and “Just War” Theory
St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is arguably the most influential Christian philosopher in the history of the church. His work shaped the scope of Christian theology all the way up to today. His work not only created most of the solid theological concepts of Catholicism, but influenced almost every philosopher to follow him.
Augustine lived in a violent period in Roman history and lived through many uprisings in the empire until he died in 430 CE in Carthage when it was sacked by the Vandals. At this time, Christianity controlled the empire and therefore, uprisings were seen as attacks against the church’s authority and wars were waged and won by the authority of the Catholic Church. The church at this time was faced with the reality that wars were inevitable if they wished to maintain a Christian controlled state. Therefore, Christianity had to reconcile the justification for their actions, because it was the church that waged and authorized murder through war.
Augustine, being influenced by this reality, attempted to formulate a logical justification for the use of force in God’s name, in order to maintain peace and stability in the empire. For the first time in Christian history, Christianity began to advocate justifiable violence as a necessity to maintain peace. Even though this seems to undermine the teachings of Jesus, the necessity for this doctrine was a unwanted side effect of having a church controlled state. The Christian Church was responsible for social order, and therefore responsible to deal with war and violence.
Augustine argued that war can be waged with proper intent if the desired outcome was peace and order. War under these conditions can be seen as an act of love and the restoration of God’s law and therefore, justification can be establish if the intent is to secure peace and it is an absolute necessity to restore order. In a letter to Carthage’s defender, Count Boniface, written in 418 he wrote: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged so that peace may be obtained.” (Holmes, 63). This was to justify the act of war by having proper intent and the to fulfill an unfortunate necessity.
One of the other arguments for justification came from scripture by using the examples of King David and Moses, who had to use violence to fulfill God’s will. He argued that it is an error to see war is a black and white, right and wrong issue. In “Reply to Faustus the Manichean” he clarifies this by saying: “What is the evil in war? Is it the death of someone who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are wild resistance and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or make others act in this way.” (Holmes, 64). Using these lines of logic he attempts to propose that war can be justified as a way to restore a peaceful social order under God’s law.
Overview of the History of the Church
By following the progression of early Christian thinkers and doctrines we can see the emergence of a doctrine called “Just War” theory, which attempts to justify the use of violence and force in God’s name for the sake of fulfilling God’s law. This theory came about for two reasons. First, Christianity evolved from a pacifistic, non-violent religion, into a military and political power that dominated the world at that time. Second, because of this theocratic synthesis the necessity for the church to deal with war and violence became a reality and thus a theological justification for the use of violence needed to be developed to reconcile the disconnect between original Christian ethics and reality of the violent world around them. Therefore, “Just War” theory is an unfortunate compromise that was caused by fusing religion and politics, and by doing so the church was forced to undermine traditional Christian ethics to deal with the reality of the socio-political world they now controlled.
Absolutism vs. Utilitarian Practicality
As we take a deep look at the history of the evolution of the Christian Church we saw that the message of the church changed from an Absolutist interpretation of Jesus teachings to a Utilitarian Practical compromise based on the military need for peace and security.
Early Church Fathers were clearly literal interpretators of the Non-violent message in Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount. It would seem that this would be the clearest interpretation because it was the earliest and closest to the life of Jesus himself. The clear problem with an Absolutist approach to non-violence emerged when the Christian Church was faced with the reality of the need for military peace and security. For the first time it was no longer for the followers of Jesus to be Absolutists and refuse military service or public office on the grounds that violence was a form of serving a master other than Jesus. Christianity was thrust into the frontlines of war and the practicality of non-violence became a serious issue.
The Christian Church had a few ways to deal with the need for a practical approach to the reality of evil in the world. There are five main approaches that are taken in the various forms of Christian thought. These five forms are: 1. The Absolutist View, 2. The Catholic Dual-Standard Model, 3. The Lutheran Interpretation, 4.Changing the Absolute Ideal, 5. Radical Non-Violence, 6. Utilitarian Violence
I will be explaining these six approaches and show how they relate to the Absolutism vs. Practicality problem found in Christian Philosophy.
Absolutist views
Absolutism in regards to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ teachings of non-violence and forgiveness is the first but most problematic approach to the teachings of Jesus. The Absolutist views of the Sermon on the Mount is that the words are to be taken literally and the life that Jesus described is to be lived without exception even in the face of violence.
Absolutism calls for strict non-violence and forgiveness no matter what the situation. Leo Tolstoy and St. Francis were two of the major proponents of Absolutism. Absolutist non-violence is also very grounded in absolute forgiveness. The verses concerning the “turning of the other cheek” when struck is taken to literally mean when someone commits violence towards you should forgive and radically be peaceful. This was also seen as a changing of the original law of Moses because instead of the teaching of retaliation in “an eye for an eye”, Jesus’ new law was seen as the embodiment of forgiveness and in turn the way to live a non-violent life. It is therefore, the Absolutist’s view that salvation is the most important thing and salvation is found through living the life Jesus taught us to live directly and literally.
The direct manifestation of this was in the early Christian Church before the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The earliest church fathers lived this teaching absolutely. The already underlined problem with Absolutism is the philosophical consequences of seeing your neighbors brothers and sisters attacked and killed by violent forces. Along, with the Christianization of the military was the idea of moral obligation to your brothers and sisters to defined them from evil, and the moral obligation to try to establish a peaceful community on Earth. This becomes a philosophical conflict with Absolutism because the Absolutists reject murder in any case including military service.
Philosophical Compromises to Absolutism
The second and the third exegetical approaches to interpretationg the semon on the Mount and Jesus’ other teachings are the Catholic and the Lutheran approaches. These two were the first and most influential ion Christianity, and although the Protestant and Catholic churches differed on many levels in exegetical interpretation of scripture they held one thing in common. They both attempted to preserve the Absolutist ideal while coming up with logical and rational reasons when and why the Absolute Ideal of Non-Violence could be broken.
An important factor to realize at this point is the introduction of Neo-Platonic Greek Philosophy to the concept of an “Absolute God”. God from Augustine through Aquinas was seen as an “Absolute”, Perfect and Complete One-ness that was independent of cause and was unchanging. Therefore, if God is perfect, complete and unchanging the philosophical consequence is that God’s Law must be like God. The philosophical consequence of an Absolute God is an Absolute Law.
The problem then became how do we deal with violence and evil if the Absolute Ideal of God is non-violence?
The Catholic Dual Standard Model
The Catholic Dual-Standard model has been the predominant model for most of Christianity. It existed since Augustine, but was articulated most clearly by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas claimed that the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus should not be seen as mandates that all people were obligated to follow. Because the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law was something most people couldn’t handle, the Catholic model calls for only a select group of individuals to follow these laws literally. The layity were seen as incapable of attaining things like celibacy, and prefect forgiveness, so the other Christian members of society were allowed to live regular lives, and in turn come to the clergy for forgiveness. The only people that were seen as able to comprehend and actually live according to Jesus’ laws were the priests and clergy and the monastic communities. Outside of these positions it was then acceptable to take jobs as judges and soldiers in the defense of a Christian nation or empire.
This compromise allowed for the church to claim that the teachings of Jesus were still meant o be seen as Absolute Ideals, but it also allowed for the breaking of the Absolute Ideal of Non-Violence by people outside the Church leaders themselves, such as knights and city officials. In this way the Dual standard model kept the concept of Absolutism alive in the Church, but created a Dual standard for people outside the select few who could handle the Absolutist lifestyle. Aquinas taught that the teachings of Jesus were to be seen as spiritual advice for those outside the priesthood rather than a mandate for an Absolutist lifestyle
The Lutheran Dualist Approach
Martin Luther rejected the general idea that the Church leaders were the only ones that were capable of handling the teachings of Jesus, and Protestantism as a whole was a rejection of Catholic authority in general. Luther brought the Bible to the masses and taught a more free theological concept that involved the active participation and interpretation of scripture by everyday laypeople.
In turn, Luther also rejected the traditional Dual-Standard Model, however Luther still considered God’s Law to be Absolutist in essence. His way of dealing with the impracticality of Absolutist Non-Violence was to claim that people had dual responsibility in society, to God and to secular duty.
According to Luther, the Kingdom of Heaven and God’s Law was something that was entirely unattainable in human existence regardless if you were a priest or layity. He felt that the Absolute nature of God’s Law was something that one could only aspire to, not live directly. Therefore, he taught that we had a dual responsibility to do our own secular duty, but spiritually try to live in accordance as best we could to God’s Absolute Law.
Judges were to condemn from the bench but forgive in there hearts. Soldiers were to practice non-violence but in times of war they should do their secular duty as well. This took the authority out of the Catholic Church and put it in the hands of the people. The Absolutism lifestyle to Luther was not humanly possible so there had to be a dualism between one’s spiritual and secular lives. Because we all fall short of perfection, Luther taught no one could truly live up to the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law
Changing the Absolute Ideal
What we see when comparing the Catholic and Protestant views of exegetical interpretation of Jesus’ teachings is the attempt to preserve the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law. However, the fourth exegetical approach involves the attempt to change the concept of God’s Absolute Non-Violent Ideal.
These approaches tend to reinterpret Jesus’ teaching in different ways and under different circumstances to somehow claim that Jesus did not actually teach Absolute Non-Violence, and they tend to open the door for a less literal interpretation for Jesus’ words. There are too many approaches to name directly. Some are as fanatical as the Islamic teaching of Jihad, which was even prevalent during the Crusades or the Inquisition. During these times, scriptural interpretation was used to justify violence on non-Christians.
Some will simply water down the Sermon on the Mount to claim different ways to interpret “turning the other cheek” as merely a social commentary not an Absolute philosophical statement.
Some will claim that Jesus thought the end of the world and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven was coming immanently, and therefore the practicality of non-violence was irrelevant because there was no time to deal with violence. Therefore, it can be suggested that Jesus never addressed the impracticality of non-violence because he thought violence in the world was coming to an end.
Another possible exegetical approach is found in Process Theology and Pragmatism, where the idea that God is unchanging and Absolute is theologically flawed and therefore the philosophical consequence is that God Law can in turn be pragmatic or utilitarian. In other words, if you think God is unchanging and Absolute then God’s Law must have the same characteristics. However, if God is seen in less Neo-Platonist terms, and seen as changing and pragmatic, then you open the discussion for a Utilitarian approach to God’s Law.
In all these cases, an attempt is being made to question the idea that God’s law is absolute, or at least absolutely non-violent. In any case, unlike the compromises of Catholic and Protestant Exegesis which try to preserve Absolutism, these attempts question the very teaching of Absolutism itself, and suggest the possibility of utilitarian Christian violence.
Radical Non-Violence
Radical Non-Violence is the exegetical approach that claims there are ways to bring about the existence of a non-violent society by using extreme actions in the face of violence that don’t involve violence itself.
The principle examples of this philosophy come from the Peaceful Resistance movements in India under the guidance of the teachings of Gandhi. It is therefore also found in the peaceful protests and marches of the Civil Rights Movements under the guidance of Dr. King, and you even see it in Southeast Asia and Tibet under the guidance of the Dalai Lama.
All of these examples are attempts to bring about non-violence, in ways that don’t involve simply laying down and being passive. The most important factor is to be actively in opposition to a violent and oppressive force, but to do something with non-violence in your heart and actions and embody the teachings of non-violence. This is different than traditional Absolutism in that you don’t have to simply be passively non-violent, you can be aggressively non-violent.
Utilitarian Practicality as a Model for Interpretating Scripture
The problem that is being addressed in all these examples is how to deal with violence and evil in an imperfect world. The sixth approach is the Utilitarian approach to violence, which is actually the crux of Augustine’s argument for Just War Theory and as of 1983 is still the actual Catholic declaration of their position on violence. The actual position of the Catholic Church on violence is Utilitarian in nature. Justified War is one that is waged for the sake of a greater ideal of Peace. The Catholic Church’s Just War Theory is utilitarian model for violence that claims that there are times when violence is necessary and mandatory and there are times when military action is not only justified but mandated.
A utilitarian approach is the most philosophically sound approach, but it goes directly against the Neo-Platonist Absolutism of Non-Violence. If God’s Law is Absolute then it can’t be subject to change and based solely on human utility or practical and pragmatic consequentialism. This is the major problem with exegetical interpretations: The question must be asked, “Is God’s Law Absolute and Unchanging? If so then how do we deal with violence?” The utilitarian approach claims that God is not as simple as black and white or right and wrong and may suggest that God’s law is actually pragmatic and subject to change in the name of higher ideals such as Justice, Peace and Security.
Works Cited
Catholic Encyclopedia. The Life of St. Augustine of Hippo. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm. 12/07/05.
Etter, Christopher. Dyothelemic Christianity. New York: iUniverse, Inc, 2005.
"Just War." Wikipedia. 3 Dec 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/just_war>.
Peterson, R. Dean. A Concise History of Christianity. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1999.
War and Christian Ethics. Ed. Holmes, Arthur F. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975.
|
|
| The Problem of Universals |
[04 Dec 2008|06:46pm] |
The Problem of Universals
Platonic Forms and Universals
The Problem of Universals began with Plato and Aristotle. Universals were a consequence of the Platonic concepts of the World of Being (Forms) and the World of Becoming. The World of Form supposedly contained Universals that were the absolute unchanging templates that formed the only real truths in the world. The World of Becoming was merely a changing impermanent world where images of the universal forms manifested as imperfect copies of the Universal Forms.
The first problem was brought up by Aristotle. Where, Plato saw the physical universe as unreal and merely a reflection of universal truths, Aristotle felt this universe was entirely real and attempted to amend the Platonic Forms to show that they were real things made of matter that formed because of the universal forms but were in themselves individual “truths” in themselves. In other words, Aristotle was not completely comfortable with the idea that the only source of truth comes from Universals that exist outside the physical universe and can only be observed or explored by rational contemplation or insight.
This brings up the first real problem of Universals. They cannot be oberserved or measured only rationally conceived. To Plato this meant this was the reason why they were the absolute truth. Universals existed outside the realm of measurement. Well the problem with this is obvious: “Says who?”
How are we to believe in Universals if not simply by faith alone. The first major problem with universals then is their accessibility. The proponents of Universals would say that the only way to experience truth is in the mind. This became a problem for some as logic was used to explore the universe and the idea of Universals became more of faith based issue.
Theological Problems
The idea of a Universals then became the central idea in Christianity about God. Augustine and Boethius began the Christianization of Greek Philosophy, and God became “THE” Form or Universal. The attributes of the Forms then became the attributes of God. These attributes were Perfection, Completeness and Immutability among others. But again the first problem of accessibility became an issue. How do we experience or understand a Universal God?
Anselm tried to argue erroneously that the only way to conceive of an Absolute God is through contemplation of that which no higher can be conceived. Through this he argued that the highest Universal must exist and have being. This again leaves us with no real proof of any type of Universal existence.
Another Theological problem comes directly from the placing of Platonic attributes on God itself. Once God was declared to have the Universal qualities of the forms the philosophical consequences became integral to the theology.
God was determined to be Universal, Absolute, Perfect, Unchanging and Complete. The consequence of this comes first during the refutation of Gnosticism and the other heresies of the first three centuries. The Council of Nicaea was forced to convene to discuss the attributes of Jesus. Between the Gnostic dualism and the Arian concept of a purley human Jesus, the Catholic Church was forced to declare that Jesus had the qualities of God. Therefore, Jesus must have the qualities of Absoluteness, Universality and Unchanging Completeness and Perfection.
The Council of Nicaea provided the Nicene Creed which in turn provided the basis for the concept of the Trinity. The concept of the Trinity then posed its own problems concerning Universals. If God is Universal how can there be three Universals? The Trinity is the Father, Holy Ghost and Son all harmonized as one Universal, but it was a heresy to say it was just one Universal and it was a heresy to say it was Three Universals. At the time they lacked the very language to discuss this relationship.
Then the problem arose of Jesus suffering on the cross. In 451 CE the Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened to address whether Jesus was all Divine, or did he really die and suffer on the cross for us? The suffering of Jesus was integral to Catholic doctrine, yet they needed to explain how if God is Universal, and Jesus is God, how then could Jesus have an impermanent body and be human like us?
The answer was another compromise like the Trinity where it was declared that Jesus had two natures, one Divine and one human that were harmonized as one hypostasis in God. This however brings up the problem that if God is Universal and Jesus is God and Jesus also has impermanent qualities, doesn’t then God have impermanent and non-universal qualities?
This was then revisited in 681 at the Sixth Ecumenical Council when the Church addressed the harmonization of two wills in Jesus one Divine will and one human will.
The obvious problem here is that when we start with the original premise that God is a Platonic-like Universal that has Universal qualities like Perfection, Completeness and Immutability, and then we introduce non-universal qualities to God, we can no longer maintain the original premise that God is simply the attributes of a Platonic or Medieval Universal. God must have changing qualities, and even qualities of impermanence.
I feel Process Theology addresses this problem very well. The theological/philosophical dilemmas that emerge in the study of religion don’t show me that God is somehow false or non-existent. What it shows me is that the original premise involving Universals in Theology is wrong, and the problem with God is in the application of Universal qualities to God, and trying to separate them in a Platonic dualism from our changing evolving and sometimes impermanent universe.
Ethical Problems
Probably the most important problem with Universals is the ethical implications. If God is a Universal then God’s laws must be Universals as well. If this is the case, right and wrong become black and white.
Absolutism in ethical theory almost always becomes a flawed argument, and in almost every case you become forced to reduce it to the arbitrary Word of God in scripture, or simply saying “because God/ the Bible says so”.
For example, you can start with killing and violence. Absolutism in regards to killing is problematic and has been problematic throughout the course of Christianity. Absolutists who feel God’s Law is Universal and immutable would claim Jesus taught absolute non-violence. This became an issue for the Church as it became a socio-political machine that headed the Roman Empire. The reality of violence is not compatible with Absolutism if you want to exist and not be killed in the face of violence. Without going into a full overview of all the ways the Church has tried to reconcile this, I can say that the problem with this is that we begin with a God that has Universal qualities that exist with change. If we saw God not so much as a Universal but as a changing and evolving being, we could open the door for pragmatic or utilitarian concepts of ethical law based on that theology and it would become philosophically sound.
It is hard to imagine that Jesus would tell me that if my child was being molested or my wife attacked that I shouldn’t defend them, but Absolutism based on Universals would be forced to say that I should do nothing because God’s Universal law in non-violence and non-killing.
Modern Problems
In today’s world of science, we have new insights into the universe that suggest all kinds of different things then the medieval world knew. In this world our need to pursue scientific and logical truths in an empirical manner have led us even farther from the idea that we should merely rationalize universals without some sort of proof.
Newer schools of thought such as the Nominalists, Logical Atomists or Positivists all seek to define truth through exploring the universe we live in. This is the final problem of Universals: lack of scientific substance. We are becoming more and more advanced scientifically and the need to have a scientific basis for our truths in philosophy and science grows every day. Universals don’t provide any substance to the scientist, at least not yet. Universals like Wisdom, Justice, God, these things hold no scientific weight as far as empirical exploration goes.
|
|
| Carl Jung Essays |
[28 Oct 2008|09:14pm] |
Carl Jung Essays
1. Jung’s concept of the human psyche rests highly on the idea that the mind is system of processes that are all intertwined within the psyche and intertwined with the collection of minds around the individual mind. For Jung, the mind is not a singular static “thing” that exists individually and separate for each person. For Jung, the mind exists as a cohesive internal system of processes, where reality is influenced by subtle processes as well as cognitive processes. These processes are all then intertwined at subtle levels where the individual is intertwined with a social unconscious unity and the individual mind is intimately influenced and interconnected with a greater whole.
The first subtle function of the mind that shapes the scope of Jung’s vision of the human psyche is the personal unconscious mind. The personal unconscious mind is a subtle layer of consciousness that exists and functions directly beneath waking consciousness. In other words, the normal awake and conscious mind is grounded in a subtle layer that is the foundation of the individual personality.
For Jung, the mind is a process where the conscious and the unconscious mind exist in a mutually influential relationship where the conscious mind is directly influenced by the tendencies and attachments contained in the subtle mind. Jung explains this as, “……….. the unconscious is a process, and….. the psyche is transformed or developed by the relationship of the ego and the contents of the unconscious.” (pg. 75).
The contents of the unconscious mind are determined by conscious attachments that form the foundation of the personality. However for Jung, the contents of the personal unconscious are also influenced at an even deeper level by, what Jung calls, the Collective Unconscious. Jung postulates that at the base of all individual minds is a common connection to a Collective Unconscious layer of consciousness that is not only shared by all individual psyches, but is also the grounding influence behind all mythological and religious experiences.
The way in which the Collective Unconscious influences the experience of mystical revelation or mythological thinking is through a concept similar to Plato’s concept of the Forms. Jung claims there are absolute eternal images that form the basis for religious and psychological phenomena called archetypes. The archetypes manifest in conscious reality by entering into the personal unconscious. However, the archetypes exist in the Collective Unconscious as absolute patterns that form certain conscious religious realities. Jung describes the archetypes as, “The archetypes… are not intellectually invented. They are always there and they produce certain processes in the unconscious one could best compare with myths.” (pg.73) Here he states that the archetypes exist independent of individual conception and manifest within the unconscious mind in the form of religious imagery or concepts, mainly myths. He goes further to clarify, “That’s the origin of mythology. Mythology is a dramatization of a series of images that formulate the life of the archetypes.” (pg.73). Here he claims mythology is the conscious manifestation of the unconscious archetypes.
Probably the most important archetype is the archetype of the Self. This concept of the Self is not the idea of the individual self, but is more appropriately defined as the Universal Self which manifests as a microcosmic self in the individual mind. In this way, the archetype of the Self is the Universal Self that is the macrocosmic model for the individual self. Jung relates this Universal Self as the Tao, God, and even emptiness in the Buddhist sense. He claims,“Emptiness in this sense doesn’t mean “absence” or “vacancy”, but something unknowable which is endowed with the highest intensity….. I call this Unknowable the Self.” (pg. 90).
One of the other major archetypes is the Shadow. The Shadow is the unconscious reflection of the conscious mind of the individual. It is reflective of the personal conscious tendencies of the individual and can serve as a way towards self awareness by recognizing the nature of one’s Shadow. Jung speaks of the experience of the Shadow as being transformative and influential in understanding the depth of one’s psyche.
Integral to Jung’s system is also the dissolution of opposites, or maybe more clearly stated as the inclusion and harmony of dual principles. This harmony and inclusion of opposites is seen in the archetype of the Anima and the Animus. The Anima and the Animus are direct polar opposite manifestations of gender in the unconscious mind. Where the Shadow can tend to reflect opposite principles in the psyche, the anima and animus are direct reflections of male and female principles in male and female individuals. He defines them as such, “Anima is the soul image of a man represented in dreams or fantasies by a feminine figure. It symbolizes the function of relationship. The animus is the image of spiritual forces in a woman, symbolized by a masculine figure.” (pg. 83) Therefore, psychological and spiritual concepts manifest as reflections of the opposite in the unconscious mind.
This harmony of opposites and the reflection of each in the opposite is integral to the whole of Jung’s psychology, and it becomes the central principle in the process of individuation. Individuation is the process of becoming aware of the human psyche and becoming not just an individual human being, but a spiritual and human being. This harmony of spiritual existence and physical human existence is the completion of individuation. He clarifies this as, “Individuation does not only mean that man has become truly human as distinct from animal, but that he is to become partially divine as well. That means practically that he becomes adult, responsible for his existence, knowing that he does not only depend on God but that God also depends on man.” (pg. 63) Therefore, individuation is the mutually dependent relationship that happens when a human realizes his harmonious existence with God.
3. According to Jung, the dominant social paradigm has been changing over the centuries as a direct reflection of an underlying Collective Unconscious movement toward an archetypal reality reflective of the Self, and the image of the God/Man in Jesus and other religious figures. He claims that religion has been evolving from an animistic paradigm through a Polytheistic then Monotheistic paradigm, and the world then enters into the Christian paradigm of the God/Man which is embodied in Jesus. The archetype of the God/Man manifested as Jesus Christ, and Jung believes that the God/Man paradigm is yielding a paradigm of the Self where the Individuated Man becomes the prototype for all individuals to realize the Self through that image of God incarnated in a human form.
Jung clearly did not feel that Christianity was the only ultimate truth. However, Jung did feel that the Christ God/Man model served as an archetypal prototype that manifests in the collective unconscious and lead to a greater paradigm shift in global religious experience. He found this model to be a universal that could be found in Buddhism and in Taoism and Tantra as well. Hebrew Kabbalah for example, is a Jewish vision of the God/Man and is very similar to Hindu and Buddhist Tantra. He claims in this quote that by inclusion, Christianity would benefit by seeing the universality of this God/Man model as an archetypal prototype. “I only wish the theologians would accept the Kabbala and India and China as well so as to proclaim still more clearly how God reveals himself. If in the process Christianity should be relativized up to a point, this would be ad majorem Dei gloriam [for the greater glory of God] and would do no harm to Christian doctrine.” (pg.149)
The process of individuation is seen as the actual process of realizing the harmonization of Divine and Human in the individual self. Through this harmonization of physical and spiritual realities, the individuated being realizes the Self and in turn the social paradigm shifts towards a universal awareness of this paradigm shift.
This shift then in turn happens due to the fact that the Collective Unconscious manifests these archetypes into the personal unconscious and through this, actual conscious manifestations happen as a result of a collective archetypal model. This collective motion is the foundation behind Jung’s concept of Synchronicity. Synchronicity is the connection of the unconscious and conscious paradigm shifting that happens as a global motion. This motion yields certain events and instances that show the conscious connection to an unconscious psychic concept. Jung defines synchronicity as such, “Synchronicity states that a certain psychic event is paralleled by some external non-psychic event and that there is a no causal connection between them. It is a parallelism of meaning. (pg. 159). Therefore, a synchronistic event is one where a non-local simultaneous event happens both on the unconscious and conscious levels of reality. This non-local connection further shows a collective non-local connection behind unconscious and conscious events and paradigm shifts.
As a further inclusive concept Jung reverts back to the harmony of dualistic principles in his vision of the mystical marriage, or hierosgamos. The Mystical Marriage is a union of dualistic principles that appears in Tantra, Taoism and in the God/Man model. The Mystical Marriage is the mystical union of male and female, principles, but more importantly physical and spiritual principles to achieve a universal harmony that is reflective of universal archetypal truth. The union and harmony of opposite principles is the foundation of Jungian models and manifests in Jungian concepts of anima/animus, individuation, and the God/Man archetype.
|
|
| email |
[29 Sep 2008|08:33pm] |
|
ChristopherEtter@live.com
|
|
| William James and Mysticism |
[29 Sep 2008|08:32pm] |
Reunification with Universal Oneness:
A Comparison of William James’ View of Mysticism and the Mind Cure Movement
The Religion of Healthy Mindedness and the Mind Cure Movement
The Religion of Healthy Mindedness is the fundamental basis for what would become known as The Mind Cure Movement according to James. The Religion of Healthy Mindedness is the concept that some people are predisposed to a naturally optimistic, happy and almost ecstatic sate of mind that pervades their entire being and gives them a state of joy by just simply being alive.
This state of happiness is considered congenital for some people in that they are simply born with the optimistic mind. Where most people live in a cynical or pessimistic way and hold either mild or generally negative views of life, people with the “healthy mind” tend to live life in cloud of happiness that others do not experience even when they try to experience such states.
To these people religion is union with the Divine, and religion is an expression of this union. The experience of union with the Divine permeates their being despite the negativity they may see around them or be indoctrinated into. James states, “We find such persons of every age, passionately flinging themselves upon their sense of the goodness of life, in spite of the hardships of their own condition, and in spite of the sinister theologies into which they may be born.” (James 60). This mind set seems to dissolve the cynical and negative aspects of their mind and fill them with a sense of goodness and wholeness, that is to them a sense of unity with cosmic divine love and happiness.
To these people nature is absolutely good, and everything in creation is at its core fundamentally good. This happiness and goodness is reflective of universal reality and the experience of “Cosmic Emotion” (James 60) manifests directly in their life and worldview as an overtly happy and “healthy mind”.
The Mind Cure Movement is then an extension of this philosophy and experience. The Mind Cure Movement builds on the idea that the healthy mind is a direct reflection of universal truth and universal love and happiness, and in turn this healthy mind can be cultivated in such a way to heal ills in the physical body itself. The experience of disease, illness, psychological disorders, all have their root in the corrupted mind, and it is by cultivating a healthy mind and removing the blockages that create corruption that one heals and returns to the natural healthy mind and body. It is an intuitive and practical method of literally healing the body through the cultivation of the healthy mind.
James uses quotes from Trine on page 75 to underline the basic principles of the Mind Cure Movement. The basic principles according to Trine are that the Spirit is the infinite life giving power that manifests in every living thing, and this Spirit or God, fills the universe with itself so that nothing is outside itself. Therefore, the entire universe is God, “all is from Him and in Him…. He is the life of our life, our very life itself.”(James 75). Building from this he claims, ”The great central fact in human life is the coming into a conscious vital realization of our oneness with this Infinite Life.” (James 75). It is clear from these passages that central to both the “healthy mind” and the Mind Cure Movement is the inherent need to reunite with the universal truth of oneness, and to realize that our lives, minds and bodies are inherently embedded in this universal, infinite and living oneness.
When an individual experiences illness in the mind or body, the Mind Cure Movement believes it is because of the separation of the individual from the universal reality of oneness. Trine goes on to say: “The first underlying cause of all sickness, weakness or depression is the human sense of separateness from that Divine Energy which we call God.” (James 75).
Therefore, the solution to alleviating sickness and psychological disorders lies in the mind, and the solution is directly dependent on the reconciliation of the separation one experiences when they are not united with the infinite eternal life energy of God. James quotes a woman who was suffering from serious physical and mental disorders such as nervousness and insomnia who says, “I think that the one thing which impressed me most was learning the fact that we must be in absolutely constant relation or mental touch… with that essence of life which permeates all and which we call God.” (James 76).
James uses these and other case studies that show people who suffered from various illness and ailments, and found relief from these symptoms by the principles of the Mind Cure Movement: 1. God is infinite and pantheistic (at least panentheistic), 2. God is the source of our lives and being, 3. Separation from this awareness causes disruption in the mind and body. 4. Alleviation of physical and mental ailments comes from the reconciliation of this disconnect, 5. Reconciliation of this disconnect comes from regaining the awareness of interconnectedness with the Infinite life energy of God, and regaining a healthy mind and in turn a healthy body by the inherent reconnecting with that life energy.
Mysticism According to James
Hinduism
James firsts references Hinduism to show the essence of the mystical experience. According to the Hindu mystical experience, enlightenment is found in shedding the illusory bonds of finite existence and gaining union with the Universal Self in a state of bliss called Samadhi. These bonds of finite existence are the sense of self as well as the sense of plurality when looking into the multitude of objects in the world. The Hindu mystical experience is infused with the realization that the universe is One and that plurality of objects including the ego is an illusion. He gives a quote from Vivekananda on this topic: “There is no feeling of “I” and yet the mind works, desireless, free from restlessness, objectless, bodiless.” (James 281). Again we see the fundamental essence of Hindu mystical experience as the dissolution of the illusion of an ego-centric mind-frame. Vivekananda goes on to say: “Then the Truth shines in its full effulgence, and we know ourselves-for Samadhi lies potential in us all- for what we truly are, free, immortal, omnipotent, loosed from the finite, and its contrasts of good and evil altogether and identical with the Atman or Universal Soul.” (James 281). Once the illusion of ego-centrism is dissolved and one realizes that there is a Universal Soul and a universal state of oneness, the individual becomes intimately united with this Universal Soul. This is the essence of Samadhi and the Hindu mystical experience.
Sufism
Although the Sufi mystical experience has subtle differences from the Hindu mystical experience, direct correlations can be seen in the destruction or annihilation of the individual ego into the greater universal truth of God. Sufism is concerned with losing the ego-center just as Hindu mystics are. James quotes, “The Science of the Sufis aims at detaching the heart from all that is not God, and at giving it for sole occupation the meditation of the divine being.” (James 285). The elimination of the bonds of the finite mind is the key to attaining union with God for the Sufi.
Further, the goal of the Sufi is to completely shed the individual ego and gain complete union with God. “The next key of the contemplative life consists in the humble prayers which escape from the fervent soul and in the meditations on God in which the heart is swallowed up entirely. But in reality this is only the beginning of the Sufi life, the end of Sufism is the total absorption of God.” (James 285). We can clearly see the correlation between Sufi and Hindu mystical experiences here, as both are preoccupied with the total absorption of the individual into the greater being of God through the complete loss of ego-centrism.
James uses the rest of the quotes from Sufism to paint the picture of the incommunicability of mystical experience to others. James claims that mystical experiences are unique and real to the individuals who have them. He goes so far as to say that because they are real to the individual that they point to a higher level of religion that in itself is equally real. But he also says that they do not have to be proven real to others. And the later parts of the Sufi quotes talk directly about the ineffability of God and mystical experience. James states,” This incommunicableness of the transport is the keynote of all mysticism. Mystical truth exists for the individual who has the transport, but for no one else.” (James 285).
Mysticism
By showing the essences of Hindu and Sufi mysticism James paints a pantheistic and optimistic view of enlightenment. The mystic seeks liberation from the suffering of this world and of their own minds and lives through seeking union with a primordial universal oneness. James states that mysticism takes two philosophical directions. “One of these directions is optimism, and the other is monism. We pass into mystical states from out of ordinary consciousness as from a less into a more, as from a smallness to a vastness, and at the same time as from an unrest to a rest. We feel them as reconciling, unifying states”. (James 292). The unification of the individual self into the greater universal oneness is both a liberating event and an enlightening event because one realizes the true monistic nature of the universe through the loss of the self. He sums this up clearly by stating, “The overcoming of all the usual barriers between the individual and the Absolute is the great mystic achievement. In the mystic states we both become one with the Absolute, and we become aware of our oneness.“(James 294)
Similarities and Differences Between Mysticism and the Mind Cure Movement
The similarities between Mysticism and the Mind Cure Movement are quite clear. James seems to suggest that Mysticism is the concrete extension of the “healthy mindedness” of the Mind Cure Movement. Both are concerned with achieving liberation from individual suffering by seeking union with a universal energy called God, whereby a state of bliss and happiness is achieved and realized.
The most important similarity is that both Mysticism and the Mind Cure Movement see the universe and enlightenment to be monistic/pantheistic, and both see an optimism in the pursuit of this monistic union and reality. The ultimate reality of the universe is ultimately one whole and this realization is the key to liberation from individual suffering. These similarities are quite clear in James’ writing.
However there is one discrepancy I’d like to point out. This discrepancy lies in James description of how the Mind Cure Movement sees the concept of evil. James clearly makes the connection that both schools of thought see the inherent monism in the universe. However on page 96 in the section on the Sick Soul, James describes the philosophical dilemma concerning the philosophical theist and practical theist views of evil. He claims that philosophical theism tends to see evil as part of the whole. This is a monistic approach which sees evil either dissolved into the whole or a function of the whole. James states, “Philosophical Theism has always shown a tendency to become pantheistic and monistic and to consider the world as one unit of absolute fact.” (James 96). Then he states that practical theism tends to have a more pluralistic view of evil as something antithetical to God. He says about the healthy minded schools of thought that it, “casts its vote distinctly for this pluralistic view.” (James 97). He sates further, “Evil, it says is emphatically irrational, and not to be pinned in or preserved, or consecrated in any final system of truth. It is a pure abomination to the Lord, an alien unreality, a waste element, to be sloughed off and negated and the very memory of it, if possible, wiped out and forgotten.” (James 97).
The contradiction here is that where mystical experiences seem to inevitably dissolve evil into the universal truth. We saw this in Vivekananda’s quote: “for what we truly are, free, immortal, omnipotent, loosed from the finite, and its contrasts of good and evil altogether and identical with the Atman or Universal Soul.” (James 281). He states good and evil is dissolved into a non-dual relationship, James seems to suggest the Mind-Cure Movement has a slightly pluralistic view of evil, and this would seem at odds with the declaration that the Mind Cure Movement is in itself monistic. However, it can still be said they both see the final goal as monist regardless of how they define evil.
|
|
| Augustine and Time |
[29 Sep 2008|08:30pm] |
St. Augustine’s Concept of Time
When breaking down St. Augustine’s concept of time and the passing of time, one can clearly see the Platonic influences in his vision of what time is and how we experience it. For Augustine, God is a permanent and absolute entity, whose very nature is unchanging, immutable and independent of cause. God then creates the universe in which all things are dependent upon God to exist, are impermanent in essence, and constantly in a state of change and flux. This point of view is clearly influenced by Plato’s view of the Realm of Being and the Realm of Becoming (Forms). For Augustine, God is the unchanging, permanent and absolute aspect of reality, which mirrors the qualities of the Plato’s Realm of Being, and the created universe is filled with pseudo-essences which are impermanent dependent and in a constant state of flux, which is also Plato’s view of the Realm of Becoming.
Augustine sees time in the light of this relationship. For Augustine, God creates all things in the universe, and this includes time itself. He states that God exists before time because God creates time itself. He claims that it is a misconception to ask questions about the existence of God before Creation because time itself is a creation of God. He states, “At no time, therefore, did you do nothing, since you had made time itself. No times are coeternal with you, because you are permanent whereas if they were permanent they would not be times.” (Confessions 14:17).
From this distinction of time being an impermanent created thing, it is therefore in constant change, impermanent and according to Augustine, not a truly existent thing. He claims regarding the non-existence of absolute time, “As to past times, which no longer exist, or future, which as yet do not exist, who can measure them, except perhaps as a man rash enough to say that he can measure what does not exist? Therefore as time is passing by, it can be perceived and measured, but when it has passed by, it cannot be measured since it does not exist.” (Confessions 16:21).
To Augustine, time is a passing reality that ceases to exist as it passes, and does not exist in any form before it passes. In this way, time is a perception of the mind, and created entirely in the mind. He goes further to claim, “But perhaps it might properly be said that there are three times, the present of past things, the present of present things and the present of future things.” (Confessions 20:26). To Augustine, time exists only in the present and the past exists in memory and the future exists in expectation, but these things only exist in the present and the past and future are non-existent. Therefore, time is a non-existent thing that exists only in the passing perception of the present, and like Plato’s concept of Forms, it exists in constant change and flux and therefore, impermanent and dependent upon on God. It is in no way co-equal to the absoluteness of God, and does not exist without God.
|
|
| Exclusivity Principle |
[13 Sep 2008|12:14pm] |
Theory: Exclusivity is a consequence of declaring a definitive philosophical/theological path to enlightenment/salvation.
Myth: The Exclusivity Principle only exists in Western religions and schools of thought.
Proof: In Buddhism it is taught that enlightenment can only be achieved by attaining a state based on the teachings of sunyata (emptiness), and anicca (impermanence). Buddhists teach that in order to achieve liberation from Samsara (cyclic process of rebirth and suffering), you must follow Buddhist teachings on these concepts, or be reborn into lower rebirth realms including hell realms.
In Vedantic Hinduism, if you were able to sit down Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) who was a non-dualist, and Madhva (Dvaita Vedanta) who was a dualist and have them describe liberation from suffering, they would clearly say that the teachings of the other one will lead to the perpetuation of suffering, and that their own teachings were the correct path to moksha (liberation).
Furthermore, if you were to sit down Nagarjuna (Buddhist) and Shankara (Advaita Vedanta) whose teachings are relatively similar, and have them discuss liberation, Nagarjuna would suggest that Shankara's views lead to the perpetuation of suffering due to objectifying enlightenment as Brahman, and Shankara would argue that Nagarjuna's teachings would perpetuate suffering due to the dissolution of Brahman into emptiness.
Conclusion: It is a clear misconception to claim exclusivity is purely a Western concept because Eastern religious philosophers would claim that antithetical teachings, and even similar teachings would lead to the perpetuation of suffering and that their teachings were the proper path to liberation from suffering. Therefore, the exclusivity principle is a consequence of declaring a specific philosophical/theological doctrine that leads to salvation/liberation because to declare a specific doctrine is to claim inherent truth, where opposing doctrines are inherently untrue. The only way a philosophical doctrine can be free from exclusivity is if they claim that it is wrong in some cases.
|
|
| Adjectivism |
[17 Jan 2008|10:17pm] |
Adjectivism is scheduled to be published by May 2008..... www.amazon.com
Christopher Etter
|
|
|
[26 Apr 2007|06:56pm] |
Christopher Etter
4/25/2007
A Comparative Study of Quantum Physics, Vedantic Hinduism and Buddhism
Introduction
Alot has been speculated and written over the last few decades on the similarities between Eastern Religions and Quantum Physics. Most of the time the connection is oversimplified and blurred, and it is taken for granted that somehow they are identical. In this text I will be comprehensively describing and comparing three schools of Vedantic Hinduism, Buddhism and Quantum Physics. I will attempt to show the similarities and differences and will show that there really is a narrow field of religious schools of thought that can even be related to Quantum Physics. In the end the reader will have knowledge of all these religious schools of thought, Quantum Physics and be able to see the connections and contradictions that all these fields have with each other.
Vedanta
Vedanta is the primary schools of thought in Hinduism. The original texts of Hinduism were called the Vedas and they formed the central theological doctrine that emerged as Hinduism developed. The term Vedanta actually means “Ultimate Wisdom” or more simply “conclusions of the Vedas”.
The Vedas are primarily concerned with defining the nature of the universe and the divine, and its central theological concepts revolve around the concept of Brahman, or God. Brahman in the Vedas is considered to be an absolute, eternal and unchanging one-ness. Brahman is the Creator from which all other gods, beings and the universe itself emerged from.
It is written in the Chandogya Upanishad, which is one of the texts written in response to the Vedas: “In the beginning there was Existence alone- One only, without a second. He, the One, thought to himself: Let me be many, let me grow forth. Thus out of himself he projected the universe, and having projected out of himself the universe, he entered into every being. All that is has its self in him alone. Of all things he is the subtle essence. He is the truth. He is the Self. And that….. THAT ART THOU.”
Chandogya Upanishad
Here we see that Brahman is the source of all that exists. Brahman is One, and all things are dependent upon Brahman to exist. Implied here is also the sense of the Self, which would later become termed Atman. This passage claims that “That art thou”, or You are the Self (Atman)”. We shall also see as we explore the different schools of Vedanta that different philosophers interpreted this in different ways.
Dvaita Vedanta
The first school of Vedanta we will explore is called Dvaita Vedanta, which means “dualistic conclusions of the Vedas”. The reason it is called this is because it explains the theological relationship of God and the Universe as an inherent dualism where God and the created universe are inherently distinct and separate. God is seen as an absolute, eternal, and unchanging one-ness, where the universe and the individual self are seen as finite and impermanent and distinctly separate from God.
Cosmology
Theological dualism in Vedanta is said to start with the Samkhya school of thought that emerged as early as the sixth century, but Dvaita Vedanta is most attributed to the philosopher Madhvacharya (or simply Madhva) in the late thirteenth century.
The Samkhya school of thought spoke of the dualism of two realities: the absolute perfected divine reality of the Supreme Self called Purusha, and the physical material reality called Prakriti. Purusha is beyond all notions of time and space, and Purusha is eternal, pure, changeless and boundless and causeless. In contrast, Prakriti is the created reality of this universe, and is said to be impermanent and an illusory obstacle to be overcome if one wishes to achieve union with the Supreme reality of Purusha.
Madhva also theorized that there existed two separate realities, but he described and explains the theology differently. The first and most important reality was that of Vishnu. Vishnu was the Supreme Self and the absolute truth of the universe. This reality remained separate and distanced from the second reality: the universe of Vishnu’s creation. This second reality was seen as a real universe that existed with its own separate essence. Everything that composed this second reality remained separate from the Supreme reality of Vishnu. Matter, the soul or Jiva, spirit and even different pieces of matter were seen as separate principles and existed with their own separate reality.
Madhva spoke of the five differences in the universe These five differences are: 1. the difference between the soul (jiva) and God, 2. the difference between jada physical objects (jada) and God, 3. the difference between various souls (jiva), 4.the difference between physical objects (jada) and souls (jiva); and the difference between various physical objects (jada). Therefore, the individual self is separate and distinct from God. Not only is the individual separate from God but it is also separate and distinct from other souls and the physical material of the universe. On top of the plurality created by God, souls, and matter, Madhva goes so far as to say that different pieces of matter are distinct and separate from each other as well.
Role of Observer
The role of the individual observer in the theology of Dvaita Vedanta is one of separation and distance from God and the reality of the Supreme Self. The individual is seen as a subjective observer of the objective physical reality that imprisoned his soul and mind in illusion. The world around the individual is seen as a plurality of individual objects and those objects were distinctly separate from the individual. Equally the individual is distinctly separate from other individuals, and all objects in the universe are separate and distinct from each other.
All of this objective reality as seen from the observer is also distinctly separate from the reality of the Supreme Self, which is the embodiment of true unity, one-ness and absolute reality. The individual is eternal separate and distant through the plurality of the objective physical universe it inhabits.
Reconciliation of Worldly Illusion
The reconciliation of worldly illusion is done through devotion or bhakti yoga. The path of enlightenment is to see the eternal separation of the individual from the Supreme Self, and so the only real way to achieve moksha (liberation from illusion) is to fill the individual self with love for the divine and exhibit proper action in order to receive God’s grace and blessing.
God is defined by Madhva as Vishnu and is seen as a personal real Being. Therefore, Vishnu had the ability to grant liberation from worldly illusion and suffering and also had the ability to condemn. The three states of liberation or gunas are: 1. Absolute liberation 2. partial liberation where one retain a sense of individual self, or 3. condemnation to suffering.
Therefore, it is through bhakti yoga, or devotion, love and obedience that one reconciled the illusion of this physical universe and received liberation into the Supreme Self.
Advaita Vedanta
Advaita Vedanta is the antithetical school of Dvaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta means “non-dualistic conclusions of the Vedas”, and it is the exact opposite if the Dvaita theology in that it claims there is no divisions or separations in the universe. In fact all separations and divisions are merely an illusion. This school of thought is mostly attributed to the philosopher Shankara in the eighth to ninth centuries.
Cosmology
Shankara theorized that the universe existed to be only one impersonal reality: Brahman. Brahman is the universal supreme truth of the universe, but exists as an impersonal emptiness that has no distinct reality to it. To Shankara the entire created universe was merely an illusion. Shankara believed that nothing exists in a finite form therefore the universe is one complete non-dual one-ness, with no distinct existences or qualities. The universe is merely one universal whole, and the illusion that there exists any separate existence or reality to the universal one-ness is maya, or the illusory restraints of finite consciousness.
It is written that Shan Kara’s philosophy can be simplified to this: “Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah- Brahman,” which means “The Absolute alone is real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.” Essential to Shankara’s philosophy was that the entire universe was Brahman. Atman was equal to Brahman all things were merely an illusion. Things, objects and the individual self did not exist in any qualitative form, it merely appeared in illusion to exist, but in fact all “things” were non-existing.
Role of Observer
The observer in Advaita Vedanta is considered to not truly exist. Shankara claims that it is through ignorance and illusion that one sees oneself as separate from other things and from God. Shankara claims that the true reality of the universe is that “All is Brahman”. The observer does not exist separate from the observed, and in fact, the individual does not truly exist in any form other than in the absolute universal one-ness of Brahman. To see the universe in any other way is to be bound by ignorance to illusion. It is a very strict school of pure non-duality.
Reconciliation of Worldly Illusion
The reconciliation of worldly illusion is then to realize the true nature of the individual self as non-dual from the universe and Brahman, thereby achieving liberation from ignorance illusion through the realization of universal one-ness. Brahman is not seen as a personal interactive “being” in any way. Rather than using a devotional yoga or a love based meditation on an objective “God”, Shankara teaches the individual to meditate on the true nature of the universe and the individual self as being non-dual from Brahman. Through this realization ignorance and illusion is lofted and liberation into the Supreme Self of Brahman is achieved.
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta means directly “qualified non-dualistic conclusions to the Vedas”. Vishishtadvaita can also be said as “non-dualism with qualities” (I personally prefer qualitative non-dualism). The philosophy of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta advocates the importance of a Supreme Being with essential qualities or attributes, which means one could qualitatively define certain distinctions and characteristics of Brahman. It was developed primarily by the philosopher Ramanuja in the eleventh century.
Cosmology
According to Ramanuja, Brahman is Ultimate Reality, absolute being (sat), omnipresent, all encompassing, eternal, pure bliss (ananda) and pure consciousness (chit). Ramanuja argued against the idea that Brahman is an impersonal and empty oneness. Instead he claimed that Brahman is an eternal oneness that is the source of all creation and is both actively involved in its existence and omnipresent in its design.
Ramanuja claimed that Brahman is definitively real, and the individual self as well as the physical universe itself is real. However, there exists no distinction between Brahman and other “things” because all things are part of the body of Brahman. All things that are normally perceived as separate are actually intertwined as one whole that composes Brahman’s body. In this way, the universe is non-dual, but according to Ramanuja, the universe has different qualities and different “things” are merely different aspects of Brahman.
This allows for the usage of terminology to define the individual self as a real thing but not independently existing. It also allows the individual to place qualitative distinctions on themselves, other things and even Brahman without the illusion that the universe is separated into separate and distinct entities. According to Ramanuja, the universe and all things in it, are interconnected as the body of Brahman and therefore not separate from Brahman as well.
Therefore, Vishishtadvaita Vedanta claims that the universe is one non-dual interconnected whole. But unlike Shankara, who claimed that all “things” are merely illusion, Ramanuja claimed that these “things” were actually interconnected aspects of Brahman’s body and therefore qualitatively distinct. All things in the universe are inherently interconnected, but “qualities” can be placed on objects, the individual self and on Brahman itself without losing the concept of universal interconnectedness.
Role of the Observer
Brahman is the universal oneness of the Supreme Being and in turn the individual observer’s sense of being emanates from this principle. Ramanuja believed that through obtaining knowledge of God’s divine essence we would realize our interconnectedness with the Absolute. The reason we do not have everyday knowledge and awareness of universal oneness is “nescience”, or ignorance. This sense of ignorance is perpetuated and created by our illusory sense of subject and object perception. It is not that the sense of self is an illusion; it is that the world we see is perceived through illusory ideas of reality.
Ramanuja agreed with Shankara that the universe was universally non-dualistic, however he did not agree that the sense of self is in itself was an illusion. In other words, the universe is not simply empty and devoid of being ness, in fact, the individual’s sense of self is a reflection of the eternal being of Brahman. However, when individual consciousness is subjected to maya, or worldly illusion of dualistic, subject and object perception, one separates oneself from the non-dualistic essence of the universe.
It is an illusion to see the universe as a plurality of pieces with separate and distinct existence but it is also an illusion to see these same pieces as completely non-existent. Ramanuja did not believe that objects did not exist entirely; he believed that they existed in a simple qualitative way as an aspect of the body of Brahman, the Absolute Self.
Reconciliation of Worldly Illusion
According to Ramanuja all things in this universe including the individual observer are intimately intertwined as qualitative aspects of Absolute Reality. Unlike Shankara who felt that universal interconnectedness had to be impersonal and empty of existence, Ramanuja allowed for a qualitative existence of a personal God. But unlike Madhva who objectified this personal God by creating inherent separation between God and the individual, Ramanuja declared that all things were an interconnected part of Brahman’s body. Therefore, Ramanuja incorporated both the metaphysical aspects of non-duality and the devotional aspects of objective worship, and he believed that liberation from worldly illusion happened both through the realization of the inherent interconnection with Brahman, while simultaneously devoting oneself though love and proper action to a Supreme Self qualitatively called Brahman.
By regaining the knowledge of Brahman and by understanding the microcosmic/macrocosmic relationship of Atman and Brahman, one is freed from maya and enters into a state of spiritual bliss and retains the individual awareness of consciousness. And by aligning one’s actions and love with the Supreme Brahman, one gains liberation by God’s graces into the universal non-duality that is Brahman itself.
Buddhism
Buddhism is the collective schools of thought that emerged in response to the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, or more commonly called, the Buddha. The Buddha lived and taught in India in the third century BCE, and his teachings revolved around cosmological concepts of emptiness and absence of form, especially in regards to the sense of self. Buddha’s teachings were very similar to that of Advaita Vedanta in that Buddha recognized the inherent interconnectedness of all things and spoke of the idea of individual ego as being purely illusory. However, Buddha differed in his teachings from all schools of Vedanta in that he never really spoke of Brahman. He did however speak of Ataman, and his teachings declare that there is no Atman. Unlike Shankara, who claimed Ataman was Brahman, Buddha declared there was Anatman or no-self.
Cosmology
Sunyata (Emptiness) Anicca (Impermanence) and Anatman (No-Self)
Essential to Buddhist cosmology are the terms Sunyata (emptiness), Anicca (impermanence) and Anatman (no-self). The term Sunyata refers to the Buddha’s teaching of cosmological emptiness. The Buddha declared that the universe was “empty” of finite form. This meant that the true nature of the universe was unbroken one-ness and any image or concept of a finite separate or independent form was completely illusory. He did not specifically say that nothing exists, but it is clear that he meant that there is no such thing as finite form in the universe. Therefore, the universe is “empty” of form.
Anicca means impermanence. Impermanence refers to the fact that even when objects appear to exist in some finite form they inevitably decay and change form. The Buddha said that the universe is constantly “becoming” and is in a constant state of change. Therefore, nothing in the universe exists independently and nothing in the universe can be said to be a permanent existing entity. All things in the universe will someday cease to be and change from the form it is in now. Therefore, not only is the universe empty of finite form, but it is also empty of permanent independent objects.
Also essential to Buddhist doctrine is the teaching of “dependent origination”. Dependent origination is the teaching that all apparent “objects” and forms are in themselves dependent on other aspects to in itself exist. A chariot is made up of wheels and a carriage, the body is made up of organs and bones, the mind is composed of certain functions. Everything in the universe is dependent upon other things to exist and therefore no “thing” exists independently of the whole.
Anatman is the most elusive of the Buddha’s teachings, but the essential meaning is that there is no-self; no independent self and nothing that resembles an independent separate individual self. This teaching has been debated as Buddhism developed and I will be exploring the basic evolution of this teaching from early to late Buddhism.
Sunyata and Anatman in the Theravada Tradition
The earliest schools of Buddhism are called the Theravada tradition and the central texts of these schools compose the Pali Canon. In early Buddhism Sunyata and Anatman were taken very literally. In the Samyutta Nikaya of the Pali Canon, the Buddha is quoted as saying specifically when asked by his disciple Ananda, “ What is meant, Lord, by the phrase The World is empty?” The Buddha replies: That it is empty, Ananda, of a self, or of anything of the nature of a self. And what is it that is thus empty? The five seats of the five senses, and the mind, and the feeling that is related to mind: all these are void of a self or of anything that is self-like.” Emphasis was placed on the fact that there existed no-self and like the universe the true nature of the individual self was emptiness.
Nagarjuna and the Middle Way
The next major step in Buddhism was called the Mahayana tradition, which means “Greater Vehicle” and was a teaching designed to incorporate all of humankind, and not just the elite monks.
Probably the most recognized Mahayana philosopher was Nagarjuna who developed the Madhyamika school of Buddhism. Nagarjuna focused on the Buddha’s teaching of the Middle Way. The Middle Way was the logic of seeing a balance between two extremes. It was applied to meditational practices when discussing the extremes of abstinence and indulgence and it applied to cosmological; concepts like existence and non-existence and self and no-self.
The major distinction in Nagarjuna’s teaching was his usage of the doctrine of “The Middle Way” to convey an epistemological approach to understanding the essence of all teachings. Nagarjuna teaches that if you insist that a doctrine such as no-self is true, than you place inherent existence on the doctrine and in turn lose the scope of the Buddha’s teaching. “Without self-nature and other-nature, whence can there be an existent? For, the existent is established when there is self-nature or other nature.”
Nagarjuuna wanted to stress the importance of losing attachment to the ego-self, but he felt that if one strictly geared to mind to see pure emptiness, non-existence and no-self…. That too would be attaching to an ego-identity by attaching to doctrine itself. It is like objectifying a teaching about not objectifying reality as being an inherent objective truth.
Therefore, Nagarjuna taught that even the doctrine of emptiness and no-self becomes objectified when perceived by the ego-self. He also states that by putting reality to either a doctrine’s existence or non-existence is to misunderstand the Buddha’s words. Nagarjuna states in the Kaccayanagotta-Sutta, his primary text on the “Middle Way”, “Those who perceive self-nature as well as other-nature, existence as well as non-existence, they do not perceive the truth embodied in the Buddha’s message.” Nagarjuna also states after that, “In the admonition to Katyayana, the two theories implying ‘exists and does not exist’ have been refuted by the Blessed One who is adept in existence as well as in nonexistence.”
Nagarjuna used this logic to help reinforce the Buddha’s teaching of the Middle Way as a path to understand the whole of Buddhist doctrine. Nagarjuna wrote, “Everything is such, not such, both such and not such, and neither such and not such: this is the Buddha’s admonition.” By using this logic the mind is geared to understand a balance between different extremes in the universe.
The Diamond Sutra
The Diamond Sutra was a later Buddhist text which influenced the emergence of Buddhism as it moved east. The Diamond Sutra spoke on the issue of the Middle Way and the absence of self in relation to intrinsic qualities. “Because if such men allowed their minds to grasp and hold onto anything they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality; and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separate individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of intrinsic qualities.” This seems to suggest that the doctrine of no-self and emptiness is not to be taken literally so that one does not lose its meaning. It is definite that it is trying to get individuals to see past limited finite descriptions, but that is in order to liberate the mind from any sense of ego-identity.
The Nirvana Sutra and Tibetan Buddhism
It is not until the schools of Yogacarin Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism that the use of language and terminology became an acceptable way of qualitatively defining objects, without implying some sort of inherent pluralism.
The Nirvana Sutra which is a major text in Tibetan Buddhism begins to get out of the strict adherence to the no-self doctrine and begins to claim that Buddha is the True Self, and that this True Self is the true nature of all beings and things. This would have been seen as antithetical to Buddha’s teachings by Nagarjuna, but it has become the predominant view in Tibetan Buddhism. The Nirvana Sutra does claim an objective Self, it merely claims that all things are merely reflective of the True Self of the universe.
The Nirvana Sutra claims that there exists an eternal, unchanging, omniscient, omnipresent and also transcendental Self. "In this instance, it is said that all dharmas [things, phenomena] are devoid of Self. [But actually] it is not true to say that all dharmas are devoid of the Self. The Self is Reality [tattva], the Self is unchanging [nitya], the Self is virtue [guna], the Self is eternal [sasvata], the Self is unshakeable/ firm [dhruva], the Self is peace [siva]; ... the Tathagata teaches what is true. Let the four divisions of the assembly strive meditatively to cultivate that." (Nirvana Sutra, Tibetan version)
On the teaching of Sunyata, the Nirvana Sutra says: "When I have taught that the tathagata-garbha is empty, fools meditatively cultivate [the notion] that it is extinction [uccheda], subject to destruction and imperfect. The wise know that it is [actually] unchanging, stable and eternal." (Nirvana Sutra, Tibetan version) This statement clearly shows that emptiness does not mean absolute absence of form, it merely means absence of finite from.
On the teaching of Anatman it claims: "When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise know that such is conventional speech, and they are free from doubts. (Nirvana Sutra, Tibetan version) These statements clearly distance themselves from the early Buddhist adherence to strict emptiness and strict absence of self. This does not mean it claims a plurality or some sort of finite existence, it merely is more of a Middle Way between self and no-self.
Role of Observer
The Role of the Observer is probably the most debated as Buddhism developed. Traditionally, in Buddhism the observer is taught to see the universe as empty of form and full of impermanent dependently originating objects. This then is applied to sense of self in that there is no separate independent observer. The doctrine of Sunyata teaches that the universe is empty of form, and the doctrine of Anatman teaches that the individual is devoid of “self”.
In Theravada Buddhism this was taken very literally. IN Mahayana Buddhism this doctrine was loosened a little to incorporate a more Middle Way type of thinking, but the emphasis was still placed of the inherent absence of self and form. In Tibetan Buddhism the goal is still liberation from plurality and finite form. However, the idea of Anatman no longer takes on a nihilist meaning where there exists no hint of a self. Instead, emptiness and anatman are meant to liberate the mind into the True Self of the universe. In Tibetan Buddhism the individual self and objects are seen in a qualitative form without finite pluralism and liberation is seen as an ultimate True Self.
Reconciliation of Worldly Illusion
Worldly illusion in Buddhism is seen as the illusion that the universe is composed of independent, permanent finite forms and objects. Buddhism teaches sunyata to liberate the mind from the illusion of finite forms and plurality. It teaches Anicca and Dependent Origination to liberate the mind from the illusion of permanence. And Buddhism teaches Anatman to liberate the mind from the illusion that it exists as an independent, permanent self. All of these teachings are then properly balanced with awareness to see the true nature of the self in relation to the universe, which is a relationship of interconnected unity, absent of separate individuality. Therefore, the observer liberates himself from illusion by becoming aware of the true nature of the interconnected universe and the true nature of the relationship of himself to the universe he observes.
Quantum Physics
Quantum Physics is the study of the subatomic world, and the study of the behavior of subatomic particles. It is also the study of the relationship of these particles to the rest of the universe and to active observers. The term “Quantum” comes from the Latin for “amount” and it refers to individual packets of matter called particles.
Classical Physics is the study of the macrocosmic universe and the relationship of objects in the universe and the forces that control them. Up until the turn of the 20th century the universe was seen as a mechanistic system which moved with mathematically predictable accuracy. It was believed by Isaac Newton and the physics community to follow, that the universe once set in motion operated and moved with a beautiful determined perfection and that everything that happened in the universe was predictable and mechanistic.
Classical Physics also held the belief that the universe was composed of independently existent real objects and that these objects were controlled by a series of forces. These forces and objects were all part of this universal machine that moved with deterministic precision.
Around the turn of the century advances in physics began to reveal a part of the universe that questioned the classical mechanistic world-view of physics. These advances led to new theories and experiments that revealed the universe at its smallest particles and revealed a non-deterministic non-mechanistic aspect of the universe. Within this strange level of the universe, the idea of independent objects became blurred into an interconnectedness of wave fields where particles were merely instances of realized matter and that matter as a whole had no independent “building blocks” or mechanized movement. In other words, the universe at its smallest level has no discernable “pieces” and these supposed “pieces” in themselves did not truly behave with a mechanistic determinability. In fact, these particles actually behaved in a completely non-deterministic manner with merely potentialities and probabilities as to the outcome of physical events.
Cosmology
Discontinuity
The first major advance in Quantum Physics was made by Max Planck. His was studying bodies that gave off radiation and wondered how certain bodies could give larger or smaller amounts of radiation. He essentially theorized that energy must also be made of particles and that light had to be made of “quanta” or packets of material. He also theorized that when more energy was put into radiation the amount of radiation did not increase in a continuous mechanistic manner, but it made discrete “quantum jumps” and that the levels of radiation increase in a series of levels with increasing energy. Einstein spoke on this in 1940: “In the year nineteen hundred, in the course of purely theoretical (mathematical) investigation, Max Planck made a very remarkable discovery: the law of radiation of bodies as a function of temperature could not be derived solely from the Laws of Maxwellian electrodynamics. To arrive at results consistent with the relevant experiments, radiation of a given frequency f had to be treated as though it consisted of energy atoms (photons) of the individual energy hf, where h is Planck's universal constant.” (Albert Einstein 1940) Therefore, Planck was the first to suggest the particle aspect of energy (light) and the discontinuity that an atomic structure of radiation would yield.
The next introduction of Discontinuity happened with the study of the atom itself. Niels Bohr was responsible for developing the standard model of the atom we know today, which is composed of a nucleus with protons and neutrons which are surrounded by electron orbits that contained a specific amount of electrons in them. How Discontinuity plays a role is that rather than seeing the atom as a nucleus with continuously moving electron orbits, he claimed that somehow the electrons made discrete jumps from one electron orbit to another. To picture this imagine the orbits of satellites around the Earth. If they move closer to the Earth they spiral inward in a continuous path until they hit the Earth. In the atom, somehow the electrons disappear from one orbit and instantaneously appear in a different orbit. Literally, these electrons disappear from one point in space and emerge in a completely different point in space.
The third introduction of Discontinuity came with De Broglie who declared that the electrons also behaved as waves as well as particles. Because they moved discontinuously with specific integer value jumps, he suggested that possibly the electrons where like “standing waves” as are found in musical instruments. A standing wave can be found when a guitar string is plucked. The wave formed by a stationary string changes in integer jumps. This means that a standing wave will have specific focal points and these points always go up in amount by integers. Either there is 1 focal point of wave movement in the center of the string or when the string is plucked harder there becomes 2 focus points of the wave and then 3 and so on as the energy of the wave increases. De Broglie's Standing Wave Theory of Electrons states that electrons behave in the same manner by making “quantum jumps” from one energy level to another in discontinuous discrete jumps with integer values as the energy of the electron increases. His theory was that the electrons behaved like the standing waves of a guitar string and in turn was both wave and particle. The Standing Wave theory explained both the reason for the discontinuity of the electron orbits and the dualistic structure of electrons as both particles and waves. In Albert Einstein’s words: “The next step was taken by De Broglie. He asked himself how the discrete states could be understood by the aid of current concepts, and hit on a parallel with stationary (standing) waves, as for instance in the case of proper frequencies of organ pipes and strings in acoustics.” (Albert Einstein, 1954)
De Broglie explained the nature of light and electrons as such: “On the one hand the quantum theory of light cannot be considered satisfactory since it defines the energy of a light particle (photon) by the equation E=hf containing the frequency f. Now a purely particle theory contains nothing that enables us to define a frequency; for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled, in the case of light, to introduce the idea of a particle and that of frequency simultaneously. On the other hand, determination of the stable motion of electrons in the atom introduces integers, and up to this point the only phenomena involving integers in physics were those of interference and of normal modes of vibration. This fact suggested to me the idea that electrons too could not be considered simply as particles, but that frequency (wave properties) must be assigned to them also.” (de Broglie, 1929) Therefore, we can see directly that electrons and light have dual properties that suggest that they are both waves and particles, and by seeing the connection of standing waves we can see the reasons behind discontinuity.
Therefore, Discontinuity can be summed up as the non-mechanistic movement of particles through space from one position and energy value to the next in discrete “quantum jumps” of energy. Proving that electrons and light particles behave as both waves and particles.
Complementarity/ Wave/Particle Qualitative Non-Duality (Qualitative Non-Plurality
As these advances were pondered the notion of a duality between wave and particle began to be scrutinized. It seemed baffling that particles could be both material objects and also be waves simultaneously.
The question of the duality of waves and particles had an equally firm root in Einstein’s inquiry into light quanta. Einstein discovered that when light was projected at matter that one could observe electrons being emitted from the matter in question. This suggested to him that the light exhibited particle properties because the light seemed to collide with the matter and force electrons out of the material. Therefore, he theorized that light had both wave and particle properties.
What Quantum Physics would later uncover was that somehow the smallest of material objects never really were separate objects that existed in some independent way. These particles were intimately intertwined in wave fields of probability and that electrons and particles were merely probable instances of materialization that emerged from the wave of probability and remain intimately interconnected with this wave. David Bohm explained it this way: “Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground.” (David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987)
We shall see as we uncover the role of the observer in all this that in fact, these particles never even manifest as actualized particles until they are observed and through observation of the particle the wave “collapses and the particle emerges into realized materialization. This will be discussed in depth in the section on the role of the observer in quantum events, however, it is important to state here that the realization of particles is directly connected to the observation of particles. What Quantum Physics has shown is that under specific circumstances it is impossible to deterministically predict the behavior of a sub atomic particle, and when the particles behavior is measured it becomes actualized reality that emerges from a wave of probability.
Non-Locality
Non-Locality is the concept that two particles created from the same cause remain intimately connected no matter how much of a distance they travel from each other. Einstein first proposed this idea as a way to disprove Quantum Physics, and it has since been called the EPR Paradox. The EPR Paradox essentially states that when two particles emerge from the same source you could deterministically predict the behavior of one particle by measuring the other one because the effect that observation would have on one particle could not possibly affect the other particle, especially at great distances. If the EPR paradox was right this would prove that the indeterminability of particles was false and that local variables around the specific particle create the illusion that somehow particles behave in a non-deterministic and non-mechanistic way.
Fortunately for Quantum Physics the EPR Paradox was proven wrong in numerous experiments. Quantum Physics succeeded in proving that if two particles emerge from the same source with corresponding characteristics (namely spin and momentum) the observation of one particle simultaneously changes the corresponding particle no matter how far they have traveled away from each other. What this means is that particles are intimately connected with each other at the subatomic level throughout space and that the universe is not made up of independent objects with mechanistic movement and behavior.
John Bell was the main physicist to address this paradox. His theory was that local hidden variables were not involved in the behavior of particles and that you could not explain the predictions that Quantum Mechanics stated about the behavior of particles with a mechanistic and deterministic theory of local variables. This is what is meant by Non-Locality, that the quantum world does not behave in a way where behavior can be localized to individual objects, places and events. The quantum world behaves in a way that suggests that the variables involved in its behavior exist throughout all space and that all particles remain interconnected non-locally.
He even went as far as to say that possibly the variables involved in quantum events happened at a multi-dimensional level, and not a local three dimensional level. He stated: “That the guiding wave, in the general case, propagates not in ordinary three-space but in a multi-dimensional configuration space is the origin of the notorious "non-locality" of quantum mechanics. It is a merit of the de Broglie- Bohm version to bring this out so explicitly that it cannot be ignored.” (John Stewart Bell)
Regardless of the multi-dimensional explanation, Bell’s Theorem has been tested in the lab and recreated at as large of distance as several kilometers. Some of the most notable experiments were done in 1972 by Freedman and Clauser, Aspect in 1981, Tittel and the Geneva Group in 1998
In each of these experiments electrons or photons were sent in different directions and no matter how great the distance the observation of one particle at one end simultaneously affected the particle at the other end. In the Tittel experiment in 1998 light was sent through fiber optic cables for over several kilometers before attempting the experiment and the result was still the same: the particles were connected even at great distances and non-locality was proven.
There was even one experiment in 2000 that used more than two particles with the same results. This experiment brings up the most important implication of non-locality. Non-locality says that particles that emerge from the same source remain interconnected no matter how far they travel. In the case of the Big Bang, all particles emerged from the same source. Therefore, this theory suggests that all particles in the universe are intimately interconnected with all other particles through non-locality, and therefore the universe is ultimately interconnected at the subatomic level.
David Bohm describes the implication of non-locality on universal interconnectedness as such: “One is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and existing parts … We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent ‘elementary parts’ of the world are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely particular contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather, we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within this whole.” (David Bohm, On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics, vol 5, 1975)
Universal Interconnectedness
Once the Discontinuity, Non-Locality and Wave/Particle structure of matter had been established the next major aspect of Quantum Physics is the concept that the universal remains as one unbroken wholeness that is not composed up of a plurality of objects, but rather a universal oneness with no independently existing objects. Discontinuity implies the that spatial and energy levels can be immediately transversed in a way that suggests that even different points in space are interconnected at some level. Non-Locality shows that particles remain in an intimately interconnected relationship throughout all space. And the Wave/Particle structure of Matter shows that particles are not specifically independent objects but are merely instances of material realization that emerge from infinite waves of probability that extend throughout space. All this points to the inherent concept that this universe is one entity with no independently existing parts, just instances of material realizations that all emerge and are intertwined in infinite potentiality.
In his book the Tao of Physics, Fritof Capra describes this idea of universal interconnectedness as such: “A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated ‘basic building blocks’, but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole.” (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, On Quantum Theory).
Heisenberg who is one of the most influential quantum physicists described universal interconnectedness in this way: “The world thus appears as a complicate tissue of events, in which connections of different kinds alternate or overlap or combine and thereby determine the texture of the whole.” (Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, 1963)
There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that all these aspects of Quantum Physics provide us with a new worldview that suggests that the universe is not the mechanistic collection of objects and forces that Classical Physics suggested, but a universal one-ness that is undividable.
Role of Observer
One of the most important and most baffling aspects of Quantum Physics is that the act of measurement and observation is what directly affects the quantum world, and that the act of observation is what actually creates these quantum anomalies. It is the act of observation that particles emerge from potentiality and it is the act of observation that in some cases actually creates reality. It has been suggested that it is even the act of observation that creates the physical universe itself, but it is more accurate to say it is the act of observation that creates the observed physical universe as it is perceived.
Double-Slit Experiment/ Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment
The first and most familiar experiment that exposes this quantum weirdness is called the Double Slit experiment. The Double Slit experiment both proves the dual wave and particle structure of sub atomic particles but also proves that observation directly actualizes the particle from the wave of potentiality it emerges from.
The experiment uses a electron emitter that “shoots” electrons or photons at a series of two panels with a detector screen on the other side of it. The first panel is has one slit cut in it and the second panel has tow slits cut in it.
If you can imagine that the emitter shoots marbles instead of particles at the panels you would see that when there is one slit in the panel the marble hit the detection screen in a specific pattern in the shape of the slit on the screen. When they are shot at the panel with two slits in it they form a pattern in the shape of the two slits on the detection screen. This is how objects of matter behave.
Light on the other hand behave differently. When it is shot at one slit in hits the detection screen in an even pattern, but when shot at two slits it creates what is called an interference pattern where the two sets of light waves traveling through the two slits interfere with each other canceling each other out in some places and reinforcing the other in other places. This creates a patter of alternating light and dark slits that are brighter in the center and get progressively darker as they spread out. This is called an interference pattern: a pattern of light and dark slit patterns. And this is how waves behave when shot through two slits.
Now, when individual electrons or photons are shot through the one slit, they behave as they should they hit the detection screen in a distinct pattern that resembles the slit. This is where the normal logic ends. When you shoot the individual patterns one at a time over and over again they slowly form an interference pattern that is caused by waves when they got through two slits. This has been interpretated numerous ways but basically somehow the particles goes through both slits at one interferes with itself and then picks a path to travel from there.
Well the idea was proposed what if we use a detection device to monitor which slit the particle actually goes through. Well, what happened was even stranger: when the device was one and detected which slit the particle traveled through, the detection screen only registered a double slit pattern like the marbles made when shot through two slits. However, when the device was turned off and didn’t detect which slit the particle went through the detection screen registered an interference pattern that is caused by waves.
Literally, when there was an observation the particles behaved like particles should, but when there was no observation made the particles behaved as waves and there was only a probability that it went through one slit or the other. In fact, some would say they must have gone through both when not observed. The bottom line here is that the act of observation literally created an actualized real particle where the absence of observation showed that the particles behave as waves of probability.
This was taken one step further in what is called Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment which started as a thought experiment and then was tested with the same results in a lab. This experiment suggests we should wait until after the particle has passed through the panel to measure its location and don't turn the device on until the split second after it leaves whatever slit it traveled through. Not only that we’ll do it at random so that the particle can not “know” whether it will be measured or not. What happened was that when the particle was measured after it left the panel it acted as a particle and when it wasn’t it measured it acted like a wave. This not only solidified the results of the Double-Slit experiment but it posed new questions about the particle possibly traveling back through time once measured. How could the particle mid-air behave differently if it already had passed though the panel? Nonetheless, the Wave/Particle Duality was solidified and the role of the observer became the critical piece of the quantum puzzle. The observer literally creates a materialized particle through act of observation.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle describes the indeterministic nature of particles by showing that particles can not be measured with changing other aspects of the particle. In other words things like particle decay cannot be predetermined by normal physical calculations. Particle decay can only be determined by probabilities of decay.
What this concept also describes is the measurement of particle properties like spin, momentum and direction. You cannot measure the momentum and direction of a particle at the same time. Essentially, through measurement of the momentum of a particle you change the direction. And if you measure the direction of a particle you change its momentum. Therefore, the absolute properties of a particle are uncertain and merely a range of possibilities because deterministic measurement is impossible.
Copenhagen Interpretation (Niels Bohr)
The uncertainty of particles and the role of observation has been interrelated a lot of ways but the most accepted is the Copenhagen Interpretation proposed by Niels Bohr. The Copenhagen Interpretation claims that there is no objective reality. There is merely a cloudy world of potentialities and until the universe is observed particles remain in potentiality as waves. This doesn’t necessarily suggest that the universe does exist at all without an observer, but it suggests that universe does not exist as an objective reality that always is in the form we see it. In fact, it remains in a very different state without observation.
When the world of probabilities is not observed it behaves as waves of potentiality but when it is observed it behaves as a particles and objects and becomes the actualized reality we perceive. Therefore, particles do not exist objectively without observation.
The major implication here is the possibility that Consciousness is the deciding factor in the actualization of the material universe, at least in the form that it is perceived by humans. Therefore, the role of the observer is integral to the perception of reality because without observation in the manner our minds perceive it, the universe would not exist as actualized reality with particles.
Thus the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests that the universe exists in a state of unactualized waves forms and when perceived through observation the wave form “collapses” and actualized particles emerge from the wave of probability. When these particles emerge however, they are not to be seen as separate individual objects because they are still intimately connected with the wave it emerged from and other particles in the universe.
Reconciliation of Subject and Object Duality
The reconciliation of Subject and Object Duality is integral to understanding not only Quantum Physics but the difference between Quantum Physics and Classical Physics. In the Classical worldview the universe was composed of separate objects that were held together and controlled by specific forces. Subject and Object were considered as separate as the different objects that are observed themselves. This worldview suggested a sense of self that required the mind to think of itself as a separate entity not only from the objects it perceived but the universe itself.
What Quantum Physics suggests is that the observer and the observed are inseparable. IN fact, the very act of observation determines the nature of the observed and the observed remains in a different form when not observed. Therefore, the act of observation is a unifying act that unites the observer with that which it observes through the very act of observation and measurement. Quantum Physics also suggests that the very nature of the universe itself is that of universal interconnectedness and therefore observer and observed are intimately interconnected even if there is no act of observation because everything in the universe is intimately interconnected at the subatomic level. Observation simply makes that interconnection solidified in perception.
Erwin Schrödinger, who is a famous Quantum Physicist mainly for his Schrödinger’s Cat experiment, said this about the non-duality of subject and object in observation: “What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.” (Erwin Schrödinger, on Quantum Theory) He makes it perfectly clear that Quantum Physics states that the division in the mind of Subject and Object Duality is merely an illusion.
Heisenberg attributed this illusion to our use of language and symbols. He stated: “The problems of language here are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms… But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language.” ………“Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.” (Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, 1963) He claims that our language is inadequate for describing the quantum universe that our physics is uncovering.
Our worldview and language has been grounded in an illusory sense of separateness and disconnected pluralism. Quantum Physics is suggesting that we need to lose our preconceived notions of the universe as a pluralism of separate objects and begin to adjust our minds and systems of language and logic to incorporate this new quantum worldview that our physics is developing.
David Bohm eloquently described this shift to a more quantum mindset by saying: “.. man's general way of thinking of the totality, i.e. his general world view, is crucial for overall order of the human mind itself. If he thinks of the totality as constituted as independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken and without border (for every border is a division or break) then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole.” (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)
Therefore, Quantum Physics suggests that the reconciliation of the Subject and Object illusory worldview is not only integral to understanding quantum physics itself but it is integral to understanding the relationship of the individual to the universe and the objects and events the individual observed. Without the knowledge that the universe is interconnected and the observer and the observed are not separate entities, one will remain in a Classical illusory worldview of disconnectedness and (quite frankly) ego-centric independent perception.
Comparison
Dvaita Vedanta and Quantum Physics
Dvaita Vedanta is clearly not reinforced or in any way equitable to the reality that Quantum Physics tries to define. In Dvaita Vedanta, the universe is seen as cosmological; duality. This duality then becomes an inherent pluralism as the universe itself is defined. Dvaita Vedanta claims that not only is there an inherent dualism between the Divine and Physical universe, but there are also dualism when defining the relationships of individual beings and individual pieces of matter.
This is in direct contrast to the universe described in Quantum Physics. Although Quantum Physics is not concerned with the reality of Brahman, Quantum Physics clearly undermines the cosmological notion that the physical universe is composed of independent parts and objects. Quantum Physics clearly would deny the reality propped by Dvaita Vedanta as being a purely Classical Physics model, which has clearly been disproved in the light of Quantum Physics.
Therefore, it is inaccurate to say Quantum Physics and Dvaita Vedanta are compatible because Quantum Physics undermines the dualistic doctrine of Dvaita Vedanta.
Advaita Vedanta and Quantum Physics
Advaita Vedanta actually is antithetical to Quantum Physics in completely different way. Advaita Vedanta claims the universe is a strict non-plurality and that all objects are mere illusion in there existence. Advaita Vedanta denies even qualitative existence of objects.
Although Quantum Physics would be more apt to see the view of Brahman as being the interconnected whole of the universe, Quantum, Physics clearly does not state that particles in themselves are “non-existent” or inherently an illusion. Quantum Physics would agree it is an illusion to see particles as being inherent separate and independent “objects”; however, Quantum Physics relies heavily on the fact that particles DO exist atleast in some form. In fact, Quantum physics is entirely dependent on the observation of particles. It is through the observation if particles that the Quantum Theories are developed. Quantum Physics however, does state that these particles are part of an interconnected whole, but the strict non-dualism in Advaita Vedanta, is like saying, “there are only waves, no particles”. Quantum Physics definitely points to an interconnected universe, but a Quantum Physicist would not dismiss particles as merely an illusion. Particles have particle-like qualities, but are intertwined within a wave form universe.
Therefore it is also inaccurate to say that the strict non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta is compatible with Quantum Physics because Quantum Physics claims that particles are atleast qualitatively real, because particles behave like particles with particle-like qualities, but their true nature is interconnectedness with the universe they compose.
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and Quantum Physics
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta is the closest school of Vedanta to Quantum Physics. Visishtadvaita Vedanta recognizes the universe as a non-duality with qualities. This means that universe is an inherently interconnected whole with no separate independent parts or objects, but Vishishtadvaita Vedanta recognizes the qualitative existence of different aspects of the universe as being real but not separate or independent.
This view of the universe is compatible with Quantum Physics’ Wave/Particle Structure of Matter theory. The Wave/Particle theory claims that particles are intimately connected with wave fields and can behave both as particles and waves depending on the situation of observation. It claims that particles are never inherently separate independent objects, but it also claims that there are times when the particles behave with particle “qualities” and therefore, in themselves are real atleast in a qualitative sense.
For this reason Vishishtadvaita is partially compatible with Quantum Physics. However, Quantum Physics makes no attempt to define a Supreme Being and therefore Vishishtadvaita is not directly compatible with Quantum Physics in the sense that you cannot claim that Quantum Physics proves Vishishtadvaita entirely. You still need religion to define or speak of Brahman, or God.
Buddhism and Quantum Physics
Buddhism can both be compatible and incompatible with Quantum Physics depending on your interpretation of the doctrines of sunyata and anatman. Early Buddhism, I would argue, is less compatible with Quantum Physics. If you interpret sunyata and anatman literally and with strict adherence to non-existence, you end up with the same problem Shankara and Advaita Vedanta has when compared to Quantum Physics. If the interpretation of sunyata and anatman allows for no qualitative existence or form of anything then you cannot claim Quantum Physics backs up Buddhism. Quantum Physics backs up sunyata and anatman to the point that it agrees that universe has no separate or independent parts, but it does not deny any existence of particles.
In later forms of Buddhism, especially with Nagarjuna you have more of an incorporation of the Middle Way, which is more compatible with the Wave/Particle Structure of Matter Theory because it allows for a balance between wave and particle without saying existence either of particles or non-existence of particles is inherently true. However, again if strict adherence is placed on emptiness then you lose compatibility with Quantum Physics because particles are still important to the science.
In the latest forms of Buddhism, mainly Tibetan Buddhism, you have a more flexible view of sunyata and anatman which allows for a more qualitative view of emptiness without losing the original meaning of Buddhism, that ultimately all things are interconnected. Buddha, the Self, and other entities are seen in a more qualitative way where they can be spoke of as real, without losing the real essence of sunyata and anatman, which is non-dualism.
Furthermore, Buddhism is more compatible with Quantum Physics because it refrains from trying to speak of a God. Tibetan Buddhism speaks more of the Buddha as the Self, but there is no real theological doctrine in Buddhism that speaks about God as a Being. Quantum Physics does not try to prove a God in any way. It only speaks about the state of the physical universe and you find that type of thinking outside the schools of Vedanta in Buddhism more so.
Conclusions
Although no school of religious thought is identical to Quantum Physics you can see similarities and differences when comparing schools of Vedanta and Buddhism to Quantum Physics. Although it is said too simply and too often that Eastern Religions and Quantum Physics are identical, the truth is that only a few schools of thought are even compatible with Quantum Physics. And even when you find a close match in doctrine, you still cannot say they are identical.
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta is the only school of Vedanta that can be said to be reinforced by Quantum physics. However, this parallel is lost once you incorporate notions of God or Brahman because Quantum Physics cannot prove a God.
Buddhism is the closest to Quantum Physics, but only if the interpretations of Buddhist doctrines are not taken too literally. If the doctrines of anatman and sunyata are taken too literally and too nihilistically then you lose the parallel because Quantum Physics allows for the qualitative existence of particles that behave with particle qualities. If the interpretations of anatman and sunyata are taken to mean inherent interconnectedness with subtle qualitative existence then there is almost a perfect match with Quantum Physics, especially when you see that Buddhism is not specifically concerned with proving a God.
|
|
| Adjectivism |
[18 Oct 2006|12:48pm] |
Adjectivism:
Ok here goes:
You have to be familiar with my work to appreciate this but I'll explain it well. My work is called Qualitative Non-Pluralism which is concerned with liberating the mind from dualistic/pluralistic subject and object frames of reference by defining the universe as a universal non-plurality containing qualitative essences not pluralistic existences. In other words things merely qualitatively exist, not inherently exist. Like, i see a table, science will show the inherent existence of the table is an illusion, but it still has the qualities of a table. Therefore it has qualitative existence as a table not inherent existence. The same applies to stars, galaxies and my sense of self.
Ok now, take the word adjective, besides the obvious fact that in noun form it defines qualities, Adjectivism can also be used to define the whole school of thought I am advocating (not to mention it is easier to say than Qualititative Non-Pluralism). The adjective form of the word adjective means (among other things) "not standing alone, or dependent".
Object= a thing presented (thrown to).
Subject= to be presented (thrown to) beneath, (or where object is presented)
Adject= to add to (or "to throw to" in addition)
All these words come from the same root, jacere (to throw to).
Where Object, Objectivism, Objective, all refer to a limited independent state of existence, and Subject, Subjective and Subjectivism all refer to the observance of a limited independent "observer" being presented (or thrown to) an object, Adject, Adjective, and Adjectivism (my new word) all refer to the addition and synthesis (adject) of subject and object, and in itself means dependently originating, thus blurring the duality of subject and object. Rather than the pluralistic worldview of subjects and objects, Adjectivism is the synthesis of all independent existences into a dependently originating system of universal one-ness. Therefore, Adjectivism, is the reconciliation of subject and object duality by realizing the inherent dependent nature of of non-dual/non-plural reality.
The third reason is as such: in our subject and object orientated sentence structure we use nouns to define objects (ie. person place or things) which suggests an inherent plurality. What is an object? Well technically, it is merely a specific configuration of particles inter-meshed in a universal non-plurality that is the universe itself. So when you are calling something by a descriptive name, the noun is more like an adjective than a noun. A noun defines objective inherent existence, but we are describing the arrangement of particles not an object. Therefore, the noun "table" becomes an adjective when we realize it is an adjective describing the particular frequency and arrangement of matter and energy. It is very similar to colors. Red and Blue can be adjectives but as nouns we are merely describing the particular wavelength and frequency of light waves.
As a mental exercise, look at the objects in the room around you an then realize those nouns are merely adjectives describing the particualr arrangement of non-pluralistic universe around you. It literally forces your mind to see through the illusory pluralistic worldview and see objects as different arrangements of the same non-pluralistic universe.
Adjectivism= the preoccupation with the dependently originating reality of the non-pluralistic universe.
Objectivism= the preoccupation with the inherent independent and plural reality of individual objects relative to an observer.
Subjectivism= the preoccupation with the plurality of independent objects relative to the independent subjective observer from the point of view of the subject.
Therefore, Adjectivism is the reconciliation of subject and object duality/plurality by realizing the dependently originating reality of the universe, including the observer (subject) and observed (object).
Adjectivism!!!! (C) Christopher Etter
|
|
| join the movement |
[02 Sep 2006|07:27pm] |
join the movement:
http://www.thegreentriangle.com
|
|
|
[17 Feb 2006|02:58am] |
|
Everything on this website is copyrighted material that is created and written by Christopher Etter.
|
|
| permanence vs. impermanence |
[25 Jan 2006|11:17pm] |
The Physical Universe: Dependent Origination and Emptiness
In order to fully understand the cosmological viewpoint of Qualitative Non-Pluralism, we must first investigate the design of the physical universe itself. According to modern physics, we have determined that no individual building block can be individually defined. For example, if we were to define what makes up a human being physically (not including psychological or spiritual factors), we would say that a human being is defined by its physical body. This body would then in turn be defined as the summation of its organs and tissues like its digestive and circulatory systems, muscles, nerves and skin. All of the organs and groups of tissues and nerves can then be defined as a collection of human cells. Every piece of the human body is made up of these cells. These cells in turn are all composed of internal cellular structures such as nuclei, ribosomes and DNA. These internal cellular structures are then defined by their atomical makeup. DNA is a specific arrangement of molecules and compounds, some as simple as water (H2O), and some as complex as nucleotides, sugars and phosphates in DNA. These compounds and molecules can then be in turn defined by the specific arrangement of atoms in these compounds. Depending on the arrangements of atoms, we in turn have the different elements and compounds that make up cellular structures, cells, organs and human bodies. However, this is hardly the end. These atoms are in turn composed of even smaller subatomic particles who in themselves have been determined to not specifically function by themselves. According to Quantum Mechanics, subatomic particles are considered to in themselves be composed of parts called quarks, who behave in systems of three. These quarks are then considered to be intertwined within an even deeper mesh of energy that in itself has no discernable individual particle. To take it even further, all atomic material is then interconnected universally in systems of gravitational and electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no individual principle in itself exists as an independent entity.
This is what is meant in Buddhism by “dependent origination”. In Theravada Buddhism, the doctrine of dependent origination states that no object or being independently exists. All objects and beings are dependent on other things to exist and therefore have no inherent beingness of their own. For example, a chariot is used to define the doctrine of dependent origination. A chariot is only a chariot because we call it a chariot, but in fact a chariot is a collection of wheels, axles, a carriage, etc. etc. Therefore, the existence of a chariot is in turn dependent on the other aspects of the equation to exist.
This was then elaborated on by the Buddhist doctrine of the five aggregates, which are the basic functions of the human mind. The teaching of the five aggregates stated that because the human self was a composition of the five component functions of the mind, the human self in itself does not exist as an entity because it dependently originates from the five aggregates. Therefore, the human self is dependent on the other functions to exist and therefore has no inherent existence of its own.
This was taken even further by Nagarjuna and other Mahayana Buddhists who claimed that the aggregates themselves did not have any inherent existence of their own and therefore nothing in the universe inherently existed because all objects and experiences dependently arose from other principles. Buddhist doctrine is based on the fact that nothing inherently exists and therefore is empty of existence (annica), that all objects and experiences dependently originate from other principles, and that the entire universe is interconnected, with no part having inherent independent existence of its own. This is exactly what is defined through modern physics. Just like a chariot dependently originates from its component parts, so does the human body dependently originate from its organs; its organs from its cells etc. etc. This pattern repeats all the way past the atomic level until we can say there is no distinctive principle that we can define as being independently existent. Therefore, everything in the physical universe dependently originates from another principle, and the universe is empty of any independently existing principle.
The Two Esses (Beings)
According to St. Augustine this is the case of the universe from the Christian viewpoint as well, however, Christianity goes one step further to define independent existence as well. In the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), independent and permanent (or eternal) existence is called God. St. Augustine wrote and debated this topic aggressively for years after converting to Christianity from Manichean Gnosticism, which saw a duality in the cosmos. Augustine argued that there wer two types of being. The first type of being is that which truly exists, and the second is that which is dependent upon that which truly exists to exist, and therefore in itself has no true independent existence. In other words, there is independent existence and dependent existence. As a Gnostic he saw the world as a cosmological duality where both principles of good and evil had independent existence, but as a Christian he saw the universe as having only independent existence and dependent existence, and therefore nothing existed separate or independent from God the only true independent principle.
In Vedantic Hinduism God is called primarily Brahman. Most of schools of Vedantic Hinduism follow this logic as well, they only differ on the approach and understanding of this principle. The Vedas clearly define Brhaman as independent eternal existence, and all other things as impermanent. This is debated in some schools as I will show later in this text,. But for the most part Brahman is seen as eternal and Atman (individual self) is seen as impermanent.
Buddha was a specific type of Hindu whose viewpoint, which would become Buddhism, centered on the non-existence and impermanence of the universe and therefore, focused little, if at all on the existence of a permanent Brahman (only Tibetan Buddhism and Pure-Land Buddhism really try to incorporate this type of cosmology). In this way Buddhism differs greatly from Christianity because Buddhists aren’t specifically concerned with a permanent independent principle. They remain focused on the impermanence of this world in order to become liberated from it.
Temporary Being-ness
According to modern physics not only is there no distinctive principle that can be define as independently existing, but it is alos true that even when on object is defined is remains an impermanent object. There is in fact nothing that independently exists in the same form forever. For example, if we look at a star. We call the observed object a star, however we have shown that this star is in itself not an independently existent object. A star is collection of gases and elements that are held together through atomical forces and gravitational and electromagnetic fields. These gases are constantly changing and even the elements that compose the structure of the star slowly change and evolve over time. In fact, the very structure of the star at some point will change from its current composition as it burns off all its energy, and either explode and form new stars or collapse and form other smaller objects. Therefore, even when we can define an object that seems to have a specific independent existence such as a star, we realize not only is it not an independently existent object, but it is in fact impermanent and will never remain in one definable state for a very long time.
Nothing in this physical universe can be said to be a permanent object or being. Even stars and galaxies will someday change or die out. Subatomic particles inevitably decay. No structure in the universe is either independently existent or permanent; not stars, not galaxies, not atoms and not human beings. It is a perceptual illusion to see objects as independently existent and it is a perceptual illusion to see objects as permanent entities, and as we will see this is the illusion that all religions try to alleviate, especially when reconciling the impermanence of the human self and mind.
According to St. Augustine there are only two types of being: that which truly is, and that which is dependent on that which truly is to exist. He states that the only thing that truly exists, is that which will never cease to be. Before modern physics (fourth century CE) St. Augustine was declaring that nothing in this universe can truly exist because all things in this universe will someday cease to be. God on the other hand, was eternal and independently existed. To say that anything else in the world truly existed, would create a cosmic dualism, as in Manichean Gnosticism. I will be showing the depth of this philosophy later, but for now, all one needs to understand is that Augustine saw God as permanent, eternal and independently existent, and that nothing else can inherently independently exist from God. God was the cause and Creator of everything in the universe and therefore everything in the universe is dependent upon God to exist. Nothing in itself can independently exist and therefore, all things are in themselves impermanent and dependently existent.
Permanent Being-ness
What then separates Christian doctrine from Buddhist doctrine is the attempt to define a permanent and eternal principle called God. Where we have seen that the entire universe is composed of dependently existent and impermanent objects and beings, we can then determine a theoretical basis for defining God. Where all existence in this universe is dependently existent and impermanent, what can be said about a permanent and independently existent principle?
First this permanent and eternal principle must not be subject to change, decay, or influence. It in itself must be independent of cause to exist and must not rely on any other principle to sustain its existence. This permanent principle must also exist in a transcendental relationship with this universe. It cannot exist separate from this universe because that would imply that the universe itself has independent existence, and it cannot be considered identical to the universe because it must possess qualities that the universe does not, mainly permanence and independent existence.
Therefore, this permanent eternal principle must exist transcendentally but in union with the impermanent universe, and it must possess qualities distinct from the qualities of the universe. Because of these two conditions the eternal permanent principle, must in itself be beyond direct experience. Therefore the eternal permanent principle must in turn require a different type of comprehension than cognitive, empirical observation. Because this principle is beyond anything observable in this universe and possesses qualities that are completely beyond the comprehension of normal scientific observation, one must be forced to intuitively believe that it exists using faith and not scientific observation to determine its existence. However, it is not to say science and reasoning is incapable of determining a theoretical existence of a permanent, independently existing principle. Using this argumentative reasoning I have placed before the reader it is possible to establish a theoretical basis for the existence of this principle which we can call God. This very logic shows that God’s existence is beyond the scope of science, and it will still be necessary to believe in Gods existence because no empirical proof will be available to observe simply because of its nature. However, with this logicval reasoning we have a scientific theory to allow for the possible existence of God, and in turn comprehension of this principle, rather than pure blind faith.
Two Beings
In conclusion, we have seen that in theory there are two states of being: impermanent and permanent states of being. In Christian theological doctrine this is defined as the permanent, eternal independently existent God, and the impermanent dependently existent universe. The two exist in a mutual harmony as one whole. The two possess different qualities, but in themselves do not exist as separate principles. If they were to exist separately as a duality, this would suggest that the universe has independent existence. Therefore the two must exist as on non-duality, with distinctively different qualities; this in turn, is called a qualitative non duality. A dualistic theological statement would suggest that both principles independently exist, as in the Gnostic view of good and evil that St. Augustine converted from. A non-dualistic theological statement would suggest that the two principles are in distinctive and in turn simply one principle. A qualitative non-dualistic theological statement suggests that the two principles do not exist as independent principles, but also possess distinctive qualities, enough so that they can be defined as different principles. However, once you define them as independent distinctive principles you create a dualistic theological statement, and once you define them as merely one principle you create a non-dualistic theological statement. Qualitative non-dualism and qualitative non-pluralism are the theories that state that principles exist as one whole, but have distinctive qualities that allow the principles to be defined qualtatively. In the case of God and the universe, you cannot define the relationship as a dualism, unless you are willing to say the universe has independent existence, and you can’t call it a pure non-dualism unless you are willing to say that the universe and God share impermanent and permanent qualities. Both statements are logically unsound after considering the scope of scientific investigation into the theoretical existence of both permanent and impermanent existence.
|
|
| St. Augustine of Hippo and the Question of Evil |
[09 Dec 2005|11:11am] |
St. Augustine of Hippo and the Question of Evil
Introduction
Few, if any, Christian philosophers were as influential as St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Augustine provided the theoretical basis for thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas, and provided the theoretical basis for the theological discussions at the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. His ideas are arguably the most influential in all of Christian theology.
I will be showing that through his study of Gnostic theology and his conversion back to Christianity that he came to better understand the relationship of theological logic models, and came to an understanding of the nature and origins of evil. From this understanding later unfolded the whole of Christian theological models.
Gnostic Dualism and Augustine’s Conversion to Christianity
St. Augustine of Hippo was raised Christian, by his mother, but as he grew up he became intrigued with the analytical reasoning of the philosophers of the Gnostic sect of Manichaeism. Manichean Gnosticism is a Persian school of Gnostic thought that prescribes to the theological and cosmological idea that the universe is composed of a universal duality. This universal Duality is a counterbalance of two forces that are constantly and eternally at odds with each of in a polarity of good and evil.
The Gnostic theological doctrine is as such: God is eternally good and pure. God is immutable, incorruptible and changeable. And God is infinite in nature. The physical universe and man however are finite, changeable, subject to corruption, and impure by its nature. Therefore, in Gnostic theology, the universe and man could not have been created by God nor could God be anywhere present and above any matter and this universe. Therefore, there must be two forces at work, because God would not create a corruptible and impure universe. The other force is considered to be evil. Evil in turn, is a very real, separate force that exists in antithesis to God and to anything pure. Evil seeks to corrupt and eternally separate all things from God. In this way Gnosticism is a cosmic dualism of good and evil forces in a polar dynamic, completely separate and at odds with each other.
St. Augustine was compelled by their intelligent arguments and their logical reasoning about the state and nature of the universe. He became a Manichean early in his life, but converted back to Christianity in 386. He became skeptical of the Gnostic concepts of the universe and most importantly wit their concepts of evil and the relationship of man to God. In his work Confessions, which he wrote after his conversion in philosophical response to the Manicheans, he stated, “Therefore I fell among men proudly raving, very carnal, and violable, in whose mouths were the snares of the devil-the bird-lime being composed of a mixture of the syllables of Thy name, and of out Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. These names departed not out of their mouths, but so far forth as the sound only and the clatter of the tongue, for the heart was empty of truth. Still they cried, ‘Truth, Truth!’ and spoke much about it to me, ‘yet was it not in them;’ but they spoke falsely of Thee only-who verily art the Truth-but also of these elements of the world.”
St. Augustine chose to convert back to Christianity because he believed the Gnostic teachings to be not only erroneous but blasphemy. St. Augustine came to see the Gnostic dualism to a false truth and teaching and not only converted, but became possibly the most influential Christian philosopher and church father ever. I will be showing how St. Augustine’s philosophical and theological doctrine differ from the Gnostic dualistic viewpoint and show how St. Augustine views not on evil, but God in relation to man, the origin of evil, and the cause of evil, including the concept of the devil itself.
St. Augustine’s Theological Doctrine on the Nature of the Divine
St. Augustine’s view of God in many ways parallels the Gnostic view of God. St. Augustine viewed God to be perfect and pure. To Augustine, God was unchangeable, absolute, supreme and above all concept of finite being. In this way Augustine agreed with the Gnostics. God is seen as being incorruptible, immutable, unchangeable and infinite. In Confessions he writes, “I was trying to think of you…. The supreme, sole, and true God. With all my heart I believed you to be incorruptible, inviolable, and immutable, although I did not know why and how. Nevertheless, I saw plainly and was certain that what is corruptible is inferior to that which cannot be corrupted; what is inviolable I unhesitatingly put above that which is violable; what undergoes no change is better than that which change” (Conf. 7.1.1)
However, it is because of this view that Augustine comes to disagree with the Gnostic concept of a dualistic universe. Augustine viewed God as a universal omnipotent and omnipresent God, although the true nature of the Divine is above all reality and above all that exists, nothing in itself can exist separate from God. Augustine viewed the universe a cosmological monism where all things were not only dependent on God to exist, but in separable from God. If in fact another object or being existed this would negate the reality that God is an absolute and universal truth. God would merely be a piece of the puzzle, so to speak.
St. Augustine viewed God to pure “being”, or “esse”, in Latin. To Augustine God is the essence of all that “is” and the source of all that “is”. Taking from the Hebrew biblical name for God Ehieh, or “I am who I am” from the story of Moses, Augustine argues that God is complete omnipotent and omnipresent “being-ness”. And that the only thing that can truly be is God. Augustine argues that only that which is incorruptible unchangeable and infinite can truly “be”, and in turn not cease to “be”. If an object, person or force is considered to truly be, in then in turn must be seen as equal to God in that it will never cease to be and truly “is”. Therefore, Augustine argues that nothing can exist as a separate entity from God, because all things cease to be. In turn, Augustine proposes that there are only two types of being: that which truly “is”, and that which is dependent on another to exist. God is the only thing that truly exists and everything else with impermanent existence is dependent on God to exist.
By showing this principle of being-ness, Augustine disproves the inherently fallible concept of Gnostic dualism through his doctrine of “being-ness”, by showing that no principle be seen as separate from God, and have separate existence from God. The only separate existence is existence that is dependent on God to exist. Where the Gnostics conceived the universe as a cosmic duality of God and evil, Augustine shows that all things emanate from God and exist dependent on God to exist. Therefore, evil cannot exist as a separate principle.
St. Augustine’s Theological Doctrine on the Origin of Evil
How then, if we are to believe that all things are dependent and inseparable in being-ness from God, can we rationalize the existence of evil in the world? We know that evil exists, but the origin of evil and its nature is still unexplained through this logic. Are we to presume that God created evil, or merely allows it to happened. In either case you define God as sinister or negligent. If God is good what is the source of evil?
This is easily explained by understanding qualitative non-dualism. St. Augustine is definitely not a dualist; however, he is also not a non-dualist or monist. Augustine believed there were two states of “being”: that which truly “is”, and that which depends on that which truly “is” to in itself “be”. Therefore, nothing truly exists separate from God, but things in fact do exist just not as separate entities. This is qualitative non-dualism as in the dyophysite and dyothelite question that would be raised at later dates by the Ecumenical Councils in 451 CE and 681 CE. They are different principles, but in themselves inseparable.
Using this logic Augustine acknowledges the existence of the individual soul. Augustine is a cosmological monist, however unlike say Buddha, who makes distinction between anything, Augustine qualitatively defines principle like the individual soul, evil, the devil, with the understanding they in themselves do not exist as individual principles separate from ultimate truth.
By drawing this qualitative distinction in cosmological monism one then can understand the origin of evil, the source of evil, as well as the nature of evil. To St. Augustine evil is not a “thing” or even force in the universe. Evil does not even in fact truly exist. To Augustine what evil is, is a “no-thing” or absence of God’s presence. What creates evil is the absence of God’s presence, and what creates the absence of God’s presence happens in the human mind.
By recognizing the existence of human soul, and applying the logic used in understanding being-ness we can come to understanding of the human psychological view of himself and God. Human beings inherently see themselves as permanent individual beings separate from all other things. Humans according to Augustine, don’t in themselves truly exist, they are dependent upon God to exist, and in themselves impermanent. As a consequence to seeing themselves as truly exist beings they separate themselves from God by not recognizing their essential dependence on God to exist. This in turn creates an ego centered perception that separates their perception from God, and creates an individual perception that is in itself illusory.
This individual illusory perception is in turn subject to defilements, due not only to the separation from God through an ego centered worldview, but also due to individual wants, needs, desires, tendencies. Augustine defines this as the clouding of the mind. It is when the mind first turns from God and then is clouded by sin or negative psychological attachments. This is the definition of evil. Evil is not a thing or a force in antithesis to God, but is merely the absence of God. When the mind turns from God and becomes ego centered and only concerned with individual desires and habits, there is a lack of God’s presence.
Therefore, in contrast to the Gnostic notion that evil exists as a separate force to contain and separate mankind from the divine, Augustine shows that evil is simply the lack of God’s presence, and this is caused by the individual’s mind and as I will show, free-will. Evil is not created by God, but is created as a consequence of the individual’s ability to separate itself from God through illusory perception and further separate itself from God by initiating action based on the individual’s desires.
St. Augustine’s Theological Doctrine on Self-Knowledge
After proving the non-dualism of the universe St. Augustine was then left with the e problem of defining the nature and origin of evil. He did that by declaring that evil was a product of ego centered consciousness and ego-centered and driven free-will. By doing this he differed from other theological schools of non-dualism, by defining qualitatively the existence of individual states of being that existed qualitatively but not independent of God. In order to prove this view though Augustine had to prove that in fact individuals do in fact exist and that his views weren’t purely non-dualism.
Augustine used ontological logic and reasoning to defend his views of dependently existing entities against those who doubted any kind of existence of individual beings objects. He wrote on this topic: “In respect of these truths I fear no arguments from the Academics. Hey say, “what if you are mistaken?” If I am mistaken, I ‘am’ [si fallor, sum]. Whoever does not exist cannot be mistaken; and thus I exist, if I am mistaken. Because, therefore, I exist if I am mistaken, how am I mistaken about my existence, when it is certain that I exist if I am mistaken?” De civ. Dei 11.26). By using this logic Augustine showed that individual existence is real even if there is no individual existence because then in fact an individual was wrong in declaring it to exist.
This sort of abstract reasoning was used in the case of doubt to prove the existence and component structures of the mind. Not only did Augustine use this logic to prove the existence of individual consciousness, but he used it to define the nature of individual consciousness. He again wrote: “that he lives, remembers, understands, wills, thinks, knows, and judges? For even if he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wants to be certain; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know; if he doubts, he judges that he ought not to consent rashly. Whoever then doubts about anything else ought never to doubt about all of these; for if they were not, he would be unable to doubt anything at all.” (10.10.14). Therefore, it is useless to even question the existence of these component structures because you’d be using these very structures to even ponder their existence.
Therefore, we can see that Augustine uses this type of reasoning to show that individual consciousness does exist, however is dependent upon true “being” to exist. This is what’s called a qualitative non-dual relationship. Augustine shows that individuals do not exist as permanent separate entities from God, but unlike say Shankara (Advaita Vedanta Hinduism) or the Buddha, Augustine shows that individuals do in fact exist. Dualism says the two principles are completely separate principles, non-dualism says there is no distinction between the two, and qualitative non-dualism says they exist with different qualities but, are not separate from each other. This is the essence of Augustine’s theology.
When describing the nature of the individual’s soul in relation to God Augustine writes: “For that light is already God Himself; the soul, on the other hand, is a creature, although in reason and intellect it is made in his image. And when the soul tries to fix its gaze upon that light, it quivers in its weakness and is not quite able to do so. Yet it is from this light that the soul understands whatever it is able to understand.” (12.31.59).
Augustine believes that the soul is intimately connected to God and is dependent upon God for its existence, but recognizes of the individual’s inherent inability to truly comprehend the true nature of that relationship. The reason for this according to Augustine is that the individual mind is clouded and unable to fully grasp ultimate reality. He wrote concerning the mind’s inherent inability to perceive the Divine: “But because this very mind, in which reason and understanding are naturally present, is itself enfeebled by long-standing faults which darken it, it is too weak to cleave to that changeless light and to enjoy it; it is even too weak to endure it, until it has been renewed and healed day after day so as to become capable of such happiness. [And so the mind] had first to be imbued and purged by faith.” The reconciliation of this inherent perceptual separation from God is the dedicated meditation through faith on God and the nature of the relationship of ourselves and God. By realizing our intimate yet unrealized connectedness with God, we reconcile the perceptual illusion that we exist as separate entities. We accomplish that by turning our minds towards God and away from ourselves by freeing our mind of ego-centered values and tendencies, and allowing God’s presence and omnipresence to reconcile the relationship we have with God. This is not done by freeing ourselves from our individual sense of self, but by reconciling the relationship by recognizing our interconnectedness with God, or our qualitative non-dual relationship with God (non-dual relationship with individual qualities).
Augustine also refers to fallibility of human language and intellect’s ability to fully define the nature of the universe. His reasoning is very similar to Lao-Tze and especially the Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna. Like Nagarjuna, Augustine declares that when placing distinctive definitions on concepts we limit the understanding of the concept. For example, if we use the word “infinity” to define the nature of God, we place a finite conceptual definition the concept. Equally, if we use the term “nothing”, we place a “somet
hing” on the concept by giving it value. Therefore, the normal human comprehension is unable to fully understand the true essence of the universe. However, unlike Nagarjuna, Augustine does not feel it is useless to use terminology, and makes qualitative distinctions on every aspect of hi theological model.
St. Augustine’s Theological Doctrine on the Trinity in Relation to Self-Knowledge
St. Augustine writes at length on the nature of the Trinity. He uses scriptural proof as well as philosophical doctrines to explain the nature of what is called a qualitative non-pluralism in regards to the nature of the Trinity. He speaks at length about how the three Persons of God are not to be seen as separate principles, but are to be seen as a harmony of three principles. These three principles are not in themselves separate entities, but they have specific intrinsic qualities that distinguish them as different essences.
Along with argumentative logic justifying the nature of the Trinity he also uses this logic to explain the inherent qualitative non-pluralism of individual human perception. He claims that the Trinity and the logic of understanding other three-fold qualitative non-pluralisms can help one not only understand the Trinity better, but understand the true interconnectedness of the universe; which is normally hidden through the ego centeredness if illusory individual perception.
The first attempt at showing how understanding the relationship of the Three Persons in the Trinity can help alleviate sense illusion is done by using the three principles being, knowing, and willing. These three form the basic components of the individual ego. He describes this as such: “These three things are very different from the Trinity, but I say that people could well exercise themselves and test and sense how far distant they are from it. I am talking about these three things: being, knowing, and willing. For I am and I know and I will. And I will to be and to know. Let him who can, see in these things how inseparable a life is: one life, one mind, and one essence, how there is, finally, an inseparable distinction, and yet a distinction. Surely this is obvious to each one himself. Let him look within himself and see and report to me.” (Confessions 13.11.12).
He clearly shows that these three things even though are in themselves different qualitatively, they exist as one separable union. He underlines this by saying that they form one essence without a separable distinction, and yet there is a qualitative distinction between them. This he says is the actual relationship of the Persons of the Trinity, and he shows how by understanding this relationship one can understand the non-plurality of systems and the interconnectedness of its components.
He further clarifies this by defining the nature of individual subject and object perception, which is in itself the root of the perceptual separation from God. He does this by showing that in sense perception there is no separation between an object perceived the observer and the act of observation. These three are then shown to be a qualitative non-pluralism as well: “Since this is so, let us recall how these three, though differing in nature, may be fitted together into a kind of unity, namely (i) the form of the body that is seen (ii) its image impressed on the sense, which is vision or the sense informed, and (iii) the will of the soul which directs the sense to the sensible thing and keeps the vision itself fixed upon it.” (On the Trinity 11.2.5) Here the object (form of the body), the observer (will of the soul ) and observation itself (image impressed on the mind) are all parts of one inseparable union, with one the other two are irrelevant and therefore, they mutual co-exist inseparably. He goes on to say: “Although the substances of these three, therefore, are so diverse, yet they form together such a unity, that the first two, namely, the form of the body that is seen and its image which arises in the sense, that is, the vision, can hardly be separated from each other, except when reason intervenes as a judge.” (On the Trinity 11.2.5). Therefore, further clarifying that the act of individual sense perception through the individual soul is a system of principles that can’t be separated, but through reason, qualitative definitions are used to define the different parts.
This logic is used to help not only understand the essence of the Trinity, but also the nature of the individual’s reality according to individual sense perception. He even goes as far as to define this relationship in terms of thought and memory. Here he is saying that when one thinks of an object there is an image projected in the mind, based on the memory of what that object looks like. Three components thought (imaginary projection), memory and the object being thought of all are inseparable in the same way as previously described: “For the bodily form that is perceived produces the form that arises in the sense of the percipient; this latter gives rise to the form in the memory; finally, the form in the memory produces the form that arises in the gaze of thought. Hence the will unites three times over, as it were, the parent with its offspring: first of all, the bodily form with that which it begets in the sense of the body; and this again with that which arises from it in the memory; and this also thirdly, with that which is born from it in the gaze of thought.” (On the Trinity 11.9.16).
This logic is also used to describe actions of human through free will. St. Augustine uses the concept of love to underline this relationship. In the relationship of love, there is the lover the loved and the act of loving. Subject and object sentence structure reflects the nature of this idea. For example, if you were to say “I love her”, “I” is the lover, “her” is the loved, and “love” is the act. This can be applied to all forms of human action and can be understood in the same ways. In the sentence “I walk to the store”, “I” is the subject, “to the store” is the object, and “walk” is the action. Therefore, the three principles subject, object and action can all be seen as being three inseparable parts of a union. This inseparable but qualitatively different set of principles is how St. Augustine tries to get people to understand the nature of the Three Persons of the Trinity.
It is important to see this aspect of St. Augustine theological and philosophical doctrines, because it is for these reason he converted to Christianity in the first place. As a Manichean he saw the universe as a dualism, but then came to see that universe and God have to be considered a universal non-dualism, and it is only through understanding qualitative non-dualism that one can justify the idea that the universe is a non-duality without claiming that evil, man and God are all the same thing. This logic carries over into the understanding of the Trinity and also the understanding of man in relation to his environment.
St. Augustine’s Theological Doctrine of Evil, Man and the Devil
St. Augustine first begins this theory by questioning the nature of the order of things. Augustine declares that all things are a part of a universal order and all events are brought about by a cause. How then if all events are within universal order and all events are brought about by cause, are we to understand the nature of evil? We know its manifestations exist as we observe society, how then do we locate the cause of evil?
Augustine addresses this by saying that there are two types of events orderly events and chaotic chance events. Some things like the motions of the planets are set in an orderly motion, however some events remain in a chaotic system. These events are brought about by individual will, as in the Fall of Satan and the Fall of Man.
Augustine believes in a hierarchy of spiritual existence, beginning with God who oversees universal order, followed by the lesser gods who oversee the created beings (impermanent beings), and the lower gods, or demons who have to do with the outcome of man’s will.
According to Augustine evil entered into the world at the beginning of Creation. Augustine equates the separation of light and darkness to be equated to the separation of angels do to the nature of their wills. According to Augustine, evil entered the world through the flaw or choice of will in Satan. Originally all angels were created with the same nature, they are in themselves one of the same substance and existence, however, they differ in the choice of their will. When Satan and other angels chose a certain path with his will, God separated them due to the nature of their wills. Evil in turn is not something created by God, it is a product of chaotic chance events brought about by the individual choice of free-will. Augustine supports this by saying the where the Bible says that Lucifer “fell” he must therefore, have once been “unfallen”. This event then was created by a chance event brought about by Lucifer’s will.
This in turn created the Fall of Man. Satan, using the logic of his own reasoning concerning his fall from God, tempted Adam and Eve to choose with their own free wills. The Fall of Man refers to the beginning of sin and the chaotic chance events brought about by the individual free will. Therefore, evil events caused by man’s will are not created by God. In this way, he declares two distinct types of will in the universe, God’s will, and human will. This theology will later become discussed and reaffirmed at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, where they equally declared the existence of two distinct wills in Jesus, however Jesus had a perfect qualitative non-dual balance between the two. This theology is called dyothelitism, or two-wills.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen that through Augustine’s study of Gnosticism Augustine came to a more complete understanding of the nature of the Divine, and the nature of evil, by contemplating the relationship of dualistic and non-dualistic logic systems. He began studying Gnostic dualism and converted to Christian non-dualism, which is a balance of qualitative distinction and universal non-dualism.
Augustine further showed that even though nothing is separable from God, there remains qualitative distinction between man and God, and in turn man’s will and God’s will. Therefore, we can come to understand evil not as a distinctive force in contrast to God’s will, but a lack of presence of God’s will due to the choices made by the qualitatively distinct angelic and human wills.
|
|
| Etterian Christological Formula |
[04 Nov 2005|10:47am] |
Etterian Christological Formula
The observable physical universe is observed as a universe filled with particles, objects and observable phenomena. However, this observable physical universe is not perceived as it actually exists. The observable physical universe is actually a composition of physical matter and energy connected by strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic radiation, and gravitational forces. The observable physical universe has been discovered to exist as one universal whole where no distinctive particle or building block can be qualitatively defined. Therefore, the observable physical universe exists as one universal system of mater and energy interconnected with no distinctive parts, merely differing occurrences of the same material. In other words, matter exists as energy at a differing frequency, and the same is true with energy, E=mc2. All matter and energy are interconnected universally through fields of electromagnetic radiation and fields of gravity, therefore all physical existence has been proven to be one interconnected whole.
The only thing that creates separate distinction between, say one rock and another rock, or even the Earth and the Sun, is the individual observer. The individual observer does not realize the interconnectedness of all matter and energy, and therefore when the observer observes one object separate from another, the observer does not realize the interconnectedness of all the atoms (remembering that even atoms are merely systems with no distinctive parts: quantum theory) and energy that compose these objects. In fact, the observer doesn’t realize there in is no distinction whatsoever between the matter and energy involved in the observation, so the observer calls them objects, and distinctively names the objects to distinguish these objects from other objects including the observer itself.
Therefore, the observer places qualitative definition on the objects and events he observes without realizing that the objects themselves exist in a physical non-plurality. This is because the observer has individual consciousness The primary reason that the individual sees his universe as a plurality is because the observer divides his perception into distinctive parts placing qualitative definition on the objects he observes. However, the most important reason this occurs is because the individual consciousness places qualitative distinction on the observer itself. Therefore the observer divides his universe into a plurality of perceived objects because the individual consciousness can qualitatively see itself as a separate entity. This is the primary error of consciousness: the individual sees itself as a separate entity from observed phenomenon, and therefore create a plurality out of its observed reality, relative to itself.
The individual consciousness however, sees itself erroneously as a separate entity, because the individual consciousness fails to realize its own consciousness is born of an eternal and universal field of consciousness, defined in this system as the Holy Spirit. The individual observer separates his consciousness from universal consciousness by erroneously placing a limiting definition on itself, and through this creates an illusory subject and object perception out of his reality.
The subtle energy that exists and conceives life throughout the universe is called spirit. This for now is the only true leap of faith one must possess in order to accept Christian theology. There is no actual scientific measure of spirit as of yet. One at this point still needs faith to accept that individual spiritual consciousness is born of a universal field of Spirit, called the Holy Spirit. The absolute interconnectedness of the individual to the universe is easily defined, but the existence of Spirit energy itself is as of yet undiscovered scientifically.
The final aspect of the Christological formula is that all of these functions: the observed physical universe, individual consciousness, and the Holy Spirit all emanated from its primordial source, the Father or Creator. The Father is the embodiment of the source of all that exists observable or unobservable. In Big Bang theory, this principle would be defined as the potential energy that went into the explosion of Creation. IN Christian theology the Father is the infinite radiant energy that is the potentiality and the causation of the entire universe. In other words, it is all possible phenomena as one universal infinite existence, and it is that cause from which the observable physical universe emanated from. Thus, the Etterian Christological Formula is Creative Principle, Conceptual Spiritual Principle, Individual Conscious Principle, and the Physical Principle.
|
|
| Dvaitadvaita Vedanta, Sidadvaita and Tibetan Buddhism |
[29 Oct 2005|08:00pm] |
The Qualitative Non-Duality of Dvaitadvaita Vedanta of Nimbarka
Dvaitadvaita Vedanta, means dualistic non-dualism, and it is nearly identical to the qualitative non-dualism of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, but with doctrinal differences on the nature of Absolute Reality. This school of thought seems to be a Nagarjuna-like logical approach to Vedanta, but as I have shown, Vedanta’s ontological approach to Absolutre Reality differs highly from the epistemological approach of Nagarjuna. However, one can see as they study the evolution of Vedantic schools that after Ramanuja who declared a non-duality with qualitative characteristics. After Ramanuja, Nimbarka suggested a logical approach that mirrors Nagarjuna’s logic by saying that the universe is both dualisitic and non-dualistic, in a sort of “Middle Way” between dualism and non-dualism. Even though this is close to Madhyamika logic, Nagarjuna would not have bothered with qualitative distinctions.
This is carried over into Chaitanya’s school of inconceivable difference/non-difference, which is then almost a direct attempt at defining the epistemological approach of Nagarjuna by saying the different/non-different relationship of concepts and the Absolute is one of an inconceivable nature. This almost mirrors the concepts portrayed by Nagarjuna because Nagarjuna’s approach was to get the individual to abandon doctrine on difference or non-difference to find a awareness of the “Middle Way” between these doctrines through practical meditation. Vedanta however, advocated that doctrine could be used to understand the Absolute. Therefore with Chaitanya, Vedanta took the approach that this “Middle Way” is thus inconceivable through normal logic and reasoning. Therefore, Chaitanya’s Vedantic approach is called inconceivable difference/non-difference.
In the case of Dvaitadavaita Vedanta, Nimbarka suggests the same reality as Ramanuja. Nimbarka suggests that objects in the physical universe, the human soul and Absolute Reality, are in themselves real things, but they do not possess inherent separate existence of their own and therefore, are dependent on Brahman to exist. His approach is to suggest that these things exist as separate essences, but exist equally and non-dualistically from the Absolute Reality of Brahman.
This is almost an identical approach to Ramanuja’s school of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. They both suggest that the universe is composed of real essences, but these essences are dependent on Brahman to exist. In this way they are non-dual, but to Nmbarka they also have a dualistic relationship in that they have separate essences of their own. This is not to say they have separate existences, it is merely that they have essences that Brahman in itself does not possess, such as impermanence and limitations. Where Brahman is seen as infinite and limitless, the human soul is seen to be limited and have illusory qualities that Brahman in itself does not possess.
The other disctinction in Nimbarka’s philosophy is the four-fold nature of the Absolute Reality. Brahman is considered to be a flawless, infinite essence who is the material and effective cause of all Creation, including of the soul and matter. Brahman is equated with Krishna in Nimbarka’s philosophy, and his consort Radha is considered to be Ishvara, or Lord of the Universe. These two principles work in harmony with the third principle the Jiva, or individual human soul. These three principles in turn, work with the fourth cosmic principle, the material universe itself. Therefore, Nimbarka proposes a four-fold doctrine of Absolute Reality based on the creative, absolute Brahman (depicted as Krishna), followed by the conceptual Lord of the Universe (depicted as Radha), who then conceives the individual human soul called the Jiva, and these three principles come to full fruition in the completion of the physical universe. None of these four principles exist independently and all work harmoniously as one system. Therefore, you a have a qualitative non-plurality of Creative principle, Conceptual principle, Conscious (individual) principle, and Physical principle.
This is almost identical to Ramanuja’s philosophy, however Ramanuja suggests that the physical universe itself is Brahman’s body and therefore non-dual from Brahman. Nimbarka suggests that the physical universe is dependent on Brahman and therefore not separate from Brahman, but the physical universe possesses characteristics that are not characteristics of Brahman itself like impermanence and limitations. Therefore, Nimbarka proposes the four-fold doctrine of Absolute Reality to distinguish between qualitative differences of Brahman and the universe. Nimbarka does not suggest that these four principles are in anyway separate from each other, it is simply that their qualitative characteristics are different enough to define them as different principles. However, these principles are all co-dependent on the non-duality of the infinite Brahman. For this reason, it is slightly inappropriate to call this system “dualistic non-dualism”, which is the accepted academic definition. This system is more like a “sharply defined” qualitative non-dualism, because there is not a suggestion of inherent dualism, it is simply that the qualitative differences are enough to define the principles as distinctive principles.
The Tantric School of Sivadavaita
Sivadavaita is considered to be the formal approach to Tantric philosophy. The origins of Tantra are as debated as every aspect of Tantra. Some date it earlier than the Vedas other date in around 500-600 CE. Regardless of scholarly debate on origins, we can say that Tantra is a thread of Indian philosophy that is concerned with the practical experience of union with the Absolute by understanding the qualitative non-duality of cosmic principles, mainly Shiva and Shakti. Shiva and Shakti are male and female cosmic principles that exist in a mutual harmony as distinctive principles, but also exist in a mutual union that defines the basis of all existence.
The Absolute is called Parama-Shiva, and is considered the Absolute Reality of the existence. It is infinite, absolute, non-dualistic and beyond the limitations of time, space and matter. Parama-Shiva is considered to be Absolute Consciousness and is the perfect beingness and bliss of the universe.
The Absolute is then composed of two harmoniously balanced principles that make the Absolute Parama-Shiva both transcendental and immanent. The Absolute singular beingness, or absolute “I”-ness of the universe is depicted as Shiva. Shiva is the universal infinite source of creation and is the potential force behind creation itself. Shiva is the absolute state of infinity in a static “I” state, and is the source of all other pluralistic experiences in a state of absolute infinity. The universe is created through its force (shakti) and is therefore the Creative principle of the universe.
Shiva is perfect absolute consciousness and is devoid of color, characteristics and limitations. The illusory plurality of created existence is then created by Shiva’s power or Shakti. Shakti represents the female aspect of Parama-Shiva and is the kinetic manifestation of Shiva’s power. Where Shiva represents perfect “I” consciousness in a static state of oneness, Shakti represents the emanation of Shiva’s power as the created universe itself. In this way, Shakti is seen to take from the potential essence of Shiva and make Shiva’s potentiality into created existence. IN this way, She is also the Conceptual force of the universe of Shiva’s creation. These two principles work together in a mutual inseparable relationship of potentiality and potentiation.
An easy way to see this relationship is in the microcosmic relationship of male and female principles in the conception of a child. The male produces a seemingly infinite array of potential DNA sequences in his sperm, and the female single’s out one reality and makes that potential sequence into a created reality. In this way, the male and female principles work in a harmonious inseparable way to created physical reality. The male is the creative principle and the female is the conceptual principle and the result is a conceived physical existence. The two principles are qualitatively distinct, but they are inseparable and dependent on the other to exist.
The relationship of Shiva and Shakti are then seen as the cosmic relationship that the entire universe is mirrored after. This is a qualitative non-dual relationship, where two inseparable principles harmonize as a non-dualistic reality. However, the principles themselves can be defined in a qualitative manner even though they are in themselves non-dualistic and inseparable. This relationship applies to human consciousness and universal consciousness, to subject and object perception and to the actual relationship of male and female divisions of human beings. All things can be seen to mirror the cosmic qualitative non-duality of Shiva and Shakti as Parama-Shiva.
The techniques used in Tantric schools of thought are designed to reunite the individual to the infinite as a union of microcosmic and macrocosmic qualitative non-duality. They range from seeing the relationship of male and female humans in sexual union, to the internal union of male and female principles in the body through kundalini yoga. I will be going into a full discussion of the techniques and practices of kundalini yoga in the practical section of this text, but for now I describe kundalini yoga as this: Kundalini yoga is the union of female and male energies that exist in the subtle enegy body of the individual and run in channels throughout the body. The main channel runs up the spine. The dormant Shakti or female aspect of the energy is awakened, and it travels up the spine to be united with the Shiva or male aspect of this energy at the top of the head. This energy uncoils like a serpent as it unfolds and that is why the term kundalini is used which means literally “serpent”. Once fully awakened the energy remains as a constant harmonious inseparable balance of subtle energy and the individual is united with the infinite in a similar harmonious balance of microcosmic and macrocosmic consciousness.
The dormant energy and all manifestations of physical matter and energy is seen as a manifestation of Shakti because the entire universe is literally Shiva’s Shakti, or power in kinetic emanation. Thus Creator and Creation exist in a mutual harmonious inseparable qualitative non-duality. This is neither a duality of principles or an inherent pure non-duality, but a qualitative non-duality: a perfect balance of inseparable, dependent distinctive principles.
The Tantric School of Tibetan Buddhism
It is normally unlike Buddhism to qualitatively define different aspects of the universe, especially the cosmic absolute aspects of the universe. Tibetan Buddhism however, incorporates not only the ideology of the Yogacarins who admit the relevance of understanding consciousness and the importance of the usage of terminology, but also incorporate the doctrines of the Tantras, which seek to define the qualitative essence of the individual’s subtle “astral body”.
Essential to Tibetan Buddhist cosmology is the qualitative non-dualistic definition of cosmic male and female aspects of the universe. This relationship is quite similar to Sivadvaita Tantra in that it recognizes male and female universal principles in mutual harmony.
The male aspect of universal qualitative nondualistic harmony is called the “All Good Father” called Samantabhadra. Samantabhadra is the male embodiment of universal principle. It is the origin of celestial Buddhas and the embodiment of universal awareness and Absolute Reality. It is very similar in this manner to Shiva, as the source of all to follow, as the radiant energy of the Creative principle.
The female aspect of this relationship is the “All Good Mother” called Samantabhadri. Samantabhadri is the female aspect of this union and is seen as the universal emptiness of Absolute Reality. She is the unformed aspect of reality. Samantabhadri is literally the embodiment of the doctrine of emptiness, however one should not see this to mean emptiness then is itself exists with formed existence.
This is extremely interesting because most schools of Buddhism understand emptiness to be beyond any finite description or understanding, as in the Madhyamika school of Nagarjuna. Tibetan Buddhism takes from the Yogacarins and the Tantrikas to incorporate: first, the usage of terminology in a qualitative format, and second, the usage of symbolism to qualitatively define the doctrine of emptiness as an objective being. This is not in any way to say Tibetan Buddhism is a dualistic pantheism. Tibetan Buddhism follows suit of the Tantric schools of thought that the universe is qualitatively composed of distinctive principles. And again, with the influence of Yogacarin ideology the Tibetan Buddhists moved away from the philosophy that “no words are good words”, and began to define even the doctrine of emptiness with understood terminology and even symbolic embodiments of those doctrines.
The Tibetan Buddhists also envision a principle that represents the individual’s perfected essence and is the model used to follow when pursuing perfected nature of being. This being is called the Archetypal Man, or Yi-Dam, which is very similar to the Hebrew concept of Adam Kadmon. The Archetypal Man is the template of perfected existence and the format Tibetan Buddhists follow to achieve that state of perfected enlightenment. This would have been seen as antithetical to enlightenment by Nagarjuna or even Zen Buddhists for that matter because it would be seen as placing inherent existence on an individual principle. Where the earlier Buddhists took the doctrine of Anatman, or no-self very literally, the Tibetan Buddhists understood the importance of qualitatively defining the essence of human function with the inherent understanding that inevitably all things are empty of separate finite existence. This is a direct product of Yogacarin and Tantric influences on Tibetan Buddhist culture, and in my view the pinnacle of the evolution of Buddhist doctrine. It is the “Middle Way” of the doctrine of no-self (anatman), perfectly realized through qualitative distinction with the inherent understanding that all things lead back the primordial source through an empty matrix of unformed non-dualism.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
tantricmagus's journal