One of my basic beliefs about God is that he (God has no sex, so I stick to the practice of using my own sex when referring to him, which is as good a practice as any other), embodies a principle I call the unity of paradox.
Our existence seems riddled with paradox, and paradox is a great source of annoyance, irritation and even suffering. In philosophy, whenever one tries to subject reality to logic, contradiction arises. Wherever there is a doctrine, a counterdoctrine which seems equally good both in quality and morality appears.
The common solution to this situation is the compromise between or the synthesis (in the Kirkegaardian sense) of the two. I posit the unity of paradox as not only an alternative solution, but in fact the true solution to these kinds of conflicts. The problem is that the unity of paradox might be impossible to fully understand or explain linguistically.
To clarify my meaning, I will give an example:
Adolf Hitler had a good goal with his doctrine of nazism. His goal was to seek purity, and purity is connected to good. So, seeking purity, Hitler sought to eradicate diversity, and indeed; these to principles will seem to most to be opposites, and so Hitler should have been right in trying to eradicate diversity on his way to purity.
When we look at the effects of the application of his doctrines however, it is immidiately apparent that this could not have been the morally correct path. On the other hand, there is still the fact that diversity unchecked will lead to chaos, as different forces pull in different directions.
What we are left with are two opposite doctrines, both leading to ruin. The solution to this seems to be the finding of a balance between these opposites - a comprimise, or synthesis. What I propose is that we drop the compromise and seek both purity and diversity at once, and that they are essentially, one and the same.
In God, dualities, and thus contradictions/paradoxes are cancelled out, becoming one and the same. This is the mindset one must seek to achieve if one is to find the morally highest course of action in any situation. It is part of the eradication of all suffering, as suffering stems from paradox.
This may seem impossible, and it is, but yet it is not. Our physical existence binds us to contradiction, but our spiritual self can overcome these difficulties and let us seek ideals that are higher than the physical reality that we percieve. For the latter is, in the end, an illusion.
To find God, to find good, seek both unity and diversity. Try to understand how they are one and the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmm. I believe the main features thus far associated with the cerebral cortex have no more business understanding the paradoxical nature of the spiritual realm than a calculator has in deciding what I have for breakfast. I was about to give an example here, but I abstain. Rational thinking can only take us to a threshold, where it must realize it's own applications and limitations. From there on out, other faculties must be utilized. The spirutual realm and it's paradoxes may be analyzed at length by our logical, rational faculties, but it will only lead to a smorgasbord of paradox, and a large array of equally rational and irrational arguments for every statement put forth. This is where what we might call the heart, or intuition, comes into play. And all that comes with it. Have you ever used logic and reason to decide who to fall in love with? I have tried, and fooled myself. But when I really fell in love, rationality went out the window like rolling papers in a windy room. Not to downplay the role of rationality and logic, they are important faculties. But one of their most important features is to realize their own limitations. You probably use intuition, gut feeling or whatchamacallit, to fill out your tax returns. At any rate, it probably wouldn't give very desirable results in nine out of ten cases. Catch my surf? I find it excruciatingly difficult to discuss these subjects within the boundaries of rationality, of language even. And morals, good or bad, I try hard to rid myself of. So where does that leave us? I agree with your conclusion, and thus I feel your rationality has brought you safely to the threshold. From here on out, rationality will still play a part, but not as the protagonist. The focus of the story has changed. What was the protagonist up until page 211, turns out to have been only a catalyst on page 212. What was the focus of our attention for 211 pages, is now revealed as simply one of many characters constituting a larger whole, itself a part of an even larger whole, introduced on page 393. And so on, ad infinitum/absurdum. At each stage of spiritual development, what was the focus of our attention, the protagonist, and our compass up until that point, is found to be only a step towards something larger, more complete. Excuse the cryptic answer, but çi feel words can barely triangulate these subjects, much less precisely elaborate on them.
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is that I agree with your conclusion. And I propose a threshold has been reached, dictating a change of tools.