It is the nature of my faith to be critical towards religion whilst praising God. I shall try to explain why this is so.
Faith and religion are by many considered to be one and the same, and as a result, most religious people are blind, while most people critical of religion believe they must be atheists. I propose that faith and religion are two very different things, not to be confused.
While faith is the belief in God, and as such a spiritual matter, religion is the physical manifestation of this faith, just as a word is the physical manifestation of a thought. As all physical objects, religion will therefore be flawed. All religions are flawed, being people trying to express what cannot be expressed.
Any religious doctrine is in itself just a collection of words. Words are physical objects - attempts to express a thought which is, in essence, abstract. Our minds can percieve and understand perfection, but in the translation of abstract ideas into words something is lost.
This is the same as has been held by many philosophers through history, most notably (at least in european/western thought, which I am most familiar with) Plato and Wittgenstein, possibly Kant. As Wittgenstein held, any doctrine, including his own (and mine as well, for that matter), is nothing but a path towards understanding. True understanding can only come through surpassing the words of a doctrine, seeking the idea that the originator of that doctrine had in mind when creating it.
Thus, the doctrine itself, as written in a book or spoken by a priest, is not the actual truth, but, as I have already said, the physical manifestation of that truth and thus not entirely accurate.
All humans have access to the words of God through the innermost reaches of their minds, or the soul if you wish. This is a place where nothing is sharply defined, where there are no distinctions and no contradictions, no dichotomies. That is where the truth about God can be found.
Through the ages, many people, often called prophets or the like, have made it their speciality to venture into this world and try to bring back messages to their people from this place. The shamanic journey, the vision of the prophet, the meditative trance of the buddhist priest - all of these are expressions of the path inwards towards the understanding of the true essence of reality.
All of these people see the same truth! It is when they get back to the physical world that the confusion begins. Trying to make sense of what they have experienced, they will inevitably apply logic and reason, linguistic structures, the principles of time and space and the like to their experiences in trying to convey to the people around them what they have experienced.
As these categories do not apply in the spiritual world, there are bound to be inaccuracies. In addition, some might not have understood as well as others what they have seen, and some might not be as good at expressing what they have seen, as others. The greatest prophets are those who truly understand and have the gift of communicating their understanding in a simple and powerful way.
This is the origin of the difference between religions and the reason why religions, structures defined by their search for good, often end up causing suffering. No religious commandment or dogma should ever be read in its literal sense, no religion should ever be followed strictly.
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Unity of paradox
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.
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.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Theism
I have been a bit stubborn not wanting to abandon theism, and some of my previous posts are ever so slightly coloured by this perspective. That might not be important, but anyway I now see that the concept of God as a "person" of some sort may have to be cleared out of my thinking. I do not think I can see any way of maintaining such a position. Once we envision the supreme principle in humanoid form, it is diminished, gaining the limitations and weaknesses of our own kind.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Wittgenstein
I've been reading about Wittgenstein the last couple of days, and I must say someting about this right now. These texts about W that I have read are of a very superficial and introductory nature, but nonetheless I have come to a stunning and sudden realization. I have never read much about W before, because all that talk about language and what it can or cannot express seemed uninteresting to me, and this is seems allways to be what is focused on in texts about him. This is not unreasonable, of course, because the tractatus (which I haven't read, though I will) speaks mainly of this. The point, of course, is that this is not what it's about. All these learned men and women trying to give a simple account of W's philosophy, going on and on about language, are entirely missing the point. Here is a passage cut from Wikipedia's article about W. It illustrates my point accurately and clearly:
6.54 My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.This leads him to reassert the main point of the book:
7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.Some have chosen to interpret this as deliberate irony, others as outright performative contradiction.
The last sentence is the important one here. It shows how completely W is misunderstood by interpreters if this is what is commonly said about the 7th parapraph. The text above states that this is the main point of the book, and then goes on to say that it is irony or deliberate contradiction. Why would the genius W write a book that has a piece of nonsensical itony or contradiction as its main point? It's ludicrous!
Obviously, it is these readers who fail to understand what W is trying to say here. I can not understand why, it is quite simple, really, and he tells us in plain language: The point of the book is not what is said in it, but what it leads us to. The arguments are meant as guides on the road towards understanding, or as W himself calls it: the ladder. The words themselves are not trying to describe the truth as W sees it, in fact they can not, and this is his point. The central philosophical truth is spiritual, or "mystical", as he calls it, and thus cannot be expressed by words. This does not make the words meaningless, however. Since the truth cannot be spoken of directly, the purpose of philosophy is to show the way towards an understanding that the individual must reach on is own.
This is marvellous! This is very much the same as I am trying to express in my own clumsy and inferior way on this blog! What a wonderful revelation! I will read the tractatus in the near future.
Monday, 5 April 2010
Corrections from an unfocused mind
After writing for some time, I easily loose focus on the concept I am trying to write about, and end up writing some nonsense like the last part of my post about spiritual truths. It was of course my point all along that moral truths in fact can be determined like mathematical truths. That single moral statements can be verified by the resonance it creates in the soul.
Examples of this might be the golden rule of Christ and the Buddha, which must seem to most observers to say something universally true about the nature of morals. But, unlike mathematical truths, ethical truths can not be backed up by physical evidence. Even though the concept 2 + 2 = 4 can not be directly pointed to in the physical world, it can easily be demonstrated with the use of physical objects.
An ethical truth can not be demonstrated in this manner, and this is why I classify ethical truths as subjective, rather than objective truths. The mathematical statement above can be proven to someone else by the use of physical objects such as rocks. In the case of the golden rule, the truth of the statement must be determined individually by each recipient. You can make the statement to another, but you must trust him or her to see its validity his or herself by reflection free of prejudice and preconceptions.
Actually, the expression subjective truth might be a bit of a misnomer, as the truth itself is actually objective or inter-personal. It is the proof that is subjective, not the fact.
Examples of this might be the golden rule of Christ and the Buddha, which must seem to most observers to say something universally true about the nature of morals. But, unlike mathematical truths, ethical truths can not be backed up by physical evidence. Even though the concept 2 + 2 = 4 can not be directly pointed to in the physical world, it can easily be demonstrated with the use of physical objects.
An ethical truth can not be demonstrated in this manner, and this is why I classify ethical truths as subjective, rather than objective truths. The mathematical statement above can be proven to someone else by the use of physical objects such as rocks. In the case of the golden rule, the truth of the statement must be determined individually by each recipient. You can make the statement to another, but you must trust him or her to see its validity his or herself by reflection free of prejudice and preconceptions.
Actually, the expression subjective truth might be a bit of a misnomer, as the truth itself is actually objective or inter-personal. It is the proof that is subjective, not the fact.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Attempt at criteria for truth in a spiritual science
Traditional science relies on objective, interpersonal proof of its hypotheses, as the objective, interpersonal reality is its area of study. If knowledge of the spiritual is the opposite of knowledge of the physical, it follows that if the last need objective proof, the former needs subjective proof. We are, however, used to thinking that objective proof is the only form of proof. That without empirical evidence, knowledge is not truly possible. I will attempt to show that within the science of the spirit, such proof is possible, and indeed the only possible form of evidence.
Now, all of this presupposes the excistence of some sort of spiritual substance. I will hold that such a substance does indeed excist, but I will not argue this point here, as the genre of the blog lends itself to shorter texts. I might return to this problem at a later date, even though it is my belief that it is actually impossible to prove such a thing; it is for the individual to accept or reject at his or her own whim. I do, however, have some arguments in favor of my position on this issue, and thus may return to this in future posts.
Anyway, the excistence of some kind of spiritual substance accepted (if for nothing else, only for the sake of argument), we can move on to trying to establish a base on which to build the knowledge we seek. The first tool we have at our disposal on this quest for knowledge is logic. Any argument in support of a particular truth must be logically consistent. I do see that there are problems with this approach. First, it must be admitted that logic is a tool of traditional science, which we have just defined as the opposite of the doctrine we are trying to establish. Second, as we can not directly observe the spiritual substance, we actually have no proof that this realm is governed by logic at all; it might be entirely irrational, inaccessible to logic.
At this point, I need to formulate a second postulate to be accepted by the reader. In addition to assuming that there is such a thing as a spiritual substance, we must also assume that we have access to this substance in some way. Without such access, everything we are trying to achieve here will be meaningless. The only way I can think of that such access could be possible is through the soul, which idea is the basis for the idea of a spiritual substance in the first place. The theory must be, that in some way (I will get back to this later), our souls are the part of us that belongs to the spiritual realm. The part of our consciousness that lies one level above our thoughts. We have access to this world through such excercises as meditation or other techniques for achieving what is called altered states of consciousness. In these states, where normal consciousness and the mind are removed from our being, we experience pure excistence within our own souls, and thus observe its nature. It is also what we catch a glimpse of when we experience epiphanies, short feelings of complete knowledge that evaporates as quickly as it materialised.
I stated earlier that evidence of spiritual truth must be subjective. What is meant by this is that such knowledge can only be valid for the subject, that is, you can never prove to someone else that your vision of the spirit is true or valid. It can only be proven within the confines of the self. Such knowledge can still be communicated, though, but each individual, when exposed to something claimed as a spiritual truth, must decide for himself whether it is valid or not. Keep in mind, however, that I am still not claiming that each and everyone is entitled to his or her own version of the truth, and that all religious-dogmatic superstitions can be valid as spiritual truths as long as the individual decides for him or herself that this is what he or she believes in because it is written.
No, this is where I arrive at my main point: What must be devised, is a method. A method through which the individual can test any claim to spiritual truth he or she is confronted with. Now, the method itself must be interpersonal, but it is of such a nature that it can only be applied subjectively. My first proposition for an element in such a guide is the principle of irreversability, as it might be called. Certain ideas, once scrutinized thouroughly, can not be rejected. A most obvious example of this kind of thruth is mathematics. Once you have learned a mathematical axiom, it can not be unlearned. It is an inescapable truth once accepted. This also presupposes an open mind, and a sincere willingness and perpetual readyness to abandon your convictions.
A cuple of issues must be addressed. First (indeed for this post, I think it must be the last, I must continue on this later), philosophical, ethical or metaphysical claims are not the same as mathematical truths. They are much more complex, and thus a lot harder to judge according to the method I describe above. In fact, any metaphysical claim, such as "God is red", can not be absolutely proven or disproven through this method, but in fact, this is not the point here. It is not the point of this method to enable one to do such a thing. It may seem that this invalidates the whole system, but I will try to explain why I believe that it does not.
Take the afforementioned epiphany as an example. If indeed this is an experience of the pure spirit (it may not be, though, but it still serves as a useful example). When you "come to your senses" after such an experience, you feel at a loss to explain the truth you feel you have grasped. I have stated in an earlier blog that I believe our thoughts to be the products of our physical brains and not our souls. Our brain operates logically (not necessarily in a strict, scientific sense), and our language even more so. Logic is dependent on categorizing, while the spiritual truth is a truth of the whole. Our logical brains can not fully comprehend the concepts of complete oneness or eternity, and our logical language can not explain them, for language is dependent on duality for its operation. Thus, the absolute truth can not be spoken, but words may lead you in the right direction, and it is on this higher level that the method must be utilized; as an overall judge of your complete body of knowledge rather than at the level of individual claims.
(To be continued...)
Now, all of this presupposes the excistence of some sort of spiritual substance. I will hold that such a substance does indeed excist, but I will not argue this point here, as the genre of the blog lends itself to shorter texts. I might return to this problem at a later date, even though it is my belief that it is actually impossible to prove such a thing; it is for the individual to accept or reject at his or her own whim. I do, however, have some arguments in favor of my position on this issue, and thus may return to this in future posts.
Anyway, the excistence of some kind of spiritual substance accepted (if for nothing else, only for the sake of argument), we can move on to trying to establish a base on which to build the knowledge we seek. The first tool we have at our disposal on this quest for knowledge is logic. Any argument in support of a particular truth must be logically consistent. I do see that there are problems with this approach. First, it must be admitted that logic is a tool of traditional science, which we have just defined as the opposite of the doctrine we are trying to establish. Second, as we can not directly observe the spiritual substance, we actually have no proof that this realm is governed by logic at all; it might be entirely irrational, inaccessible to logic.
At this point, I need to formulate a second postulate to be accepted by the reader. In addition to assuming that there is such a thing as a spiritual substance, we must also assume that we have access to this substance in some way. Without such access, everything we are trying to achieve here will be meaningless. The only way I can think of that such access could be possible is through the soul, which idea is the basis for the idea of a spiritual substance in the first place. The theory must be, that in some way (I will get back to this later), our souls are the part of us that belongs to the spiritual realm. The part of our consciousness that lies one level above our thoughts. We have access to this world through such excercises as meditation or other techniques for achieving what is called altered states of consciousness. In these states, where normal consciousness and the mind are removed from our being, we experience pure excistence within our own souls, and thus observe its nature. It is also what we catch a glimpse of when we experience epiphanies, short feelings of complete knowledge that evaporates as quickly as it materialised.
I stated earlier that evidence of spiritual truth must be subjective. What is meant by this is that such knowledge can only be valid for the subject, that is, you can never prove to someone else that your vision of the spirit is true or valid. It can only be proven within the confines of the self. Such knowledge can still be communicated, though, but each individual, when exposed to something claimed as a spiritual truth, must decide for himself whether it is valid or not. Keep in mind, however, that I am still not claiming that each and everyone is entitled to his or her own version of the truth, and that all religious-dogmatic superstitions can be valid as spiritual truths as long as the individual decides for him or herself that this is what he or she believes in because it is written.
No, this is where I arrive at my main point: What must be devised, is a method. A method through which the individual can test any claim to spiritual truth he or she is confronted with. Now, the method itself must be interpersonal, but it is of such a nature that it can only be applied subjectively. My first proposition for an element in such a guide is the principle of irreversability, as it might be called. Certain ideas, once scrutinized thouroughly, can not be rejected. A most obvious example of this kind of thruth is mathematics. Once you have learned a mathematical axiom, it can not be unlearned. It is an inescapable truth once accepted. This also presupposes an open mind, and a sincere willingness and perpetual readyness to abandon your convictions.
A cuple of issues must be addressed. First (indeed for this post, I think it must be the last, I must continue on this later), philosophical, ethical or metaphysical claims are not the same as mathematical truths. They are much more complex, and thus a lot harder to judge according to the method I describe above. In fact, any metaphysical claim, such as "God is red", can not be absolutely proven or disproven through this method, but in fact, this is not the point here. It is not the point of this method to enable one to do such a thing. It may seem that this invalidates the whole system, but I will try to explain why I believe that it does not.
Take the afforementioned epiphany as an example. If indeed this is an experience of the pure spirit (it may not be, though, but it still serves as a useful example). When you "come to your senses" after such an experience, you feel at a loss to explain the truth you feel you have grasped. I have stated in an earlier blog that I believe our thoughts to be the products of our physical brains and not our souls. Our brain operates logically (not necessarily in a strict, scientific sense), and our language even more so. Logic is dependent on categorizing, while the spiritual truth is a truth of the whole. Our logical brains can not fully comprehend the concepts of complete oneness or eternity, and our logical language can not explain them, for language is dependent on duality for its operation. Thus, the absolute truth can not be spoken, but words may lead you in the right direction, and it is on this higher level that the method must be utilized; as an overall judge of your complete body of knowledge rather than at the level of individual claims.
(To be continued...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
