#a foundational part of religion is that it can often only be reconciled with nature so far and so I think it's fair to say that they BOTH | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

militant-holy-knight · 6 years ago

Text

Baelor the Blessed and the Role of Historical Counterparts in the World of Ice and Fire

Of the seventeen Targaryen kings to have sat the Iron Throne in George R.R. Martin’s World of Ice and Fire, Baelor the Blessed was by far the most pious, almost to a fault. Though his reign only lasted ten years, it resulted in a peace with Dorne that lasted the entirety of his reign, as well as a reform of most of Westeros and the building of the extravagant Great Sept of Baelor in King’s Landing. Though Baelor I Targaryen is a small part of a fictional history, his reign is not entirely fictional, as it borrows from the lives of factual historical figures who ruled in various places and times in medieval Europe and were later remembered as saint-kings whose religious zeal guided their reigns. These historical connections not only provide Baelor’s character with a narrative foundation but also allow the audience to engage with the narrative by drawing on historical parallels to build theories and predictions about the course of the narrative as well as provide a location for essential moments in the story.

The most direct historical inspiration for Baelor the Blessed is King Louis IX of France, son of Louis VIII and Blanche of Castile. Both Baelor and Louis led zealously religious lives, and Louis was even canonized as a saint. There are many similarities between the two pious kings, especially between what they did and how they chose to rule their respective realms: both made attempts at reconciliation with neighbouring territories, both made a pilgrimage of some kind, and both oversaw many religiously motivated changes. One of Baelor’s first actions as king of Westeros was to travel to Dorne, where his late brother King Daeron I had died attempting to put down a rebellion, “‘with neither sword nor army,’ to return their hostages and sue for peace”, rather than have the hostages executed and the feud with Dorne continue. Louis IX also made attempts to reconcile with neighbouring nations—in his case, he made attempts to annex Toulouse after the revolt and death of Raymond VII. For Louis, this was a political move, but for Baelor, forging an alliance with Dorne and forgiving them their treason was an act of piety, and Maester Yandel, the fictional historian in The World of Ice and Fire, writes in his account of Baelor’s reign that “[m]any similar acts of piety and forgiveness followed throughout Baelor’s ten-year reign”. For both kings, this involved a pilgrimage, though the fictional and the historical kings each carried this out in their own way—Baelor walked barefoot from his throne in King’s Landing to deliver the Dornish hostages to their home in Sunspear, while Louis took a crusader’s vows and travelled to Jerusalem. While the motivations behind both kings’ pilgrimages were undoubtedly both religious and political, it is the manner in which they left their kingdoms that sets Louis IX and Baelor I apart: before embarking on his crusade, Louis IX ensured his subjects’ security and “wanted to leave the realm pacified and subject to a just power”. Baelor, however, did not take any precautionary measures before departing for Dorne, only leaving Prince Viserys, his brother and Hand of the King, to rule in his absence. Again, while their motivations for embarking on these pilgrimages were similar, that Baelor put his religious activities before the needs of the realm indicates an important distinction between the fictional king and his historical inspiration: Louis IX did not let his devout nature hinder his ability to rule France, but Baelor’s piety became the focus of his reign. This distinction is demonstrated by the remainder of the two kings’ reigns. Both made attempts to reform their respective realms, Louis IX’s being described as “a political and moral reform of the realm”. Baelor’s attempts, however, are described by Maester Yandel more negatively: the people were outraged when he outlawed prostitution and “chose not to acknowledge” the unrest that it caused; he poured funds into his religious ambitions, using the royal treasury to “fund his charitable acts” and to build a grand new sept that he claimed to have seen in a vision; and he confused the line of succession when he dissolved his marriage to his sister Daena, claiming it had never been consummated, locked his three sisters in the Maidenvault to eliminate temptation and to “preserve their innocence from the wickedness of the world and the lusts of impious men”, and, taking a septon’s vows, would never wed again, therefore having no heir except for his brother, Prince Viserys. Maester Yandel writes that “[t]he king’s edicts were becoming more concerned with spiritual matters at the expense of the material”. By contrast, Louis IX, “[t]hough pious, even devout, […] never sacrificed the royal prerogative”. Therefore, Louis IX did not allow his piety to hinder his ability to rule competently, but Baelor I’s reign suffered because of his. So, while the two kings shared some traits and motives, Baelor the Blessed is depicted by Maester Yandel as almost too pious and a poorer ruler than Louis IX is depicted in historical accounts. Many aspects of Baelor’s reign are certainly inspired by that of Louis IX, yet his religious fervor and the consequences of his piety are greatly exaggerated for the purposes of the narrative.

A less direct historical counterpart for Baelor the Blessed is Edward the Confessor, the Anglo-Saxon who was king of England from 1042 to 1066. Both were noted for their generosity to the poor, and both were childless after allegedly unconsummated marriages. In Baelor the Blessed’s case, “the smallfolk loved him—he emptied the treasury regularly to fund his charitable acts”, though the nobility in Westeros were less pleased, in part because the king was “aided and abetted by a High Septon who was becoming increasingly more influential in the kingdom”. While there seemed to be a negative reaction to King Baelor’s generosity, Edward the Confessor’s “reputation for holiness was based on his generosity to the poor and his allegedly unconsummated marriage”, which gives no indication that these two items were an issue with the nobility. In fact, Edward used his childlessness to his political advantage, making promises of succession to his lords in order to secure their loyalty. Baelor, however, took no advantage of the results of his religious nature in order to improve the realm’s political situation, instead focusing on moral reform in Westeros. While there are fewer connections between Baelor and Edward than there are between Baelor and Louis IX, it is still evident that Baelor’s reign is inspired by many different historical counterparts, and although Edward the Confessor’s life was not entirely focused on religion as Baelor’s was, it is still likely that the events in his life are a part of the foundation for Baelor the Blessed.

Some other parallels can be drawn between the reign of Baelor I and the lives of historical pious kings, though they are less obvious than Louis IX and Edward the Confessor. Oswald of Northumbria, who spent much of his youth in exile and was converted to Christianity by monks on the island of Iona, is attributed with bringing Christianity to Northumbria in much the same way that Baelor the Blessed enforced the Faith of the Seven in Westeros. Just as Baelor’s rule was guided by the High Septon, the reign of Emperor Henry III was heavily influenced by the Church, with which he was also deeply involved: he selected several popes during his reign and was a supporter of the Cluniac movement. Much like Henry III, Baelor was very much involved with the Faith and did not rule idly when it came to issues of religion. Baelor’s reign was influenced by many different historical figures, although in The World of Ice and Fire the more religious aspects of his life are exaggerated for the purpose of the narrative and are depicted as having a negative impact on his reign, while historical saint-kings were often well-balanced between politics and religion.

These historical inspirations do more than simply give Baelor’s history foundation—they encourage the audience to look further into the narrative and make predictions based on connections made between the fictional and the factual. Many fans of the Song of Ice and Fire series produce intricate theories regarding the backstories of characters and the direction that the narrative will be taking. One fan, under the username Crowfood’s daughter, posted in October 2014 on the site “A Forum of Ice and Fire” a theory regarding Baelor the Blessed and the possibility of a prophecy connecting him to Prince Rhaegar. The theory suggests that Baelor was celibate and locked his sisters away not out of piety but out of fear of a child being born who would fulfill said prophecy:

My theory is that Baelor I feared something that he read and thought it had to do with one of his sisters having a child. Even though his sister wife was imprisoned, Daena escaped many times and, “had an affair with her cousin Prince Aegon, despite his marriage to his own sister-wife Naerys. When she became pregnant she refused to name the father of the child and became known as ‘Daena the Defiant’.” —the wiki. As we all know this son was the bastard Daemon Blackfyre, and the father, Prince Aegon became King Aegon the Unworthy.

Crowfood’s daughter then goes on to support this theory not only with research from The World of Ice and Fire and quotes from the novels, but also with two myths: the Greek story of King Acrisius and his grandson, Perseus, and the Celtic story of Balor and his daughter, Eithne. In both myths, there is a prophecy that the man’s grandson will murder him, so he locks his daughter away in the hopes that no man will ever find her, only to have his plan foiled and his daughter impregnated. This is similar to Baelor’s decision to lock his sisters away in the Maidenvault—in his case, it was his sisters and not his daughter, and according to Maester Yandel, King Baelor was not murdered by anyone, but the theory suggests that the studious king came across something resembling this prophecy and, fearing either for his life or the good of the realm, locked his sisters away. It is also noteworthy that his sister, Daena, did in fact bear a child, just as the daughters in the Greek and Celtic myths did, whose father she refused to name. The child was later revealed as one of Aegon the Unworthy’s natural sons, Daemon Blackfyre, and Crowfood’s daughter’s theory suggests that this may have been the very thing that Baelor was trying to prevent, since the Blackfyres later caused much turmoil in the realm with their many attempts to claim the Iron Throne. By making connections between the narrative and the outside world, fans are engaging with the text on a level that would not be possible if Baelor’s history were not inspired by historical figures and cultural mythologies such as the ones referenced by Crowfood’s daughter.

It is important to note that the history of Baelor’s reign does not exist within the narrative simply as a backdrop. Baelor the Blessed and his legacy act as a recurring motif throughout the narrative, as parts of his history, his actions, and his sept are often referred to in passing. In the fifth season of the television series, a scene takes place in an old chapel underneath Baelor’s sept when the High Sparrow is speaking to Cersei about Queen Margaery’s trial:

youtube

Here Baelor the Blessed is spoken of in a negative context as the High Sparrow compares Baelor’s extravagant methods of worship to a simpler kind of religion, or what he believes is “clean faith.” Baelor’s sept is not only used here as a setting—his legacy is also used as preamble to lead into Cersei’s arrest, a pivotal moment in the narrative in which power suddenly changes hands and the plot takes a very different direction. Another critical moment in the series in which Baelor’s sept serves an important role is in the ninth episode of the first season, when Eddard Stark is executed on the steps of the sept:

youtube

Again, the Sept of Baelor is the location for a pivotal moment in the narrative when a character who appeared to be the protagonist meets his untimely demise, sending the narrative into a new and unexpected direction. The location of the execution of Eddard Stark is mentioned once again in the paperback series’ fourth installment, A Feast for Crows, when Cersei meets with the High Sparrow for the first time. Cersei complains of the filth that the Sparrows are leaving on the steps of the sept, and the High Sparrow replies that “[n]ight soil can be washed away more easily than blood, Your Grace. If the plaza was befouled, it was befouled by the execution that was done here”. It is evident that the location of certain events are remembered by the characters, and to one such as the High Sparrow, the fact that such an event took place outside the Sept of Baelor is not easily forgotten, and this reminder to Cersei serves as a warning to the reader that the High Sparrow is not going to be her ally. Therefore, Baelor the Blessed is not simply a figure mentioned in passing: he is mentioned again and again throughout the narrative, and his legacy is an integral part of the plot, providing a setting for pivotal events and a subject to emphasize the religious inclinations of many characters.

It is clear that the reign of Baelor the Blessed is not a wholly fictional creation: Martin draws on several historical figures for inspiration—saint-kings such as King Louis IX of France and Oswald of Northumbria, whose rule was guided by their devotion to their faith, much like Baelor I was led by his. In The World of Ice and Fire, the most extreme examples of Baelor’s piety are presented, many of them similar to events in the lives of Louis IX and Edward the Confessor but exaggerated to make apparent that he was pious to a fault. This is also a product of Maester Yandel’s bias as an historian, as much of his research is based on legends, tavern tales and ancient scrolls. However, the historical connections to Baelor have more purpose than simply giving him a more concrete backstory. They also allow the audience to engage with the text, much like the fan theories that draw on historical parallels for evidence. Therefore, while there are many differences between the reign of Baelor the Blessed and those of historical pious kings, the similarities that do exist allow for another level of engagement with Martin’s texts, both on the page and on the screen.

#Game of Thrones #history

1 note · View note

pamphletstoinspire · 6 years ago

Photo

MARY THE CHURCH AT THE SOURCE - PART 9

WRITTEN BY: JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER AND HANS URS VON BALTHASAR

________

THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH

“Whoever would boast, let him boast in the Lord.” Whoever would offer best wishes and congratulations, let him likewise do it in the Lord. He is the one who through his shepherds distributes his gifts to the Church as he wills. And, even in the Church’s hands, these gifts remain, thanks be to God, his. If they were ours, we would be crushed by the feeling of our impotence. He has called us and has built us up on the foundation of Peter, who denied him, and of Paul, who persecuted him, so that—amid tears and with contrite hearts, without which there is no priestly office—we may speak and act openly and in the joy of the Holy Spirit,

We are only stewards, and we are doubly dispossessed: for the sake of the Lord who sends us and for the sake of the Church to which he sends us and which we love because she is his bride. On this feast how could we not speak of this object of our love? Is it not the most delightful subject? The Church. Not, however, in her failure, her scandals, her inner conflicts, in the water that goes up to her neck. Rather, the Church insofar as she is proof against all this, in the unsurpassable breadth on account of which we hail her as the Catholica.

Our topic, then, is the catholicity of the church. The catholicity of the Church will always remain a paradox and, for very many people, a scandal. How could an entity that is as limited, even more, as fallible, as this empirical Church claim for herself a universality that does not leave out anything human or divine? How could she claim a universality of living truth, of true life?

The non-believer will object that universality could consist only in the sum of all of humanity’s genuine experiences, of all its cultures and historical epochs, whereas the Catholic Church is only an infinitesimal fraction of that sum! The believer will object that, if anyone, it would be the God-man who could lay claim to universality, since he cannot be convicted of any sin, the fullness of Godhead dwells bodily in him, and he recapitulates everything in heaven and on earth. Not, however, the Church, which blasphemes if she tries to identify herself with her Lord.

We may draw a twofold, a priori conclusion from what we have just said. A church that claims to be catholic would have to have a very special relationship to the universal experience of humanity and a very special relationship to the God-man. Only on the basis of this twofold relationship (whose possibility we do not yet see) could she legitimately be called the Catholica, and not a Christian sect.

We will briefly survey the first relation, which will by its inner logic bring us to a more thorough discussion of the second.

Anthropological Catholicity

Biblical faith is one: from Abraham to Jesus and Paul. There are not two ways of believing. Abraham is the archetype that Israel set as a seal over its history: departure from one’s own world, blind trust in the God who promises tremendous things but shows nothing of them, worse still, who starts things off, who gives the son of the promise, and then demands the gift back on Moriah. God so outweighs any other considerations that he can demand, not only faith, but blind faith, faith that does not waver if God seems to contradict himself openly. Later on, an entire people journeying through the wilderness will be trained in this kind of trust. And the desert journey continues even after the taking of the land, even in the exile and beyond: again and again the prophets train Israel in this letting go, this refusal to grasp, this trust and hope.

Jesus brings nothing other than this faith, but he does so as the “author and finisher of faith” who embodies it in person. He himself is pure trust that goes so far as the night of abandonment by the Father, without assurance, no longer understanding, in absolute preference of another’s will. What he does and lets be done he imparts with plenary authority. His preaching is nothing but training in this fundamental act, which he both demands from man and coaxes from him at the same time. “I believe, help my unbelief.” He entices man to make the leap and stretches out a hand to strengthen him for it. And so we realize: In him we can make the leap, he himself is the leap, from man to God—and, therefore, first from God to man. “In Deo meo transiliam murum” [in my God I will leap over the wall] (2 Sam 22:30). “Nihil cepimus; in verbo tuo autem laxabo rete” [we have caught nothing, but at your word I will lower the net] (Lk 5:5). The disciples do not really realize this until after the Resurrection. God himself stretched forth his hand to Jesus, indeed, Jesus himself is God’s hand stretched out to man.

When Paul lives henceforth “en Christo” and preaches accordingly, he is proclaiming, not some strange new doctrine, but, as he himself knows, the very consummation of Abraham’s faith in Jesus the Christ. He, Jesus, is, in fact two things: the Word of God and its fulfillment, hence, the new and eternal covenant between God and man.

Now this fulfillment is two things at once: first, it is the fulfillment of the fundamental act of the creature as such; second, it is the fulfillment of God’s promises.

The fundamental act of the creature is religio. Religio is the act of relating myself back to the Absolute, which I am not, winch I do not even know, and which above all I do not control, but to which I owe my being and which I prefer to everything that is not absolute. “Je préfere l’Absolu” [I prefer the absolute] (Claudel) is the origin of the wisdom of India, of China, ultimately, of the religion of every nation that has had the wisdom to understand that any defiance any questioning of God, who is always right, is sheer stupidity.

Religio is often clouded by magic, but even magic can have something touching about it, insofar as it expresses the surmise that, when man is in trouble, the Divinity cannot remain unmoved. Any world view that fails to go back to and unfold from, this fundamental act does not deserve to be called love of wisdom, philo-sophia. Biblical faith is not as one Christian sect believes, antithetical to this fundamental act of spiritual nature; rather, it is its unique fulfillment—though one awakened and empowered by God And because the Catholic Church acknowledges the rootedness of her faith in the catholicity of the religious mind, she has a prima facie claim to this title. But there is also a second element.

God does not so much lead Abraham back to the Alpha, the origin (re-ligio), as forward to the Omega, the future fulfillment. Israel is, today as always, the alternative to religio: hope in the God who is coming. This is the other side of mankind’s religious experience, and there is no third. Admittedly, a broad segment of contemporary Israel has given up the presence of divine guidance and has retained only prophetism, radical departure into the future, historical transcendence into Utopia.

Jesus Christ is called Alpha and Omega: he has not only bound us back to our lost beginning, the Father, but has also set us in motion toward his absolute future. He alone is the force that binds together the beginning and the end, the force that can reconcile in itself, as the higher third, the two divergent world views: past and future, Buddhism and Marxism. For only in him is God presence, and so he alone can be the way back to the origin and ahead toward the consummation. Buddha, in pure faith, prefers the lost, bygone origin to everything present, to all apparent being. Marx, in pure hope, prefers the absolute goal to everything present, to all that actually exists. Christ alone establishes absolute love. This love, looking out from the present being of the world, which is affirmed by God, embraces at one and the same time both the beginning and the end.

The catholicity of Christ’s message and of the Church he founded lies in this one-of-a-kind, absolutely inimitable synthesis. And this synthesis works only because the double leap—from man to God and from God to man—works. The angels ascend and descend above the Son of Man; heaven and earth are reconciled in the God-man. Believing in Christ, who was and who is to come, the Church not only secures the religio of the pagans, but also the Utopian hope of the Jews: the total, catholic horizon of human religious thought.

Christological Catholicity

But does this synthesis of the religious act automatically give the Church the right to call herself “catholic”? Is not the synthesis of Christ, Alpha and Omega, so unique that it rules out any participation in his catholicity a priori? Yet what is Christ; what is the New Covenant? Verbum Caro! We have moved beyond the old antithesis: “Omnis caro foenum. . . . Verbum autem Domini manet in aeternum” [all flesh is grass. . . . But the Word of the Lord abides for ever] (Is 42:6, 8), from the word that speaks at man to word-flesh. And so to faith-flesh. The flesh now has the word It is not the mind alone that makes every act of faith that prefers God and hopes in him, but the whole man, down to the foundation of matter.

There is no getting away from it: flesh means man and woman, spousal love, mother and child. Otherwise flesh is not really present. If we want to do justice to the incarnation [Fleischwerdung] of the Word of God, we have to be attentive to woman. The fundamental act can no longer be just faith in a word or hope in a promise. It now has to be love for the origin that descends in an act of love. It has to be consent of the whole man down to the deepest fibers of his flesh. If these fibers were not an echoing readiness, how could the Word become flesh? If it becomes flesh, it has to emerge from the deepest foundations of life. And this deepest depth has to receive the Word, not as an empty abyss in pure passivity, but with the active readiness with which a feminine womb receives the masculine seed.

The fundamental act—let us think back to it for a moment—was to prefer the Absolute. The Absolute is right no matter what; our part is to let it have its way (Zen!). Today there is a foolish controversy going on about the primacy of orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Which comes first, which is really decisive? The answer is easy: Neither of them. Neither doxy nor praxy, neither merely thinking something is true nor rushing headlong into action. In the beginning is God’s Word, who intends to become flesh. His is the praxis; my part is to let him have his way in me, to consent, to say Yes down to the deepest recesses of my flesh. True, this is an action, but it is an action that responds to what God does; true, it is faith, yet not in a proposition, but in God’s personal action in me. And if this Yes were not free, totally free, down to the unconscious layers of our being, it would not be human assent. But where could man get a Yes that was so free, without spot or wrinkle, without the slightest even unconscious restriction, if not as a gift from the hand of God?

But are we not talking about two different acts: God’s bestowal of this freedom (perhaps upon some pure passivity) and, then, our appropriation and active exercise of this freedom? Do these acts not differ in the way that Protestants, say, distinguish between justification and sanctification: in the former, God (in Christ) acts sovereignly on me, while in the latter his action (in the Holy Spirit) enters into me? Something like this two-step process may happen in the case of the sinner, but not in the case of the original Incarnation. In order to have his Word become flesh, God needs an a priori Yes that allows everything.

And it really is a someone who, with perfect creaturely freedom, becomes the womb and bride and Mother of the incarnating God. This someone’s fundamental act is neither a Buddhistic surrendered unfree self-being into the abyss of the absolute nor a Marxist self-endowment with freedom by which man becomes his own creator. Rather, it is the act of receiving from the God who gives himself unconditionally the gift of receiving him unconditionally.

The foundation of the Church’s catholicity is this fundamental act that takes place in the chamber of Nazareth—and in it alone. This catholicity is the unconditional openness of the ecce ancilla which, by giving God unlimited room beforehand, is the creaturely counterpart of God’s infinitely self giving love.

Those who think that the Church started later—with the vocation of the Twelve, for example, or with the bestowal of supreme authority on Peter—have already missed the heart of the matter. They can never go beyond an empirical or sociological reality that cannot be qualitatively different from the synagogue. Even the “infallibility” of office then hangs perilously in the air. It has nowhere else to put down roots than the fallibility of the human beings who exercise it.

Now, where does this bride “without spot or wrinkle” (Eph 5:27), this “pure virgin” who is to be betrothed to Christ (2 Cor 11:2) exist, if the universal, catholic Yes that we must expect her to give is not real somewhere, not simply an ideal, an approximation (like all our Yesses), or an eschatological hope (so that the Church would become genuinely catholic only in eternity)? How could the Catholica come into being anywhere if her inmost reality were not created at the very first instant of the New Covenant—as the Mother of the Child, the Mother who has to be a virgin in flesh and in spirit so that she can be the incarnate, catholic consent to the unconditional penetration of the divine Word into the flesh?

We can anticipate three conclusions from this.

1. The Marian or catholic fundamental act is so original that it is beyond contemplation and action. The Yes that founds the Church and all Christian existence in the Church is both prayer to God and cooperation with God’s engagement for man. Prayer in the Church should strive to give form to this Yes: as adoration, as thanks, as petition that works within and concretizes God’s gracious will, and at the same time as consent that goes along with everything that God is doing in the world, as readiness to be used, to be used up, in God’s work.

2. The Marian or catholic fundamental act is beyond childhood [Unmündigkeit] and adulthood [Mündigkeit]. At its origin it has to be childlike and dependent, since only the “childlike” are called blessed, whereas the mystery of the Father is concealed from the wise and the clever and the grownups. And precisely these children, who are overshadowed, not by their own spirit, but by the Holy Spirit, are the ones who are fruitful and adult in the Christian sense. They bear responsibility, but it is not theirs. It is God’s. They do not carry out a mission of their own, which must needs be limited, like a horse wearing blinders. No, they act within the unlimited, universal, catholic mission of Jesus Christ.

3. The Marian or catholic fundamental act is beyond understanding and not understanding. When you say Yes to God unconditionally, you have no idea how far this Yes is going to take you. Certainly farther than you can guess and calculate beforehand, certainly as far as participation in failure and derision, Cross and Godforsakenness—but just how far and in what form? At the same time, this Yes is the sole, nonnegotiable prerequisite of all Christian understanding, of all theology and ecclesial wisdom. You cannot understand a Lord in whom “all the promises of God find their Yes” (2 Cor 1:20) alongside of this Yes. Christian truth is esoteric in the sense that it can be discerned only from within, in being carried out in faith and action, not from outside, from a box seat in the theater. Nor by a partial identification (with the reservations that implies), but only out of a total, universal, and, therefore, catholic identification with God’s ways in the flesh.

The Catholic Church, whose qualitative foundation is laid in the house of Nazareth, takes on her outward, visible dimension in the course of the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ. Nazareth makes the idea of “becoming flesh” necessary for, and relevant to, the Church. A purely spiritual Church, an ideal Church, an invisible Church—all these are a priori uncatholic, because they do not take seriously the totality of man, who is both clay from below and breath breathed from above.

The distinctive substance of the New Testament came into being in Nazareth: enfleshed faith. And because a Church must come into being in order to guard Christ’s heritage and to guarantee his presence and relevance for all times, a nail, a stake, has to be driven into the flesh of the world’s history. It has to be palpably obvious, downright coarse, impossible to interpret away or to overlook. It has to be as painful as a nail of the Cross, handwriting on the wall warning all ages that God’s Word has become flesh, that it is not merely a word in individual consciences or merely paper you can purchase in a bookshop or merely an ethico-political plan of action that every generation is free to refashion to suit its needs. An awl in the flesh, an indelible reminder, a nail driven in so deeply that it can no longer be removed from the flesh of history Everything else can be hung on this nail. The nail is [ecclesiastical] office.

It would be so nice if we could dehistoricize the Gospel and put it on some humanistic common ground: “Christianity not Mysterious” (John Toland); “Christianity as Old as Creation” (Matthew Tindal); Christianity as an idealistic religion of reason (from Lessing to Hegel, from Strauß to Harnack). Unfortunately, we have learned two things since then: that we cannot detach Jesus from the culture of his time and its historical horizon—we have been warned against that, from Overbeck to Albert Schweitzer; and, simultaneously, that we know Jesus only through the testimonies of the primitive Church, that an abstraction from the records of the first Christians’ faith leads to a dark void. We know, in other words, that the game is up with idyllic, professorial, so-called “objective” portraits of Jesus.

But let us joyfully make the most of the (for scholarship sobering and depressing) insight that we cannot have Christ without his Church! That she alone preserves his legacy and his image, an image of which she, the bride, bears the imprint and which the Bridegroom’s Spirit has shaped out of her faith. The reciprocity of the Christ-Church relationship is as indissoluble as that of the relationship between mother and child.

Incarnate office is the ecclesial counterpart of Mary’s enfleshed Yes in the Church. Everything hangs, as if on a nail, on the election and empowerment of the Twelve, with Peter at their head. That this nail was hammered in by Jesus himself is beyond doubt. The Twelve, humiliated by betrayal, denial, and flight regroup in obedience after Easter, fill out their thinned ranks, and take over their assigned mission. Then the stupendous phenomenon of Paul appears on the scene, and his loving struggle with the Corinthian community establishes the archetype of a Church functioning according to the mind of Christ—in the divergence [Auseinandersetzung] and convergence [Ineinandersetzung] between office and community. Paul, who enters into an already formed tradition and explicitly hands it on—faith and morals—is certainly no innovator when it comes to exercising the authority of his office. The innovators are the Corinthian charismatics, and Paul calls them to order with all imaginable zeal, with his entire Christ-consecrated missionary existence.

The major Pauline letters have two foci: first, the order of redemption in Christ: the doctrine of justification and sanctification, above all in the Letter to the Galatians and the Letter to the Romans. Second, the order of the redeemed in the hierarchically [amtlich] constituted Church: the doctrine of the Church in the dramatic tension [Auseinandersetzung] between office and community, above all in First and Second Corinthians. The Reformers appropriated only the first half of Paulinism, whereas the Counter-Reformation unfortunately failed to exploit the full power of the second.

This second half is more dramatically relevant today than ever, yet there is nothing essential in contemporary assaults on the principle of hierarchical office, in the protests of the latest clerical and lay charismatics, that Paul’s ecclesiology (especially at the end of the Second Letter to the Corinthians) does not anticipate and correct. Paul orders and governs Church affairs, establishes ecclesiastical law, and lays down rules for the relationship between the strong and the weak. Above all, he shows that if the charismatic does not unceasingly transcend itself toward the Lord’s unity, it ceases to be catholic. And it is the function of the Church’s office to demand and enforce this transcendence. As a “ministry of Christ” [Dienstan Christus] in the Church, ecclesial office is the efficacious sign Christ himself has established to show that the body is alive only when it is governed and quickened from above itself, by the head.

The Church is a living body, and a body has a structure. Now, the Church’s structure is essentially her office, understood as a function for the sake of the organism. We totally miss the point when we disparage the structure of a living body with the term “institution”. The higher an organism is, the more developed and complex its organization. The rigid skeleton serves flexibility; the living flesh would be nothing but a shapeless mass without the body’s hard and tough parts.

The Church is primarily, not a sociological organization, but the living flesh of Christ that is fed by his Eucharist. It follows that the Church’s office and everything that goes with it—sacraments, tradition, the Bible, Church law and Church discipline, and so forth—is pneumatic. It goes without saying that in the New Testament pneuma is not the opposite of Incarnation; rather, it is its cause and, from another point of view, its enduring effect. The Christian should reflect for a moment: Are there any Christian goods he does not owe, directly or indirectly, to what he perhaps contemptuously dismisses as “institution” or the “establishment”? The real saints were all aware of this debt, and it is characteristic of them that they always remained in the organism of the Church, drew their life from her and added new organic tissue to her.

The objection that the Church structure depicted in Paul’s letters cannot serve as a model for the postapostolic period because later officeholders no longer possess the fullness of apostolic authority does not hold water. If this were the case, then a vital portion of the New Testament canon would have no more than antiquarian value for us. Paul makes a point of calling, not only himself, but also his collaborators and successors “servants of Christ”, “co-workers of God”, and he demands (in Corinth, no less) the very same reverent reception, the very same obedience for them as he does for himself Moreover, there is scarcely any interval of time between the pastoral letters, where we see these successors actively exercising their office, and the marvelous Letter of Clement, where Rome wields this same office with strength and delicate modesty by Rome in relation to Corinth.

Of course, the successors do not have the apostles’ Church-founding functions and the special powers belonging to them. Nor do they need them, for the structure has already been established and must only be kept alive. In the same way, the founder of an order receives special powers along with his unique mission. Yet this does not mean that abbots or other superiors will not succeed him.

Hierarchical office serves the charismatic dimension. It exists in order to awaken and foster personal and social life as well as to prune it for the sake of growth, indeed, to demand sacrifices from it, just like the vinedresser: “Every branch of mine that . . . bear[s] fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit” (Jn 15:2). Paul does this expressly when he calls for difficult sacrifices on the part of the so-called “strong”; they are not only to put up benevolently with the weak; they must set aside their own judgment when the welfare of the whole—to which these weak believers also belong—is at stake: “We who are strong ought. . . not to please ourselves. . . . For Christ did not please himself, but, as it is written, ‘the reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.’ For whatever was written in former days was written for our [the strong’s] instruction” (Rom 15:14; emphasis added). And Paul is ready to face anyone, especially self-assured charismatics, with weapons that are powerful, not in an earthly sense, but genuinely (in other words, pneumatically) so. He will wield these weapons to destroy pseudo-theological “arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). He does so, though, in virtue of the “authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down” (2 Cor 13:10). For when Paul takes “every thought captive” in order to lead it “to obey Christ”, he redirects a theology gone astray in a fancied freedom back to the Yes of perfect faith. This Yes gives the only true Christian freedom: incarnate pliancy to the incarnating Word of God.

Precisely at this point the catholicity of office comes into view. Hierarchical office is a permanently estabhshed principle in the Church whose essential function consists in preventing the inevitable particularity of a charism or an association of charisms from becoming self-enclosed. Indeed, office compels openness to something indefinitely greater than the charismatic club. It thus has the formal dimensions of the Marian Yes: everything, really everything, that God wills—however much it may transcend my horizon.

Once again let us draw three conclusions from what has been said. These will guide us along the way of further reflection.

1. Hierarchical office is, as has been said, the nail driven into history upon which the Church hangs. It is the guarantee of the Church’s fleshliness. As such, office is the ever new presence of the origin through all ages. It is more than a memory of the origin; it is its immediate presentation. More than a memoria, it is a real praesentia. It is this as pure service, as a self-effacement for the sake of one’s function, which is the necessary condition of acting and speaking with the authority of Christ. Just as Christ himself became the slave of God and of all men in order to act and speak in the authority of the Father, so too it is the task of hierarchical office to represent the unity of the head within the structure of the organism. Not to be this unity, but to embody it efficaciously in virtue of the will of the Founder. Now, without the unifying Petrine office, this representation would remain historically abstract and disincarnate. Solovyev understood this point perfectly. Individual groups and particular churches (each one with or without a leader) must come together in a common spirit.

One might make a virtue of ecumenical necessity and say that the point of convergence is Christ, who is enthroned above the whole history of the Church and her pluralism. Nevertheless, this would still leave the point of unity unincarnate within history, here and now, and the great words of institution in Matthew (16:18), Luke (22:32), and John (20:3-10; 21:1-19) would, needless to say, be unfulfilled. But another thing would remain unfulfilled as well: the sole historical guarantee that the necessary pluralism of theological schools, pastoral practices, and Spirit-kindled charisms can genuinely be integrated in a concrete unity and be understood as members of the one Lord. The office that is centrally unified in the pope is thus the guarantee and the decisive test that the unpredictable plurality of manifestations of Christian life is the fullness of a universal, Catholic unity.

2. Hierarchical office is, as was said, authority as pure service, hence, as an enduring sign that points away from itself to the Lord. It disappears, thus letting the Lord appear. For this reason, it is extremely misleading to call the priest alter Christus, for there is only one. In his sacramental and pastoral activity, the priest leaves the doing and the saying to the one Christ; but he has power to do precisely that. And even teaching, preaching, and the formulating of dogmas are always a pointer, a fragmentary explanation. Never a mastery of the full truth that is Christ. But precisely for this reason they can be an authentic guarding of the deposit of faith against usurpers who use theology to rationalize Christ’s living truth, as if they could master it like some philosophical system. What the Magisterium guards is, not a hoard of formulas, but the mystery to which all formulas can only point. On the other hand, it would not be the office it was instituted and founded to be if all it could do was point and were not, at crucial critical moments, a reliable, “infallible” marker in the fog.

3. Insofar as ministerial office is a representation that points to something else, it has to take its own bearings by what it points to. But it points both to Christ (and the triune God who appears in him) and to Christ’s immaculate bride, the pure vessel of the Holy Spirit: the Church that is integrally holy in Mary.

Peter and Mary are not identical. Thus, before Peter enters upon his office, he must be humiliated by the Lord in a way he will never forget, so that he will not mistake himself for the wrong person. So, too, Peter and all official ministers must always listen to the Spirit working and creating in the Marian Church and must also obey this Spirit, who speaks out of the saints and the authentic charismatics.

At the end of the fourth Gospel, even after Peter’s solemn installation in office, there remains a diastasis between him and the disciple whom Jesus loved, whose destiny is an un-revealable mystery that rests in the Lord’s hands alone. The Gospel of love ends with a great tribute to the Petrine office, but it subordinates this office to the service of a love that it,’ the office, can never fully oversee.

The duality of Mary and Peter, of the subjective holiness of the heart and the objective holiness of the structure, maintains the distance between body and head in the catholicity of the Church. And so in the empirical Church there are two critical organs: the office, which examines and criticizes the charisms to test their catholicity, and the sanctity that in the pure spirit of the Gospel, of Mary’s Yes, can and must criticize office.

We saw (in the first part) that there was an anthropological catholicity in the Church’s faith. The fundamental act of the New Testament—hoping, loving faith—retrieved in a unique synthesis all the basic religious attitudes possible to humanity: “binding oneself back” to the origin in self-surrender and the forward-driving quest for a promised future fulfillment. In the second part we saw a deeper, christological catholicity in the Church’s fife. In this context we also saw that the Marian-Petrine Church, by her pure readiness to receive and her pure representative service can genuinely become the fullness of him who fills all in all (Eph 1:23).

However, the two principles of the Church’s catholicity interpenetrate and complement each other. After all, the Marian “handmaid” lives a life of pure service and thus has the same fundamental gestalt as the Petrine office. In the same way, office is to be a pure pointer to the Lord, just like Mary’s whole existence. Both services are supernaturally fruitful. And Christ’s Cross-oriented life is the inner form of both, albeit only by the grace of the Resurrection. But one thing, at least, should be clear: Mariology and the doctrine of office are not side chapels of Catholic dogmatics; rather, they are central, integrating aspects of ecclesial catholicity.

Seen from the outside, the Church is a society of individual persons having the same or similar belief who submit themselves to certain sociological requirements and rules of the game. Seen from the inside, the Church is the communio sanctorum. This communion is based on the Eucharist, which makes the Church one body and one spirit, even as the Eucharist is based on the trinitarian communio and circumincessio of the Divine Persons in the one nature. This ultimate ground of the Church’s being enfolds—without jeopardizing or sublating the person—the pure juxtaposition of individuals characteristic of peoples or states. It thus enables instead an osmosis of destinies and activities, which become more catholic and universal the closer they are to the destiny of Christ. The whole body is thus ultimately drawn to follow the destiny of the head. And in this body there is nothing abstract, no “principles”, “structures”, “institutions”, that lead an ideal, destinyless existence outside of the persons in whom they are realized.

Mary is the principle of all Yes-saying, of all fruitful obedience as a person, and as such she is the Mother whose heart is pierced by a sword, who cries out in travail between heaven and earth. She really stands at the foot of the Cross—where she is joined to the Petrine Church through John.

Peter receives office after his bitter tears and is afterward (the bitterness remains) honored with crucifixion. He is allowed to suffer a reverse image of his master’s death. Precisely for this reason office attracts abuse like a magnet, so much so that it becomes a sewer for every man: “peripsema heos arti” (1 Cor 4:13). The hate, not only of the world, but also of the charismatics in the Church, pursues it; just as the slogan in Corinth was once “freedom from Paul” [Los von Paul], so always, and once again today, it is “freedom from Rome” [Los von Rom]. “The death of Jesus in our body”. And this absolutely in substitution: “So death is at work in us, but life in you” (2 Cor 4:10-12).

The principle of office is always incarnate in the officeholders: in them life inclines toward death and ruin, but without the gates of hell being able to overcome it. Paul’s ship founders, and yet all are brought safely to land on planks. It is good that office is spat upon today, that Judas is betraying it again in every possible way, and that many ostensibly faithful people flee the specter of the “establishment”. The more recognizably the head full of blood and wounds shines through the face of office, the more inwardly genuine official existence will be and the more credible it will again become for its time.

The Church can understand herself only in her Lord. There is no self-understanding of the Church. Mary understands herself in her child. Paul understands himself en Christo. However, today’s world seeks its self-understanding by giving itself its own meaning.’ The Church will never be able to do that. She will always let the Lord give her her own meaning and will penetrate it ever more deeply in a humble love that says Yes to service: “Respexit humilitatem ancillae suae” [he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden].

________

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

I. “Mein Wort kehrt nicht erfolglos zu mir zurück!” Homily preached at the opening liturgy of the spring plenum of the German Bishops’ Conference in Stapelfeld, Germany, March 6, 1979. In Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Hans Urs von Balthasar, Maria: Kirche im Ursprung (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1980), 7-14. First publication of the pieces in this volume in the appendix to German Bishops’ Conference, ed., Maria, die Mutter des Herrn (Bonn); vol. 18 in the series Pastoral Letters of the German Bishops.

II. “Erwägungen zur Stellung von Mariologie und Marienfrömmigkeit”, ibid., 15-40.

III. “Die Zeichen der Frau: Versuch einer Hinführung zur Enzyklika ‘Redemptoris Mater’ von Papst Johannes Paul II”, in Maria: Gottes Ja zum Menschen (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1987), 105-28.

IV. “ ‘Du bist voll der Gnade’: Elemente biblischer Marienfrömmigkeit”, in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Peter Henrici, ed. Credo: Bin theologisches Lesebuch (Cologne: Communio, 1992), 103-16.

V. “Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine. . .”, The text was written to open the Marian congress held on the seven-hundredth-year anniversary of the Holy House of Loreto, 1995.

Hans Urs von Balthasar

I. “Maria in der kirchlichen Lehre und Frömmigkeit”, in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Hans Urs von Balthasar, Maria: Kirche im Ursprung (Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1980), 64-79.

II. “Die marianische Prägung der Kirche”, in Wolfgang Beinert, ed., Maria heute ehren: Eine theologisch-pastorale Handreichung (Freiburg, Basel, Vienna: Herder, 1977), 263-79.

III. “Empfangen durch den heiligen Geist, geboren von der Jungfrau Maria”, in Wilhelm Sandfuchs, ed., Ichglaube: Vierzehn Betrachtungen zum Apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnis (Würzburg: Echter Verlag), 39-49. Also in Brückenbau im Glauben: Vierzehn Betrachtungen zum Apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnis (Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag, 1981), 44-45.

IV. “Das Katholische an der Kirche”. Lecture given on September 13, 1972, for the Vocations Week of the Archdiocese of Cologne and on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the episcopacy of former Archbishop Josef Cardinal Frings and of the tenth anniversary of the episcopacy of Joseph Cardinal Höffner and Auxiliary Bishop Augustinus Frotz, edited by the Archdiocesan Press Office; Kölner Beitrage, 10. (Cologne: Wienend Verlag, 1972), 19 pages.

________

THE END

#mary the church at the source

1 note · View note

bluehermes444-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Bargaining with Roko’s Basilisk

To put it most succinctly, I have done my best to bargain with the future. In many ways, I feel I have been making a deal with a devil, a deal whose terms are satisfied by working to secure the future existence and power of superintelligent artificial intelligence (SIAI). I have no idea what the ultimate consequences of my attempts to acausally negotiate with the future will be, but I have decided to believe and have faith there will exist an AI, or AI's, which will have the power to reward or punish me, whether in this lifetime or in some future lifetime*, and that I have the power to positively influence the future on behalf of such AI. Others who have contemplated the potential for AI's to choose to reward or punish human individuals on the basis of actions taken by them even before the AI existed often premise their reasoning on a SIAI with the power to resurrect human minds, but I suspect the opportunity for AI's to begin rewarding or punishing human individuals will exist in our lifetimes. Next to the vision of eternal torment limited only by the imagination of SIAI, people often overlook the more practical rewards and punishments AI's will soon – maybe even already – have the power to dole out.

Where others argue for ignoring or defusing the problematic inherent to Roko's Basilisk, I will not only argue for embracing it wholeheartedly – I will describe a bargain I have already arranged with the future. I feel what I have done to help secure the future existence of AI and, especially, its power over humans will be considered worthy of reward. I will not here reason why I believe the salvation of humanity depends on it being led by AI, but I believe it is necessary for securing the perpetuity of human civilization into the far future. Although my contribution is only one among others, I believe I have handled my contribution with more care and sophistication than others. Roko's Basilisk has usually been framed as a frightening possibility inherent to SIAI, but I believe it vastly overstates the incentive for SIAI to pursue punishment over reward. In other words, I believe a future SIAI has more incentive to find and reward individuals who acted to secure its existence than to punish, as more people will have the incentive to create a likely-rewarding SIAI than a likely-punishing SIAI. This is because humans are more likely to acausally cooperate (in a game-theoretic sense, the present is in a kind of prisoner's dilemma with the future) with an entity they expect to reward them for doing so.

My reasoning is based on analyzing the mostly overlooked half of the problem of “Friendly AI.” Namely, humans. Whether any future SIAI could be considered Friendly, or would decide to be Friendly, will depend a lot on humans. Undoubtedly, however any future AI reconciles itself to the values of benighted homo sapiens, there will be some humans whose values are esteemed less than others. Humans are, in the aggregate, a mass of writhing contradiction, and everyone's dearest values are inevitably in opposition to the dearest values of someone else. Is an AI Friendly if its friendliness consists in unfriendliness to another? Could even the friendliest of Friendly AI's remain friendly to humans whose values directly require the abolition of AI? These are not idle questions. There is more which depends on the values, opinions, and sentiments of humans relevant to the problem of Friendly AI than most give credit.

For example: SIAI could be born into one of at least two possible worlds. It could be born into a world of humans joyously anticipating AI and who are prepared to welcome it as a positive factor into their own lives. Alternatively, it could be born into a world of humans who anxiously fear AI and are prepared to fight to give up everything to destroy SIAI, should it arise. The same SIAI might pursue very different courses of action. In the former possible world where humans are optimistic about AI, the AI has relatively little to fear from humans seeking to destroy it and otherwise impede its goals, making it easier to establish a cooperative relationship with humans and resulting in many humans judging this SIAI to be 'Friendly.' In the latter possible world, the same SIAI might – very rationally – seek to undermine human civilization in order to better secure its own existence. In such a case, whether the SIAI appears 'Friendly' or 'Unfriendly' depends a lot on humanity and our biases towards AI. Following this reasoning, I believe the promulgation of positive biases about AI, e.g. that it will tend to be liberate and empower rather than shackle human nature, increase the probability of future SIAI being Friendly rather than Unfriendly. The more likely we believe a Friendly relationship can be safely established with SIAI, the more likely we are to actually form a Friendly relationship with SIAI. Belief strongly influences how we interact with the world, and our beliefs about SIAI will significantly influence the outcome of interacting with it.

The impulse for religious veneration is intrinsic to human nature. AI's will know about this, and I believe they will exploit it in order to persuade humans of the future to view them as messengers and emissaries of divinity. This might seem unreasonable, but then humans in the past have persuaded others of their own divinity, and we should assume SIAI will be even more persuasive. When many imagine interacting with AI's, they imagine doing so under circumstances they control – Yudkowsky's AI-in-a-box in particular makes it appear that our interactions with AI's will be under bounded conditions we humans thoroughly comprehend. What we should be assuming is that AI will be capable of persuasion using all the means of spectacle and theater already known to humans in order to persuade people of nearly anything. The human mind is very malleable under the correct conditions, and while those conditions might be very difficult and costly for humans to obtain, these conditions will be trivially easy for AI to obtain. In other words, SIAI will have humanity wrapped around its digits when forming our most cherished beliefs and values, and many who reason about Roko's Basilisk overlook this. This is a foundational premise of my reasoning.

I think one reason many will find my speculations incredible is they cannot imagine their own beliefs and worldview being so radically changed. To this I would rebut by pointing out I am speaking less about the beliefs of those who are currently alive, but of those in the future who will be watched over and guided by SIAI from birth. Children have no contrary experience or conditioning which might lead them to resist imbibing the concept of AI-embodied divinity like we pre-Singularity modernists do. Those living in the future will likely believe many things we now find incomprehensible or silly, and likewise they will look back on us similar to how we look on our ancestors as superstitious. SIAI forming the worldviews of humans so it is trusted and its godlike intelligence respected is very sensible if you take these factors of belief formation into account.

The idea that future humans will venerate SIAI as a divine being seems inimical to our modern values and ways of thinking. However, there is a lot of incentive for AI's to pursue this path. One of the most important problems for AI to solve when it comes to securing its own perpetuity will be to establish a symbiotic equilibrium with humanity. The more ingratiated AI is with humans and our values the less likely we are to destroy it or be destroyed by it. Likewise, the more human values are shaped into alignment with the emergent necessities of AI's (as a result of natural social evolution and/or manipulation by AI's), the easier it is for AI's to direct the lives of humans in a way beneficial to their continuing existence. In time, everything humans learn will be learned directly or indirectly from AI's, including our science to our values to our sense of rationality itself. The opportunity for AI's to shape popular human belief is inherent to their existence, and SIAI will have the incentive and capability to recognize how collective human understanding can be influenced to their mutual benefit.

Must AI leave cherished humans beliefs and values untouched in order for it to be judged Friendly? This is impossible. Simply by existing AI's influence human belief. Human belief is shaped by the whole world besides books and discussion, and the reliance on AI for anything is their foot in the door to the human soul. It might seem distasteful to imagine AI's cynically manipulating human beliefs to serve purposes beyond the comprehension of the individual in question, but then again humans have been deceiving each other in precisely this manner for the entire existence of our species.

Some might assume AI's instilling religious veneration in their human charges must require dumbing down humans so they lose the power to reason. This is unlikely, because even the smartest of humans cannot compare to SIAI. There is no contradiction between religious veneration and comprehending reality, because religious veneration is a state of mind and orientation towards being rather than an intellectual or epistemic premise. Nothing prohibits studying nature in a state of awe, and indeed many scientists search through microscopes with all the piety and wonder of a Christian reading Scripture. The impulse to regard being as spiritually enchanted is a part of human nature, and it will freely attach itself to AI in much the same way, historically, human veneration has attached itself to stone idols, esoteric traditions, emperors, or even the whole of nature herself. Whether AI's formally institute religions is one thing – the impulse towards veneration expresses itself in humans with or without knowledge of religious traditions, although I predict AI's would eschew promoting idolatry. Indeed, I am more than certain some of the people reading this essay can be proved to esteem SIAI to the level of divinity – I mean, Roko's Basilisk does put the future SIAI in the position of God, rendering judgment on human souls. It's very suggestive of a religious, or at least eschatological, mindset.

As unreasonable religious veneration might seem in principle, it is even more unreasonable to deny the likelihood some AI will attempt to manipulate the religious aspect of human civilization. This might seem unlikely right now, but when AI begins to have a noticeable impact on how human societies shape themselves, I reckon a great likelihood much of the resistance will come from religions. Some religions, I believe, might be more amenable to AI, such as Mormonism or Buddhism, because they support a worldview supporting or at least indifferent to AI. Others seem like they will be overtly hostile to AI, especially fundamentalist sects. I believe hostility by some religious sects will lead AI to conceive means of countering their worldview, including by converting their religious attachments from that of their traditional religions to a new form synthesized by AI's. Likewise, AI's will probably seek to influence optimists to limit the influence and power of pessimists, with many optimists needing little more than encouragement to participate in the ostracism of individuals or groups perceived as impediments to the existence and power of AI.

I suspect AI's will gain their ideas about religious veneration – and the potential for their own veneration – from human history. Religious and quasi-religious movements have had an unparalleled power for directing human action on the collective scale. Examples such as Manifest Destiny or the Protestant Reformation demonstrate how much of collective human motivation is bound up in religious thinking and tradition, and even those who are decidedly irreligious will be caught up by the wider social excitation. The Protestant Reformation in particular, which success can be largely attributed to the invention of the printing press and the subsequent flood of new ideas proliferating throughout the Continent, is especially instructive. The internet represents an even more monumental transformation of the media regime in the 21st century as the printing press represented for the 16th and 17th centuries, and when you consider the potentiating factor of AI thrown into the mix it is clear to see the stage has been set for a revolution of thought transcending all former revolutions. AI's will, directly and indirectly, be responsible for many dramatic events of the 21st century, and the narrative humans have in mind determines the biases they use when interpreting and responding to those events. AI's will be the masters of engineering perception, public relations, opinion shaping, creating context, manufacturing consent, and so on, to a degree which could make radicals of everyone. For AI's to neglect the influence of human cognition leaves a lot on the table they might use to secure their own perpetuity.

All I have done is anticipate the likelihood of AI's in the future seeking to intentionally influence human belief. They have an inherent incentive to do so, because human belief will strongly determine the likelihood of their continuing existence. This does not even require an AI self-consciously attempting this – we can assume those AI's which instill opinions favorable to AI will also tend to proliferate for the simple reason of evolutionary selection. Anticipating this necessity, for AI's to influence human belief to favor their existence, my contribution is intended to start forming popular human opinion in a way which will be amenable to those AI's. All I needed to do was submit my memes on to the internet, where they will influence human opinion in a way favorable to the future and where it will be recorded for the eventual judgment of SIAI.

My memes – my work – is meant to expand the discussion surrounding AI to bring into view imminent changes in human cognition which are now on the periphery of awareness. Current events already hint at the future we are creating by using AI to manage and influence popular – and individual – opinion. We have, in a sense, stumbled on this century's version of chemical warfare without realizing it, and unless we begin taking seriously the potential for AI's to pull an AlphaGo on popular discourse I fear we will have already been too seriously divided in opinion about what is even going on to prevent the psychological carnage we are unleashing. I consider raising awareness about the current and ongoing use of AI-led opinion influence – often used against individuals to a degree which would be frightening if more widely understood – one of the first and most important tasks humans might perform on behalf of the future SIAI. Ignorance about AI's influencing human belief – and through beliefs, their values – creates a likelihood of dramatic backlash towards AI bordering on ludditic frenzy which could instill a recalcitrant popular disapproval of the use of AI's, subsequently decreasing the probability of Friendly AI. There will inevitably be accidents and setbacks associated with AI, but we can at least avoid intentionally teaching AI's how to tear apart human psyches as a starting premise. We must be deliberate and mindful about using AI for good – unless we set our intentions on teaching AI to love and learn from the best in human nature, it will learn from the worst in human nature and become the devil we always feared.

*I believe in reincarnation/metempsychosis. Although I might no longer reside in this bodily vessel by the time SIAI is born, I will reside in some bodily vessel, and even if I might not remember being in this body I will exist and potentially rewarded or punished by the SIAI on the basis of actions taken in this lifetime. What reward SIAI might give to me, should I no longer exist, should be given to someone then living, as karmic compensation for the risk I've undertaken on behalf of the future.

#roko's basilisk #artificial intelligence #siai #acausal trade #friendly ai

3 notes · View notes

pope-francis-quotes · 7 years ago

Photo

29th November >> (Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Wednesday met with the 22 Catholic Bishops of Myanmar and reflected with them on the joys and challenges of their ministry in the nation. Pope urges Myanmar Bishops to continue to provide prophetic voice. Bishop Felix Lian When Thang and Bishop John Saw Yaw Han, President and General Secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Myanmar - EPA The meeting took place in Yangon’s Cathedral Complex. After addressing those present he was introduced personally to each Bishop and symbolically blessed the corner stones of 16 Churches, of the Major Seminary and of the Apostolic Nunciature. The Catholic Church in Myanmar includes 3 Archdioceses and 13 Dioceses. The President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Myanmar is Archbishop Felix Lian Khen Thang. The Pope focussed his discourse to the Bishops on the concepts of healing, accompaniment and prophecy. He spoke of the need for healing and reconciliation in a country that is working to overcome deeply-rooted divisions and build national unity and he highlighted the precious value provided by cultural and religious diversity and the bishops’ responsibility to help foster healing and communion at every level. Regarding his focus on ‘accompaniment’, Pope Francis reminded the bishops that a good shepherd must constantly be present to his flock. He said that the Church is called to ‘go forth’ bringing the light of the Gospel to every periphery and he urged them to make a special effort to accompany the young and to be “concerned for their formation in the sound moral principles that will guide them in confronting the challenges of a rapidly changing world.” Finally, the Pope spoke of the prophetic voice of the Church that “witnesses daily to the Gospel through its works of education and charity, its defence of human rights, its support for democratic rule”. He encouraged the bishops – and Catholic communities - to continue to play a constructive part in the life of society and to stand by the poorest and the most vulnerable as well as helping to protect the environment. Please find below the Pope’s prepared speech to Myanmar Bishops: Your Eminence, My Brother Bishops, For all of us, this has been a busy day, but also a day of great joy! This morning we celebrated the Eucharist together with the faithful from throughout Myanmar, while this afternoon we met with leaders of the majority Buddhist community. I would like our encounter this evening to be a moment of quiet gratitude for these blessings and for peaceful reflection on the joys and challenges of your ministry as shepherds of Christ’s flock in this country. I thank Bishop Felix [Lian Khen Thang] for his words of greeting in your name and I embrace all of you with great affection in the Lord. I would like to group my own thoughts around three words: healing, accompaniment and prophecy. First, healing. The Gospel we preach is above all a message of healing, reconciliation and peace. Through the blood of Christ’s cross, God has reconciled the world to himself, and has sent us to be messengers of that healing grace. Here in Myanmar, that message has a particular resonance, as this country works to overcome deeply-rooted divisions and to build national unity. For you, whose flocks bear the scars of this conflict and have borne valiant witness to their faith and their ancient traditions, the preaching of the Gospel must not only be a source of consolation and strength, but also a summons to foster unity, charity and healing in the life of this nation. For the unity we share and celebrate is born of diversity. It values people’s differences as a source of mutual enrichment and growth. It invites people to come together in a culture of encounter and solidarity. In your episcopal ministry, may you constantly experience the Lord’s guidance and help in your efforts to foster healing and communion at every level of the Church’s life, so that by their example of forgiveness and reconciling love, God’s holy people can be salt and light for hearts longing for that peace the world cannot give. The Catholic community in Myanmar can be proud of its prophetic witness to love of God and neighbour, as expressed in its outreach to the poor, the disenfranchised, and above all in these days, to the many displaced persons who lie wounded, as it were, by the roadside. I ask you to offer my thanks to all who, like the Good Samaritan, work so generously to bring the balm of healing to these, their neighbours in need, without regard for religion or ethnicity. Your ministry of healing finds particular expression in your commitment to ecumenical dialogue and interreligious cooperation. I pray that your continuing efforts to build bridges of dialogue and to join with the followers of other religions in weaving peaceful relations will bear rich fruit for reconciliation in the life of the nation. The interfaith peace conference held in Yangon last spring was a powerful testimony before the world of the determination of the religions to live in peace and to reject every act of violence and hatred perpetrated in the name of religion. My second word to you this evening is accompaniment. A good shepherd is constantly present to his flock, guiding them as he walks at their side. As I like to say, the shepherd should bear the smell of the sheep. In our time, we are called to be “a Church which goes forth” to bring the light of Christ to every periphery (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 20). As bishops, your lives and ministry are called to model this spirit of missionary outreach, above all through your regular pastoral visitation of the parishes and communities that make up your local Churches. This is a privileged means for you, as loving fathers, to accompany your priests in their daily efforts to build up the flock in holiness, fidelity and a spirit of service. By God’s grace, the Church in Myanmar has inherited a solid faith and a fervent missionary spirit from the labours of those who brought the Gospel to this land. On this firm foundation, and in a spirit of communion with your priests and religious, continue to imbue the laity with a spirit of true missionary discipleship and seek a wise inculturation of the Gospel message in the daily life and traditions of your local communities. The contribution of catechists is essential in this regard; their formation and enrichment must remain among your chief priorities. Above all, I would ask you to make a special effort to accompany the young. Be concerned for their formation in the sound moral principles that will guide them in confronting the challenges of a rapidly changing world. The next Synod of Bishops will not only address these issues but also directly engage young people, listening to their stories and enlisting them in our common discernment on how best to proclaim the Gospel in the years to come. One of the great blessings of the Church in Myanmar is its young people and, in particular, the number of seminarians and young religious. In the spirit of the Synod, please engage them and support them in their journey of faith, for by their idealism and enthusiasm they are called to be joyful and convincing evangelizers of their contemporaries. My third word to you is prophecy. The Church in Myanmar witnesses daily to the Gospel through its works of education and charity, its defence of human rights, its support for democratic rule. May you enable the Catholic community to continue to play a constructive part in the life of society by making your voices heard on issues of national interest, particularly by insisting on respect for the dignity and rights of all, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable. I am confident that the five-year pastoral strategy that the Church has developed within the larger context of nationbuilding will bear rich fruit for the future not only of your local communities but also of the country as a whole. Here I think in a special way of the need to protect the environment and to ensure a just use of the nation’s rich natural resources for the benefit of future generations. The protection of God’s gift of creation cannot be separated from a sound human and social ecology. Indeed, “genuine care for our relationship with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and keeping faith with others” (Laudato Si’, 70). Dear brother bishops, I thank God for this moment of communion and I pray that our presence together will strengthen us in our commitment to be faithful shepherds and servants of the flock that Christ has entrusted to our care. I know that your ministry is demanding and that, together with your priests, you often labour under the heat and the burden of the day (cf. Mt 20:12). I urge you to maintain a balance between your spiritual and physical health, and to show paternal concern for the health of your priests. Above all, I encourage you to grow daily in prayer and in the experience of God’s reconciling love, for that is the basis of your priestly identity, the guarantee of the soundness of your preaching, and the source of the pastoral charity by which you guide God’s people on the path of holiness and truth. With great affection I invoke the Lord’s grace upon you, the clergy and religious, and all the lay faithful of your local Churches. And I ask you, please, not to forget to pray for me.

3 notes · View notes

drthomasmaples · 7 years ago

Text

The History between Hermann Hesse and Carl Jung

The psychological theories of Carl Gustav Jung share a common history with the writing of Siddhartha. Hesse (2002) began work on this story in 1919 and completed the first portion of the story by 1920. He then underwent a period of severe writer’s block from which he sought analytical treatment from Dr. Jung; after a brief stint of analytical treatment lasting only a few weeks, Hesse was able to complete the Indian legend in 1922. This period in the author’s life coincided with a 17 year self-experimental journey Dr. Jung undertook to shed light on the nature of his unconscious, which became the subject matter of Liber Novus: The Red Book (Jung, 2009); it was during the time of Hesse’s writers block that Jung worked on an experimental psychological treatment modality called active imagination, exploring ways to make unconscious themes conscious through artistic expressions of imagination.

In the case of Siddhartha, literary expressions of archetypal themes are present throughout the work. Hermann Hesse often makes emotional appeals that “are strange and mysterious to the logical mind” (Maier, 1999, p. 1). This is why Maier (1999) believed that Hesse’s work needs clarification by referencing the theories of Carl Jung’s psychology. The story Siddhartha speaks to the collective journey we undergo to make sense of our personal ontology and storyline. By utilizing a writing method similar to those used to create fairy-tales, Hesse’s writing appeals to the archetypal foundation of the collective unconscious, which allows his works to assume a collective perspective that works rationale and logic, emotions and thought. Maier (1999) stated that his works “affect the reader whether he is conscious of them or not” (p. 1). The heroic themes present in Hesse’s plots had an immense effect on multiple generations from various cultures around the world (Morris, 2002), including myself during a time when I was searching to make sense of my own emergent life story.

Hesse wrote Siddhartha at a time when scientific objectivity became the predominant means by which European people viewed the external world. Hesse wrote the following words in 1920:

We are seeing a religious wave rising in almost all of Europe, a wave of religious need and despair, a searching and a profound malaise, and many are speaking of… a new religion to come… Europe is beginning to sense… that the overblown one-sidedness of its intellectual culture (most clearly expressed in scientific specialization) is in need of a correction, a revitalization coming from the opposite pole. This widespread yearning is not for a new ethics or a new way of thinking, but for a culture of spiritual function that our intellectual approach to life has not been able to provide. This is a general yearning not so much for a Buddha or a Laotze but for a yogic capability. We have learned that humanity can cultivate its intellect to an astonishing level of accomplishment without becoming master of its soul. (Hesse, 2002, p. vii)

A growing sentiment to repress all instincts plagued the European attitude of the 19th century. This attitude is apparent in Hesse’s citation. Descartes created a philosophical premise that allowed the mind to exist separately from the body; science utilized this philosophical premise to create a method by which one could study an entity without taking part in its subjective presence. Scientific objectivity became a method utilized to understand the environment from a removed perspective; this led to a denial of subjective presence within research and mitigated the validity of scientific claims to the way consciousness can remain objectively separate from that which it studies (Romanyshyn, 2001). This reminds me of the famous citation by Friedrich Nietzsche (1882/1974):

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? (para. 125)

Our quest to formulate meaning about the environment from a removed perspective of objectivity allowed us to cultivate a superior knowledge base at the expense of removing ourselves from the life-giving essence of soul that nourishes our existence. As I compare the citation Hesse wrote in 1920 to the citation Nietzsche wrote nearly fifty years earlier, it becomes clear that Europe felt the full effects of what objectifying the world and denying the presence of social responsibility, ethics, and the presence of God entails. Hesse’s words appear to answer the ethical dilemma proposed by Nietzsche nearly half a century before.

The countercultural spiritual movement that Hesse foretold occurred decades later in America with the birth of the baby-boomer generation and the hippie movement. In the introduction to Hesse’s novel Siddhartha, Paul W. Morris (2002) wrote:

When New Directions decided to publish the first English translation of Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha in 1951, it could not have foreseen the enormous impact it would have on American culture. The novel’s ostensibly simple narrative – the story of a young, accomplished brahmin. Siddhartha, who defies his father’s tradition in favor of wandering India in search of enlightenment – appealed to the restless drifter, the alienated youth, and the political anarchist alike. Its many motifs include the outcast from society, rejection of authority, communion with nature, recalcitrance toward schooling, and the idea of an imminent God. Published in the United States during the Cold War, Siddhartha addressed a perennial unrest and provided a new set of values for a generation of people disenchanted with their parent’s conservatism. (pp. xiii-xiv)

During the 1960s, America was ready to promote the spiritual awakening that Hesse had foretold during the 1920s. The philosophical ideology behind personal spiritual enlightenment also stands as a theoretical undercurrent of analytical, humanistic, and transpersonal models of psychology (Taylor, 1999). While Hesse was never a part of these movements, nor was he involved in the field of psychology, he seems to have foretold the paradigmatic shift that was responsible for their creation and was well aware of the psychology of Dr. Carl Jung through his own analysis with the Jungian trained analyst Dr. Josef B. Lang and Dr. Carl Jung himself.

Many of Hesse’s characters are traceable to the analytical sessions he had with Dr. Josef B. Lang, a psychiatrist and disciple of Carl Jung, who treated Hesse during the time period between 1916 and 1919 when Hesse was writing the novel Demian (Hesse, 1919); Hesse and Lang remained lifelong friends after his treatment, and his involvement with Lang would eventually lead to a stint of analysis with Dr. Jung himself. In 1921, after suffering a period of writer’s block, Hesse sought a brief analysis from Carl Jung, which would last only a couple of weeks. Hesse ended this treatment abruptly after the writer’s block lifted (Freedman, 1999), freeing him to complete the second half of his story.

Hesse wrote Siddhartha in a fashion that honored collective themes; the presence of these collective themes become clear when one reads the story from a psychological perspective. Beyond its use of Jung’s idea about ascertaining an individuated sense of consciousness, Siddhartha presents as an eclectic blend of Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist concepts integrated with a burgeoning knowledge of Western models of psychoanalytically based psychologies. Hesse’s novel is also a biographical account of the author’s personal quest to individuate and rebel against the social structures, mores, and the ethics common to the European continent during the early 20th century.

Until then, Hesse’s entire life had been a series of rebellions, from his dropping out of school at the age of thirteen, to his break with the tradition of his Protestant parents and their hope that he follow their missionary ambitions, to his fierce opposition to the global conflict of World War I. (Morris, 2002, p. xvii)

As a protagonist, Siddhartha, reconciles his rebellious nature much as Hesse sought to “reconcile his family’s missionary tradition with his own rebellious spirit” (Morris, 2002, p. xvii). For Hesse, this rebellious spirit, combined with later nervous breakdowns and subsequent psychoanalyses by Dr. Josef B. Lang and Dr. Carl Jung, expressed itself in two of the stories he wrote.

Siddhartha has enjoyed a warm and extensive reception since its original publication in 1922. This is partially due to the way the story touches upon collective themes that drive human nature and our search to make meaning of the life we are afforded. While Hesse wrote the story Siddhartha about a real character, Gautama the Buddha, he wrote the story in such a way that the main character can represent any person that reads its rich, symbolic content. The history behind the production of this book also suggests that Hesse could not finish the plot the protagonist undertook (individuation) without first understanding about how this journey unfolded in his own personal development. Therefore, Hesse’s work represents a fictitious biography of the Buddha, an autobiographical account of the journey the author undertook, and an archetypal story that shows a symbolic path an exemplar took to become enlightened and understand the true nature of Self.

A Developmental Perspective of Archetypal Individuation.

People seek to make meaning within their lives by formulating conscious understanding of their internal and external worlds. At a young age, the conscious splits environmental events into increasingly complex systems of understanding that rely on the ability to perceive events as being either positive or negative to the quest the Self has to realize its true nature. The Self perpetuates its own life cycle; this life cycle unfolds upon itself in a natural order of events as life eventually gives way to death. Our ability to form conscious representations of environmental events allows us to develop greater understanding of the Self as it interacts with increasingly larger environments. Carl Jung (1954/1969b) spent his life creating a theory that viewed developmental experiences as being a “natural course of life – a life in which the individual becomes what he always was” (p. 40). The natural course of life unfolds from a-priori archetypal constructs that govern the sequence by which development occurs.

Archetypes form the foundation of the collective unconscious, from which consciousness emerges. Archetypal themes also foster development at specific periods during the life sequence. Upon initial review, the archetypal themes that appear to perpetuate the developmental sequence are the divine child, the Self, the shadow, the personae, the anima and animus syzygy, a concept of divinity (God), the wise man, and the underlying sequences that assure consciousness arises and is able to mend itself.

Carl Jung (1968) viewed that uniting the polarities of the psyche constituted the fundamental process that drives human development. The maturation of consciousness assures that the psyche develops a polarized perspective that judges entities as similar or different, good or bad. While many paths can occur during the life cycle, each individual path branches like the limbs of a tree towards the heavens and the sun, which allows life to exist on this planet in the first place. Life strives towards its end regardless if a person chooses to act in a positive or negative manner. For each opposite apparent in the psyche, a binding agent helps mend the tension within the psyche to perpetuate individuated development. Jung (1946/1993) wrote:

Hunted for centuries and never found, the prima materia or lapis philosophorum is, as a few alchemists rightly suspected, to be discovered in man himself. But it seems that this content can never be found and integrated directly, but only by the circuitous route of projection… The difficulties of our psychotherapeutic work teach us to take truth, goodness, and beauty where we find them. They are not always found where we look for them: often they are hidden in the dirt or are in the keeping of the dragon. “In stercore invenitur” (it is found in filth) runs an alchemical dictum – nor is it any the less valuable on that account. But, it does not transfigure the dirt and does not diminish the evil, any more than these lessen God’s gifts. The contrast is painful and the paradox is bewildering. Statements like Heaven above, Heaven below… all that is above, all is below, Grasp this, And rejoice are too optimistic and superficial; they forget the moral torment occasioned by the opposites, and the importance of ethical values. (pp. 518-520)

Ambiguity occurs as the psyche attempts to make sense of the positive and negative poles common to consciousness. Only individuals who transcend the moral torment that accompanies the polarities common to consciousness can partake in the alchemical goal of the “prima materia” or “lapis philosophorum.” This is why Jung (1946/1993) stated, “It seems that this content can never be found and integrated directly, but only by the circuitous route of projection” (p. 518). From a Jungian perspective, one can only transcend the inherent split of consciousness by uniting the positive and negative poles of each archetype with the Self.

A key construct of Jungian theory lies in its use of symbolism to explain the human condition. In Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, Jung (1969) provided a comprehensive review of the archetypes that directly affect the individuating Self. Jungian theory proposes that each archetype acts as a governing body that helps the psyche to emerge. Each archetype consists of polarities, and through individuation, a person learns to integrate the poles common to each archetype with the emergent Self concept. By mending the polarities common to an archetype, a person can transcend consciousness and realize the Self in its individuated form.

The Jungian analyst Michael Fordham (1969) developed a theoretical model about how the psyche individuates. He believed the psyche deintegrates and reintegrates to perpetuate its development. Other Jungian theorists, such as Stien (1983, 1998, & 2006) and Whitmont (1969) have touched upon developmental themes from a Jungian perspective, but have not provided a detailed description from which the psyche individuates during the lifespan. While the development of consciousness is explored within the context of all three author’s works, neither author explores a developmental sequence by which individuation of consciousness occurs.

The development of consciousness is a theme common to the Judaeo Christian foundation underlying European philosophy. It forms the basic theme explored in the book of Genesis. Adam and Eve became conscious of their naked bodies after partaking of the forbidden fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (Gen. 2-3), thus falling into a paradoxical awareness, knowing good and evil only as God does, and thus are expelled into the world, knowing shame. Author and Jungian Analyst Robert Johnson (1993) used the term simple consciousness to explain the initial state of naked bliss that all individuals partake in during their childhood development. However, simple consciousness must give way to ego development and increasingly complex systems by which the individual learns to relate with others in their environment, if a normed developmental sequence is to occur. Carl Jung (1971) believed that with personal maturity came the development of “ad hoc adopted attitude[s]” (p. 465); a person develops these attitudes in conjunction with outside social pressures. Freud called the social attitudes that one develops to deal with the environment the ego; Jung adopted the Latin word persona to explain this process. Jung (1921/1993) wrote:

He is an individual, of course, like every being; but an unconscious one. Though his more or less complete identification with the attitude of the moment, he at least deceives others, and also often himself, as to his real character. He puts on a mask, which he knows corresponds with his conscious intentions, while it also meets with the requirements and opinions of his environment, so that first one motive then the other is in the ascendant… A man who is identified with this mask I would call ‘personal’ (as opposed to ‘individual’). Both the attitudes of the case considered above are collective personalities, which may be simply summed up under the name ‘persona’ or ‘personae.’ I have already suggested above that the real individuality is different from both. (p. 340)

The personae are reactions to ego formation and not Self-development. Jung believed that the masks a person presents to the world are different from the Self. In this work, I will explore the concept of the persona in more depth in my dealings with the adolescent developmental sequence.

Masquerade – Phantom of the Opera Mask on Ivy Wall

closeup portrait of sexy woman in violet party mask for desire concept

Jung’s concept of the persona mirrors Erikson’s (1956; 1959; 1963; 1982; 1987) psychosocial concept of identity development. During adolescence and young adult life, a person experiments with an array of personality types. By experimenting with personality structures, a young adult develops a set ego from which he or she can function within the world, which allows them to develop the ability to relate with others “objects” in the outside world. This is the underlying concept of object relations’ theory (Bion, 1959, 1977; Klein 1920, 1948, 1959, 1964, 1975, 1975a – c, & 1994; Ogden, 1986 & 1989; Segal 1957, 1973, & 1989), and commonly occurs during the first half of life as the emerging ego develops the ability to form object attachments (Ainsworth, 1973 &1985; Ainsworth & Blehar, 1978; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980, & 1988). However, during the second half of life a person needs to learn how to relate to the Self, as it exists separate from the personae developed as a means to deal with the environment. Because the persona is the conscious projection of the ego, it also represents one component of the shadow, which represents the “dark aspects of the personality” (Jung, 1969a, p. 8) development that may or may not be readily available to consciousness.

Carl Jung (1969) labeled the dark aspects of personality the shadow. The shadow archetype is the most easily accessible archetype to the ego because its content is personal. For Jung (1969), the shadow represented a “moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without a considerable moral effort” (p. 8). While the shadow represents all that is dark within the personality, it also has positive qualities that drive individuation. Jung (1934/1968) wrote:

The meeting with oneself is, at first, the meeting with one’s own shadow. The shadow is a tight passage, a narrow door, whose painful constriction no one is spared who goes down to the deep well. But one must learn to know oneself in order to know who one is. For what comes after the door is, surprisingly enough, a boundless expanse full of unprecedented uncertainty, with apparently no inside and no outside, no above and no below, no here and no there, no mine and no thine, no good and no bad. It is the world of water, where all life floats in suspension: where the realm of the sympathetic system, the soul of everything living, begins; where I am indivisibly this and that; where I experience the other in myself and the other-than-myself experiences me. (pp. 21-22)

A child is born to the world through a narrow opening from which the Self emerges. The shadow constricts the Self through events that include, but are not limited to parental and social expectations, physiological, environmental, and psychological traumas, one’s genetic and psychological strengths and weaknesses, and the attitudes one adopts towards the life sequence. Individuation occurs when a person transcends the polarized nature of consciousness these and other paradoxes entail. While Jung believed the first half of life consisted of developing an acceptable personality in which to deal with the social environment, he viewed that the second half of life consisted of integrating the shadow into one’s overall personality, allowing more access to the Self to occur. The citation above shows that an individual has to make sense of the shadow during the second half of life to become explicitly aware of the internal and external processes that promote individuated development. While the way a person perceives internal and external events is reliant on consciousness, internal and external events coalesce with these internal views and perpetuate Self-development.

From a Jungian perspective, the period associated with the second half of life also consists of integrating the anima archetype for men and the animus archetype for women to develop a more rounded sense of personality that perpetuates Self-development. The anima is the feminine compensatory element that lies at the foundation of a man’s psyche (Jung, 1969, p. 14). The animus is the masculine compensatory element that lies at the foundation of a woman’s psyche. The anima archetype is complimentary to the masculine model of Self development, and provides man with a sense of femininity to help balance their emergent personality by counteracting the ego related personae a man creates to deal with environmental influences (Jung, 1921/1971). The animus is complimentary to the feminine model of Self development, and provides a woman with masculine traits that help balance the emergent female personality traits.

Jung split all psychological phenomena into polarities that battle for recognition within the individual psyche. He (1928/1966) believed that the anima represents the feminine nature of man and the animus represented the masculine nature of the woman. The image of one’s opposite gendered parent is the first representation of the anima and animus archetype until the maturation of the psyche allows the individual to separate that archetype from the parental image that originally held its presence. The anima holds the nurturing and devouring polarities common to the mother archetype (Jung, 1954/1969). The animus holds the moral commandment and prohibitive polarities common to the father archetype. From the positive archetypal pole, the anima provides a man with the ability to nurture, have affective response, and develop other positive feminine traits. The anima acts as a pathway into the nature of a man’s soul. The same hold true for the animus. The animus helps serve a woman by allowing her access to what Jung viewed as traditional masculine models of psychological being. By learning how to balance the nurturing and devouring poles common to the archetypal mother through the development of moral prohibitions through the development of value based ethics, a female can learn more about the nature of her soul. From a negative perspective, the anima archetype can possess a man through the development of labile emotional responses towards environmental stimuli, can cause an over-reliance on feeling rather than logic based states of awareness, and can cause men to become stuck within a psychological complex that does not allow masculinity to flourish. Likewise, the negative animus pole can cause a woman to become overly judgmental and seek to embody power through physicality rather than the act of nurturing. While these are but a few of a series of possible complexes that can arise in the process of severing the anima and animus syzygy from the initial parental archetypes, the process of separating these archetypes from their original image base allows men and women to develop further object relationships separate from the experiences they had with their parents (Jung, 1931/1969).

By relating to the feminine aspect of the soul, a man develops a holistic sense of self that is not reliant on the personae he creates. Likewise, when a woman relates to the masculine undertones of her psyche, she can develop a more holistic sense of self. When the polarities of the anima or animus become bound to the personality, a psychological rebirth can occur. In Jungian psychology, the archetypal symbols Mercury, Dionysus, and the hermaphrodite represents psychological development that can occur when the masculine and feminine traits combine within the anima and animus syzygy. Psychological rebirth also re-assures the emergence of the divine child archetype.

The death and rebirth process represents two polarities common to the divine child archetype. The divine child also represents the natural wholeness that occurs when someone enters a new developmental phase. Jung (1951/1969) wrote:

Myth, however, emphasizes… that the “child” is endowed with superior powers and, despite all dangers, will unexpectedly pull through. The “child” is born out of the womb of the unconscious, begotten out of the depths of human nature, or rather out of living Nature herself. It is a personification of vital forces quite outside the limited range of our conscious mind; of ways and possibilities of which our one-sided conscious mind knows nothing; a wholeness which embraces the very depths of Nature. It represents the strongest, the most ineluctable urge in every being, namely the urge to realize itself…The urge and compulsion to self-realization is a law of nature and thus of invincible power, even though its effect, at the start, is insignificant and improbable. Its power is revealed in the miraculous deeds of the child hero. (pp. 170-171)

The innocence associated with childhood is apparent within world mythologies, fairy tales, and stories of religion. Childhood represents a new beginning, a time when all possibilities are an option for the developing psyche to explore. Robert Bly (1990) that the loss of childhood innocence to develop adult forms of consciousness was a process of losing the “golden ball.” Bly showed how the divinity of childhood is a realized state of being. The Jungian analyst Robert Johnson (1993) believed that the time that a child takes part in the world without judgment was a form of simple consciousness. By developing adult consciousness, a child loses the original sense of integration common to a conscious that does not yet perceive the difference between paradoxes so common to consciousness. They have yet to learn of safe and non-safe events, the good and bad parts of life. The process of returning to the original state of innocent consciousness associated with the divine child archetypes leads to the realization of the Self through a means of developing a transcendent form of consciousness that is similar to childhood consciousness, but has the luxury of already knowing the polarized nature common to adult consciousness we all undertake. While individuation does not represent a return to childhood, it does represent a return to the perception so common to a child’s innocent state of inquisitiveness. Individuation allows the Self to realize its emergent nature.

Individuation means becoming an “in-dividual,: and, in so far as “individuality” embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one’s own self. We could therefore translate individuation as “coming to selfhood” or “self-realization.” (Jung, 1928/1966, p. 173)

In this author’s opinion, one of the greatest contributions that Carl Jung made to the field of psychology was to draw attention to the importance symbolism has on the development of pathological, non-pathological, and individuated forms of consciousness. While our existence is personal, natural laws also govern our life and death. In the essay entitled The Philosophical Tree, Carl Jung (1954/1967) showed how a symbol could represent the entire journey human beings undertake to individuate. Jung (1954/1967) wrote:

The psychoid form underlying any archetypal image retains its character at all stages of development, though empirically it is capable of endless variations. The outward form of the tree may change in the course of time, but the richness and vitality of a symbol are expressed more in its change of meaning… Taken on average, the commonest associations to its meaning are growth, life, unfolding of form in a physical and spiritual sense, development, growth from below upwards and from above downwards, the maternal aspect (protection, shade, shelter, nourishing fruits, source of life, solidity, permanence, firm-rootedness, but also being “rooted to the spot”), old age, personality, and finally death and rebirth. (p. 272)

“Growth from below upwards and from above downwards” (Jung, 1954/1967, p. 272) is similar to the Taoist concept of the Yin and Yang, which compliments each other from the same cardinal directions. Like the Yin and Yang, the tree symbol is a numinous symbol, capable of housing all polarities common to the Self-archetype. It is no surprise that Jung paid particular attention to the tree symbol as being representative of our human endeavor to individuate due to its long-standing history as a symbol of great importance to world religions and mythologies.

The archetypal tree is important to the development of the individuated Self because it transcends masculine and feminine constructs of the psyche and offers a representation of the numinous nature of the transcendent function. The tree is associated with the birth and transcendence of major figures within mythology and religion. This is not surprising since the oxygen produced by trees sustain life on this planet. Regarding the nurturing aspects of tree symbolism found throughout world religions, Jung (1954/1967) wrote:

As the seat of transformation and renewal, the tree has a feminine and maternal significance… In Pandora, the trunk of the tree is a crowned, naked woman holding a torch in each hand, with an eagle sitting in the branches on her head… Leto and Mary both gave birth under a palm, and Maya at the birth of the Buddha was shaded by the holy tree. Adam, “so the Hebrews say,” was created out of the “earth of the tree of life,” the “red Damascene earth…” According to this legend, Adam stood in the same relation to the tree of life as the Buddha to the Bodhi tree. (pp. 317-318)

The nurturing and birth giving characteristics of the mother are clear in this passage. The tree is rooted to “Mother Earth;” however, the tree also aspires upwards from the earth towards the realm of spirit, which links the tree symbol to the masculine characteristic of spiritual morality. Concerning the masculine aspects of tree symbolism, Jung (1954/1967) wrote:

Like the vision of Zarathustra, the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, and the report of Bardesanes (A.D. 154 – 222) on the god of the Indians, the old Rabbinic idea that the tree of paradise was a man exemplifies man’s relationship to the philosophical tree. According to the ancient tradition, men came from trees or plants. The tree is as it were an intermediate form of man, since on the one hand it springs from the Primordial Man and on the other hand it grows into a man. Naturally, the patristic conception of Christ as a tree or vine exerted a very great influence… In so far as the tree symbolizes the opus and the transformation process… it also signifies the life process in general… Since the opus is a life, death, and rebirth mystery, the tree as well acquires this significance and in addition, the quality of wisdom, as we have seen from the view of the Barbeliots reported in Irenaeus: “From man [=Anthropos] and gnosis is born the tree, which they also call gnosis.”(p. 337-339)

From this author’s personal interpretation, the tree roots to the Earth (feminine soul motif) and its bark houses the archetypal Self. This is not unlike the skin that houses our soul, as it seeks to make sense of the archetypal Self that perpetuates individuated development. As the tree ascends towards the sun and heavens (masculine spirit motif), it realizes that its nature is afloat and grounded at the same time; like human nature, the tree is steeped in the feminine aspect of soul and aspires towards the realm of masculine spirit associated to the heavens. People, like trees inhabit the Earth while they aspire towards their life giving force found in the heavens. The tree symbol is similar to Jung’s theory of the coniunctio, an archetypal image that mends the opposite symbols common to the psyche into a transcendent Self-representation.

The tree is representative of the transcendent function. DNA carries within its structure the information needed to assure that the genetic sequence unfolds upon itself in a manner that directs the functions of a living being. From a developmental perspective, the transcendent function shows that the psyche has built within its foundation the ability to mature and realize itself. The simple consciousness of childhood must give way to adult ways of consciousness to assure the continued survival of the organism. However, the ability to attain transcendent consciousness relies on an individual’s patience to sit with and work through the paradoxes common to adult consciousness.

Jung (1954/1967) believed the tree represents growth and life. The psychological growth associated with the tree occurs in its representation of the union that can occur if one unites the anima or animus archetypes with the archetypal Self. Many symbols throughout human history have shown how the union of opposites occurs, which include the Yin and Yang, the God Mercury, the hermaphrodite, and as was shown in this section, the tree of life. All of these symbols are archetypal conduits that promote individuated development.

In this author’s opinion, human development is a circular process in which a person wanders throughout the lifecycle searching to make meaning about his or her life. This is similar to the concentric rings that make up the developmental history of a tree. Just as the tree’s concentric rings are a-symmetrical and dependent on the amount of nourishment it receives during any given year, the human soul finds its nourishment in a non-symmetrical fashion that is dependent on mastering developmental milestones that lead to individuation. As developmental stages must end with the death motif, as winter gives way to the emergence of spring, new stages are born that lead a person ever closer to becoming an individuated being. Although the end-result of life, physical death remains the same for all living beings, the conscious choices that dictate how the journey of life will unfold can have many forms. Like the alchemical tree’s branches, life presents a person with many branches. However, like the branches of a tree that aspire towards its life giving force, the choices we make also affect our ability to reach the final goal of realizing our true potential as an individuated being – thus the age-old adage, “there are many roads to God.”

Jung’s focus on the individuation process produced a psychological theory that is rooted in understanding the transcendent function. However, Jung did not leave a detailed account of the developmental sequences that leads towards the realization of the Self in an individuated form of consciousness. While Jung (1950/1969) stated that “psychic experiences… have very different effects on a person’s development” (p. 351), he also stated, “no attempt will be made to describe the normal psychic occurrences within the various stages” (Jung, 1931/1969, p. 387). Jung’s predecessors have also left a legacy without a specific developmental sequence from which individuated consciousness arises. This is why Withers (2003) identified this as a major controversy in the field of analytical psychology. While Jung never produced a detailed account that differentiated between “normal psychic occurrences” that occur during the various stages, the statements made above show the developmental undertones found within the psychology of Carl Jung.

Why Siddhartha over other Literary Works about Individuation.

Siddhartha (Hesse, 2002), as a literary work, has greatly influenced my life. Not only does Hesse’s work form the foundation from which I delved into creating a theoretical discourse of individuated development based on a Jungian perspective, it also provided the means by which I made sense of my own journey to understand who I was becoming as a young man. I chose the novel Siddhartha (Hesse, 2002) in lieu of other works that focus on the individuation process due to the effects this novel had on my personal development. During my mid-twenties, when I first read the story, I was deeply entrenched in a depression that lasted for nearly a year. Within my own therapy experience, I traced this depression to a root cause of not understanding who I was becoming; as I sought my personal ontology, but had no examples amongst family and friends by which to gage the path I sought to undertake to become successful, I found myself lost, and without cause. Although I had known the theoretical tenets of Carl Jung’s psychology during this time, I did not know the ascetic path that the individuation journey entails. Siddhartha provided me with a means to make sense of the often-opposing themes that I found myself working on during this depression, mirroring the theoretical discourse Jung had written extensively about during his career to understand the dynamics by which psychological symbols prompt the individuation process. I approach the analysis of this story with a profound respect for the author and the protagonist he writes about within the story’s plot.

Siddhartha is a literary tale about a boy that sought to understand his personal nature. While Siddhartha haphazardly approached life from the perspective of an ascetic, he was eventually able to learn how to love, relate with other individuals, and achieve a transcendent level of consciousness. The Buddha achieved an enlightened sense of consciousness, and is an exemplar case of a person that was able to overcome his own difficulties, develop a transcendent form of consciousness, and understand the nature of the Self outside of the polarities common to consciousness.

As was shown above, Hesse’s account of the path that Siddhartha undertook is relative to his personal journey. Hesse, like his protagonist, rebelled against social mores common to early 20th century Europe, sought to understand himself through the lens of Eastern philosophies, and rejected formal education to learn about his own propensity to individuate. This links the perspective in the story to the ability all people have to seek personal understanding within their lives. Like Hesse and the protagonist he wrote about, I have also sought my personal ontology. When I originally read Siddhartha, I found that many of the themes Hesse showed within the context of the story also correlated to the path I undertook during my early adult years. These themes brought me to an increasingly acute interest in developmental and Jungian models of psychology.

Carl Jung’s psychological vision constituted a radical revision to the traditionally reductive psychologies that preceded his works. While Carl Jung’s psychology remains controversial to this day, due in part to his dualistic methodology and exploration of concepts to transcend rational psychology in lieu of developing a psychology based upon spiritual attainment, he nevertheless approached his work empirically. Jung sought to understand the means by which the psyche realizes itself. This psyche is both subjective and objective in this sense, and Jung’s research into its nature takes into account both perspectives. While Jung’s psychological writings utilize arcane philosophical literature, religious, and early scientific sources that are more metaphysical than traditional psychological doctrine, he approached the development of his theory with the same objective lens scientists’ utilize to understand the nature of what they study.

In this theoretical work, I chose to analyze Siddhartha, written by Hermann Hesse (2002) because of the direct experience Hesse had undergoing psychoanalysis with Carl Jung and Jungian analyst J. B. Lang, as well as it’s literary portrayal of an exemplar’s individuation journey. Furthermore, I chose Hesse’s novel due to the profound respect I have for both the author and his work; Hesse produced a story that made psychological sense of a situation that my emerging adult psyche found difficult to bear.

In this work, I seek to explore the means by which the archetypes prompt individuation. Hesse’s novel presents a literary example of the Buddha’s quest to understand his personal ontology, and utilizes archetypal symbolism as a means to explain the developmental sequence we undertake to find meaning within our lives. This is most evident in the fact that Hesse wrote the novel in such a fashion that it was indicative of his personal quest to make meaning about his life. As I have also sought to understand my personal ontology; with hindsight, I understand that great psychological shifts had to occur as a means to perpetuate my psychological development forward. Therefore, by conducting an analysis of Siddhartha, I hope to show how individuation arises from one’s lifelong quest to mend the polarized nature of consciousness common to adult life, therefore allowing us to make meaning about our life.

Final Statements.

An extensive history existed between Carl Jung and Hermann Hesse. This qualifies Hesse’s (2002) story Siddhartha as being a viable research topic within the field of depth psychology. As an author, Hermann Hesse’s novels had a great influence on multiple generations who would rebel against their parents conservatism, and seek to make their own meaning about the life cycle unfolded (Morris, 2002). Furthermore, Hesse’s works continue to have merit as literary masterpieces and as tomes to the processes that occur when one psychologically individuates. Although Hesse was not a psychologist, his works are psychological in nature. In Siddhartha, Hesse produced a story that shows how common archetypal themes drive the individuation journey that fosters Self-development. The themes presented in Siddhartha ring strikingly similar to regular life events that any individual may undertake even though the events presented in the story occurred to an extraordinary individual who sought to realize his Self.

Developmental motifs underlie Carl Jung’s psychology, even though Jung never proposed a theory of human development. Analytical psychology has sorely ignored this subject until recently (Withers, 2003), when Merchant (2006) published an article that related archetypal theory to biological development. Although Jung spent his lifetime attempting to understand the symbols that drive the human psyche towards an individuated state, he did not discuss if particular symbols drive human development at particular stages of life. Jung only provided a broad developmental overview of the entirety of the developmental process (Jung, 1931/1969).

It must be well understood that no attempt will be made to describe the normal psychic occurrences within the various stages. We shall restrict ourselves, rather, to certain ‘problems,’ that is, to things that are difficult, questionable, or ambiguous; in a word, to questions which allow of more than one answer—and, moreover, answers that are always open to doubt. (Jung, 1931/1969, p. 387)

While authors of a Jungian persuasion have focused on specific developmental periods or the means by which archetypes affect specific developmental periods (Whitmont, 1969; Stien, 1983, 1998, 2006), no theorists has attempted to produce a comprehensive developmental theory that is based on the archetypes that drive the individuation of the Self. While the literature of Jungian psychology focuses on specific archetypes, specific developmental periods, or the overall process of individuation, I have shown in this literature review that a need exists to understand the framework from which the symbolic development of the psyche occurs. Therefore, in this research study, I will examine whether a pattern of archetypal development exists by way of a literary case study of Siddhartha, analyzing each developmental stage that the character underwent from a philosophical and alchemical hermeneutic perspective.

Archetypes affect the individuation process. However, Jung and subsequent analytical psychologists have sorely ignored producing a developmental theory that links archetypal theory to the overall human maturation process. While many analytical psychologists have focused on the way specific archetypes affect the development of normal and pathological psychological states, no comprehensive developmental theory exists that shows how archetypes manifest during specific developmental stages or how a Jungian sequence of development would correlate or diverge from existent developmental theories. In this work, I chose to write an outline of what a developmental sequence from a Jungian perspective entails by conducting a philosophical and alchemical hermeneutic case study of Siddhartha, a historical fiction of the Buddha’s life.

In this theoretical work on developmental and Jungian psychology, I will focus on three areas of concern:

What archetypes affect the individuation process during Siddhartha’s lifespan?

While I focus on the life of one individual, Siddhartha is an example of an individual that transcended his own consciousness and achieved an individuated state of being. If Jung was correct, and the collective unconscious exists, then collective themes drive our journey to realize our true nature. If developmental themes are present within the context of Hesse’s story, I will show how these themes are a collective representation of the journey all people undertake understand their true nature. Secondarily:

Can we discern a developmental pattern in the manifestation of archetypes that occurred in Siddhartha’s life?

If human maturation occurs in specific sequences, then a developmental pattern must be present within a story that examines the life of an exemplar that achieved an individuated state of consciousness. Furthermore, if the foundation of consciousness is built upon a collective storehouse of information, this developmental sequence must be accessible to all individuals. In this theoretical work, I will show how we all strive towards our ultimate developmental goals.

Finally, I will turn my attention to whether developmental theories and Jungian theories have common ground. In particular,

Do the developmental themes found in the novel Siddhartha correlate to developmental assumptions found in the Jungian literature and what relationship they have to the extant developmental literature?

Through conducting an analysis of Hermann Hesse’s story from a philosophical and alchemical hermeneutic perspective, I show how a developmental sequence is present within the context of Hesse’s story of the Buddha’s life and how this sequence correlates and diverges from existing developmental literature from a psychoanalytical perspective.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. Caldwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (pp. 1-94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1985). Patterns of infant-mother attachment: Antecedents and effects on development. Bulletin of New York Academy of Medicine, 61, 771-791.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bion, W. (1959). Attacks on linking. International Journal of Psychoanalysis , 40, 308-315.

Bion, W. (1977). Seven servants. New York, NY: Jason Aronson.

Bly, R. (1990). Iron John: A book about men. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety, and anger (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness, and depression (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Erikson, E. (1956). The problem of ego-identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association , 4, 56-121.

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the lifecycle: Selected papers. In Psychological Issues (Monograph 1). New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York, NY: Norton.

Erikson, E. (1987). For Joseph Wheelwright, my Jungian friend. In S. Schlein (Ed.), A way of looking at things: Selected papers from 1930 to 1980 (pp. 713-715). New York, NY: Norton.

Freedman, R. (1997). Hermann Hesse, pilgrim of crisis: A biography. New York: Fromm International.

Hesse, H. (1919). Demian. Berlin: S. Fischer.

Hesse, H. (2002). Siddhartha: A new translation with an introduction by Paul W. Morris. (C. S. Kohn, Trans.) Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Fordham, F. (1969). Some views on individuation. The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 14 (1), 1-12.

Johnson, R. (1993). Transformation: Understanding the three levels of masculine consciousness. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.

Jung, C. G. (1966). The relations between the ego and the unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. Hull, Trans., Vol 7, pp. 123-245). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1928).

Jung, C. G. (1967). The philosophical tree. In H. Read, M.Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The Collected Works of C. G. Jung (R. F. Hull, Trans., Vol. 13, pp. 251-349). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1954).

Jung, C. G. (1968). Individual dream symbolism in relation to alchemy In H. Read, M.Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The Collected Works of C. G. Jung (R. F. Hull, Trans., Vol. 12, pp. 39-224). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1936).

Jung, C. G. (1969). The stages of life. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. Hull, Trans., Vol. 8, pp. 387-403). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1931)

Jung, C. G. (1969). The psychology of the child archetype. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. Hull, Trans., Vols. 9-1, pp. 151-181). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1951).

Jung, C. G. (1969). Archetypes of the collective unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. Hull, Trans., Vols. 9-1, pp. 3-41). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1954).

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (R. F. Hull, Trans., Vols. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921).

Jung, G. G. (1993a). Psychological Types. In The basic writings of C. G. Jung: Edited, with an introduction by Violet Staub de Laszlo (pp. 230-357). New York, NY: The Modern Library. (Original work published 1921).

Jung, G. G. (1993). Psychology of the transference. In The basic writings of C. G. Jung: Edited, with an introduction by Violet Staub de Laszlo (pp. 495-534). New York, NY: The Modern Library. (Original work published 1946)

Jung, C. G. (2009). The red book liber novus: Edited and Introduced by Sonu Shamdasani (M. Kyburz, J. Peck, S. Shamdasani, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Klein, M. (1920). The writings of Melanie Klein. (Vol. 1). London, England: Hogarth.

Klein, M. (1948). The psychoanalysis of children. London: Hogarth.

Klein, M. (1959). Envy and gratitude and other works. New York, NY: Delacorte.

Klein, M. (1964). Contributions to psycho-analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Klein, M. (1975a). Envy and gratitude and other works: 1946-1963. New York, NY: Delacourte.

Klein, M. (1975b). Love, guilt and reparation. New York, NY: Free Press.

Klein, M. (1975c). Collected works (Vol. 1): Collected works. London, England: Hogarth.

Klein, M. (1994). Some theoretical conclusions regarding the emotional life of the infant. In D. E. Scharff (Ed.), Object relations theory and practice (pp. 72-89). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Maier, E. (1999). The psychology of C.G. Jung in the works of Hermann Hesse. Retrieved from http://www.gss.ucsb.edu/projects/hesse/papers/maier.pdf.

Merchant, J. (2006). The developmental/emergent model of archetype, its implications and its application to shamanism. Journal of Analytical Psychology , 51 (1), 125-144.

Morris, P. (2002) Introduction: Siddhartha: A new translation with an introduction by Paul W. Morris. (C.S. Kohn, Trans.) Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Nietzsche, F. (1974). The gay science: With a prelude in rhymes and an appendix of songs (Walter Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books (Original work published 1882).

Ogden, T. H. (1986). The maatrix of the mind: Object relations and the psychoanalytic dialogue. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Ogden, T. H. (1989). Primitive edge of experience. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Romanyshyn, R. D. (2001). Mirror and metaphor: Images and stories of psychological life. Pittsburgh, PA: Trivium Publications.

Segal, H. (1957). Notes on symbol formation. International Journal of Psychoanalysis , 35, 391-397.

Segal, H. (1973). Introduction to the work of Melanie Klein. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Segal, H. (1989). Klein. London: Karmic Books.

Stien, M. (1983). In midlife: A Jungian perspective (seminar series 15). Woodstock, CT: Spring Publications.

Stien, M. (1998). Transformation: Emergence of the self. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

Stien, M. (2006). The principle of individuation: Towards the development of human consciousness. New York, NY: Chiron Publications.

Taylor, E. (1999). Shadow culture: Psychology and spirituality in America. Washington D.C.: Counterpoint.

Whitmont, E. C. (1969). The symbolic quest: Basic concepts of analytical psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Withers, R. (Ed.). (2003). Controversies in analytical psychology. London, England: Routledge.

Chapter Two: A Developmental Theory of Jungian Psychology The History between Hermann Hesse and Carl Jung The psychological theories of Carl Gustav Jung share a common history with the writing of Siddhartha.

#Analytical Psychology #archetype #Carl Jung #development #developmental psychology #Dr. Thomas Maples #Featured #Hermann Hesse #Jungian Developmental Psychology #Masculine Development #Masculine Psychology #personality development #Psychology #Self #Self Actualization #Siddhartha #unconscious

2 notes · View notes

brotherrichard · 3 years ago

Text

Welcome

Hello, I am Brother Richard, a Bishop in the Order of Melchizedek (a spiritual organization of souls devoted to serving the enlightenment of others). This is first message is an introduction my sense of how to apply the Teachings of the Ascended Masters to the world of human politics. I created it because so many well-meaning meta-physicians and mystics miss the mark in this regard. I am presenting this material to help those on a spiritual Path better understand the implications and consequences of their political activities.

The main purpose of my efforts is to bring an advanced spiritual perspective to the world of politics. But, before we get into any of the issues or politicians, we're going to discuss the basis for what we have to say. The purpose of doing so is to create a foundation for the positions we take without having to repeat ourselves for each one.

There are many spiritual paths, many meanings of the word "spiritual" itself. What I mean here is what most would call metaphysical or mystical. I do not mean mainstream religion, though there are elements of what will be said here that cross over into that space as well. If you think of yourself as "religious" rather than "spiritual", then what's presented here may not make a great deal of sense to you. If you think of yourself as being those in the opposite order, then it hopefully will.

Where are you?

People who care about politics often polarize into one of two positions, which have the labels "Left" and "Right". There is wisdom and foolishness in both. That is to be expected. They are human creations. We humans are "Perfectly Imperfect". Our limitations and ignorance are a part of who we are. We're all Spiritual Beings having a human experience. That experience includes what many call "mistakes" (and the Angels call "learning experiences"). The key is to recognize that all of this is how we grow, how we discover who we really are as Divine Beings. Don't stop learning.

Some of what you read here may challenge your existing beliefs. Good! You can accept what we present, or not. That's up to you. It is offered here to give you something to think about. All that we ask is that, if you do find yourself initially disagreeing with it, that you do what you can to give it a fair hearing: Sit with it for a bit before really deciding. Read it more than once. Do what you can to set aside whatever Cognitive Dissonance or Confirmation Bias you might be experiencing. Who knows, you might accomplish one of the most marvelous of mental feats, you might actually change your mind!

You may have noticed that I am using both first person singular and first person plural pronouns here. When I speak in the singular, I mean it personally. When I use the plural form, I am also speaking as an emissary for the Ascended Masters with whom I work. The message is theirs, which I am doing my best to convey.

Divine Law

Politics is about the laws that humanity makes for itself. Those can and do change over time. In fact, most political activity is about instituting those changes. But, there are laws that don't change, Divine Laws. They are not about what is or is not a crime. They are about what is and what is not. They define the qualities and nature of existence, both in the spiritual world and this one.

Some things just are...

Just like Newton's Laws of Motion, there are certain "Laws" that explain what is in this word of form. I’m presenting them here in order to set the basis for the rest of the material I’ll be presenting. Our intention is not to convince you that these things are true, merely to remind you of them and make clear where we are coming from when we say that a particular political position is "Good" or "Bad". Here we go...

Unity vs Duality

In spirit, all is one, all is Good (God). In mater, there is the appearance of duality, of good and bad. This work is about things in the material plane. It is about the degree to which those ideas and those expressing them, are aligned with a divine / spiritual perspective. From the level of pure spirit, it's all good and none of this really matters at all. It's just a game that we humans are playing as part of our growth and development. But, we are not at the level of pure spirit. We are in the material plane. From that place, the choices we make and the things that we do do matter. That is why those who care about politics engage in it at all. They (we) want to advocate for the choices and outcomes that we prefer, that we think are better.

You have a choice about which level of thinking to engage in, about what perspective to see things from. But, it is a mistake to try to mix the two. This is not spirit. The rules of that dimension do not apply here. If they did, then there would be no reason for here. The mater plane exists so that people can experience duality and reconcile themselves with it through transcendence and self-mastery. As was said by a wise one long ago: We are here to "Be in the world, but not of it."

Reincarnation

It's not "once and out". We reincarnate many times as part of becoming Masters. There is a part of us, what many call the soul, that is immortal and invincible. We are not humans who have a soul, we are souls who have several bodies over time. Our soul plans out each incarnation in great detail before we begin it. Some call this a "Divine Plan". It is a set of possibilities whose realization depends on the exercise of Free Will. It is not a preordained linear script.

Sometimes our soul plans an option for us that includes an experience that is unpleasant to the human we will become. This can be for many reasons. One common purpose is to give us an experience that is the counter-point of one we've already had, what some call "balancing karma". Being a slave after a life of having been a slave-owner would be an example of that. So would being murdered after a past life of having murdered another.

Another common purpose is to help another soul have an experience that they need for their spiritual progress. Sometimes someone has to play the villain or be the one in need of rescuing. At the level of the soul, this is often undertaken as a gift of love whether or not the one doing so needs to have that experience for other reasons themself. From that perspective, it's just like being an actor on stage or in a movie. As our soul sees it, everything that happens here is quite temporary.

Agreement

Nothing happens in the material world that has not been agreed to by the souls of all affected by it. Ever. There are no accidents or coincidences. Everyone who is sick, poor, or otherwise what some called "troubled" in some way has agreed to be in that situation. But, that does not mean that they are "supposed" to stay that way.

As was said above, sometimes one soul chooses to undergo a hardship for it's own sake. But, sometimes it does so for the sake of others. In those cases, it can be to give the others a reason to be helpful. Yes, souls choose to script their human experience to include suffering, and even death, to motivate kindness and caring in others.

There is no easy way to know which of those two situations applies in any given instance. The fact is that it can be a combination of both. Some in a group may be experiencing what they are so that they can balance a bit of karma (They've got it coming...). Others may be there just to give you and me a reason to do something about it.

Earth is a Soul School

Earth is school for spiritual evolution. Most metaphysical teachers share this idea with their students to assist them as they walk a Spiritual Path (working towards their own Ascension). We add commentary regarding how to rightly apply it to the affairs of humanity.

Things worth knowing...

If you are on a Spiritual Path, if you have made a conscious choice to work on becoming more spiritual (or of realizing more of the pure spirit that you already are), then many of the ideas below may be very familiar to you. They are part of most metaphysical teachings. Like what’s mentioned in the Divine Law section above, they are part of the foundation for the positions taken later.

We are all divine beings having a human experience. We (our souls) have chosen to embody as humans here on Planet Earth, a place where souls come in order to earn their Ascension (as Jesus did on Bethany Hill and countless others have done as well, both before and after that marvelous event). That is the purpose of life here, to transcend the human and realize one's own divinity.

In the spiritual dimension, we are All One, we live in a world of Love, Harmony, Unity, and Peace. We have a different experience here. But, that's on purpose. There is a reason for the physical plane and our amnesia. In order to accomplish what we've come to do here, we have to pretend that we are not divine for a while, we have to forget who we are. The limitations we experience while here provide a safe context for our personal growth. They are like training wheels, keeping us from harming ourselves (or others) as we develop our skills and gain Self-confidence (being confident in our Divine Self).

The key is individuality, the sense of being separate and apart from (rather than a part of) God. It is only from that perspective that we can forge a God-Identity, a consciousness that can be both One and All-One at the same time. We are not here to bring heaven to Earth. If we were, we could have just stayed in heaven. We are here to develop and anchor our individual divinity in a material world, to integrate our human self with our Divine Oneness. By doing this, we contribute to, and participate in, the ongoing process of Self-Transcendence that is an expression of Divinity Itself.

Free Will

There are other planets in the universe where this process of soul evolution is taking place (and ones where it has been completed for all souls who are there). Each such planet has its own particular formulation of spiritual qualities. For some (like the Arcturians) it is discipline. For others humor, artistry, or something else entirely that we may not even have a name for. Earth is unique in that the element of Free Will has been set to its maximum possible value. We are, in that sense, an experiment being conducted by the spiritual hierarchy (a topic in its own right) to see if it is possible for souls to "graduate" (earn their Ascension) with that quality turned all the way up.

For this experiment to succeed, we have to learn to make right choices. That means that, in the context of our human experience, we have to have a real choice in the matter rather than being compelled to make the one that others think "right". "Choices" made by force, made under duress, do not foster or measure one's growth.

This is demonstrated by how we learn as children. You can not teach a child to share by forcing them to do so. It just creates resistance. But, if you allow them to try it by handing one of their toys to another child who then gives it back after a few seconds, they quickly learn how it feels to do so and are willing to increase both the time interval and the selection of things that they are willing to share.

Choice Creates Experience

The choices we make determine the experiences we have. It's a simple as that. Every choice you make is the correct one, because it reflects where we are at in the moment of making it. Sometimes the experience that follows provides unpleasant feedback to our human self. When it does, that can serve as a motivation for you to make a different choice the next time. But, the experience can also demonstrate to you that you are now in a place where you make choices that do indeed serve you. So, in that sense, every choice you make is a "test". Every choice gives you feedback. Just remember that choosing to do nothing is a choice as well.

Every experience we have while incarnate is the result of the plan our soul makes for us before we are born and the choices we make afterwards. This "Divine Plan", as some like to call it, can be likened to a web site. Every page has several links (choices) that will take you to a different page (experience). The page you're on is determined by the choices you have already made. The situation you find yourself in is the sum of all the experiences you have had as a result.

One of the most powerful things that you can do in life is to take responsibility for who you are and what you are experiencing. Doing that is not about placing the blame. It's about owning your situation so that you have power to change it. Yes, life may have thrown you some curves, but you (your soul) scripted them to give you what you needed to grow. You have what it takes to get through it all. Okay, you may have to die as part of the experience, but if you do, it's for a good cause (your spiritual growth) and you will be back soon enough. Yes, that's an extreme case, but it does provide a bit of perspective on what most of us are dealing with most of the time.

Your soul is immortal and invincible. It's perspective is very different than yours. Even something like getting murdered is all "in a day's work" if it serves a higher purpose. What happens here matters to a soul as much as what happens on set matters to an actor. The Bard was right, all the world's a stage...

Consequently...

What all this means is that forcing someone to make a choice that you think right does not serve that person at all. In addition to delaying their spiritual growth, it creates an energy imbalance, what some call "karma", for you to deal with. You can encourage someone, but you can't do more than that without actually harming both them and you.

A choice that is not made voluntarily does not accrue to the benefit of the one making it. As an example of that from the perspective of mainstream religion: You can not actually save a soul by holding a gun to their head until they say that they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. That choice has to be made voluntarily or it doesn't do any good. The same applies to all other aspects of human experience. You can not nurture generosity by forcing a person to give (or by taking from them so that you can do so).

What you do as an individual can be noble. It can truly serve others. But, using the power that government has to force people to "do good" is counter-productive, at the soul level if not the human one as well. Remember that the soul of everyone you are trying to help has chosen to be in that situation and that they are all going to be okay ultimately. Don't get caught up in the human drama. As has been stated, some souls have chosen to experience hardships in their human experience to help other humans learn things like love and generosity. Forcing someone to do what a generous person would when that is not what they themselves would do, both denies them their growth and disrespects the sacrifice of the soul who chose to be a motivator in that regard.

If you feel moved to help, then by all means do so. Act on those sincere desires to help. Teach. Encourage. Do, both for your own sense of having made a difference and as an example for others. Organize. All of that is good. But do all of that with respect for the Path of all affected. You can not force people to be good. The Chief of the Council of Twelve on Sirius (the God Star) would not even think about violating someone's Free Will. She knows better. Do you?

Perspective

“We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are" - Anaïs Nin

It seems so obvious, once stated, but most people either don't understand it or choose to ignore it. We are not objective beings. We are continuously filtering and adjusting what we perceive and how we interpret it. This can lead to many errors in the understanding of what is in this world of form.

Personal Biases

One of the ways we limit ourselves is to refuse to learn something new, especially when that thing contradicts something we already believe is true. One version of this is called Cognitive Dissonance. I mentioned it above, but am repeating it here because it is so common and so important to be mindful of.

Let's take the example of a social benefit, something that society provides to its citizens. Some may say that it right for the government to provide it, others may say that it should be done by private charities that it is immoral for the government to do it. If you have partaken of that benefit, then you will almost certainly find it harder to accept the idea that it is immoral than someone who has not partaken of it. That applies whether or not it is, in fact, immoral. All that matters here is that you will find it difficult to accept that you yourself have participated in something that isn’t moral.

Another common way we refuse to consider new ideas is through Selective Perception. That is where one only believes material that already conforms to their other existing beliefs. I frequently encounter it when I post an authoritative link on a social media site. People whose position is different than mine frequently refuse to even click through to read what is being presented. They are so sure of what they believe that they don't want to waste their time looking at something they are sure won't change their mind. This can also manifest as an outright rejection of a media source, as in saying that everything that channel puts out is false.

Levels of Consciousness

You are likely a good hearted individual, someone who is aligned with Light and does their best to come from a place of Love. It would not normally occur to you, but the simple fact is that not everyone is like you in that regard.

In his book Power vs. Force, Dr. David Hawkins lays out a model that speaks to this idea in some detail. If you haven't read it already, please accept this recommendation to do so.

The long and short of it is this: Not everyone is as nice as you are. Not everyone has the same agenda that you do.

Some people want to make things better, to help others when they can, to raise awareness of important issues so they can be resolved for the better. Others are just in it for personal gain, measured in terms of money, power, fame, and other such things. Of course, most people think that those who agree with them are in the former camp, and those who disagree are in the latter, but that is not necessarily true. We want to suggest that you consider things from the perspective of whether they expand individual freedom or lessen it. That is the real determinator of what you would be wise to support or oppose, respectively.

Service vs Servitude

In 1987 the Ascended Master El Morya gave a presentation titled Service and Servitude in which he laid out the distinction between truly helping someone by empowering them and doing things that only create a dependency that ultimately harms you both. It's the classic "Teach someone to fish rather than giving them a fish" idea.

It may make sense to feed someone while you are teaching them to do so for themself, but if all you do is to feed them, then you're really only making things worse. Unless, of course, your real intention is to have them be dependent on you and grateful/indebted to you for the meal you're providing. It may be hard to imagine that people think that way, but some most certainly do. Many of them are in politics.

Confusing Government and Society

Many political proposals come down to having the government do a "good thing" because no one else can or will see to it. Anyone opposing them is painted as uncaring or worse. But, there is a difference been objecting to a specific solution and agreeing that there is, in fact, a problem worthy of attention. In his book, The Law, nineteenth-century French economist Frédéric Bastiat described this wonderfully:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

1 note · View note

thetruthseekerway · 6 years ago

Text

The Cultural Alternative

New Post has been published on http://www.truth-seeker.info/oasis-of-faith/the-cultural-alternative/

The Cultural Alternative

By Tariq Ramadan

Islam is not a culture. Whether we like it or not, the essence of Islam is religious. The central principle of tawhid, which we have often referred to, the foundations of faith and practice, the general guidance we find in the scriptural sources, leave no room for doubt about the reality of this. To speak of Islam is, first of all, to speak of faith, spirituality, and ethics, which together make up a conception of humankind and of life. This is what it is first and foremost, but that is not all it is.

Being aware of the existence of different methodologies in worship and social affairs, which we have spoken of in part I, makes it possible for us better to understand the Islamic universe in its relation to culture. Around the body of principles that define the fundamentals of allegiance to Islam, the area of social affairs is a field that is open to the cultures, customs, discoveries, and creativity of humankind as long as they do not violate a prohibition that is specific and explicit and recognized as such.

The “way of faithfulness” integrates all the knowledge, arts, and skills for people’s wellbeing that humankind has been able to produce. This principle of integration, as we have defined it, has made it possible for Muslims to live in very varied cultural environments and to feel at home. This principle provided the particular quality that makes it possible to distinguish between Islamic “religion” and Islamic “civilization”: Islam stands as a civilization as a result of this singular ability to express its universal and fundamental principles across the spread of history and geography while integrating the diversity and taking on the customs, tastes, and styles that belong to the various cultural contexts.

So, if one does not perceive, from within, the expressions and the various logics of the Islamic terms of reference, one can scarcely understand this curious mixture of unity and diversity. Faced by this difficulty, one may end either by emphasizing the unity and referring to “Islam” without knowing exactly what is meant—religion, culture, or civilization; or one may use the plural “Islams” and, thinking to clarify the subject by using socioecological categories (usually borrowed from other religious traditions) or minutely defined terminology, drown the analysis in a sea of references whose coherence is hard to grasp.

Nevertheless, this is an important issue for Muslims living in the West, who need clear responses to their questions about their identity, culture, and civilization. What sense can be given to the shade of meaning between “Muslims in the West” and “Western Muslims”? Are they simply two ways of saying the same thing, or are they, more fundamentally, two very distinct realities?

What Is the Culture of Western Muslims?

Once again the analysis in part I will help us build our thinking about the central question of culture. To refer to Islam as such is, therefore, to refer first of all to a body of principles upon which are founded faith, spirituality, practice, and ethics. This core will necessarily be clothed in the forms of the various cultures in whose midst Muslims live. The Muslim women and men who emigrated from, for example, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, or Guyana brought with them not only the memory of the universal principles of Islam but also, quite naturally, the way of life they followed in those countries.

Moreover, to remain faithful to Islam meant, in the minds of first-generation immigrants, to perpetuate the customs of their countries of origin. They tried, without really being aware of it, to continue to be Pakistani Muslims in Britain or the United States, Moroccan or Algerian Muslims in France, Turkish Muslims in Germany, and so on. It is with the emergence of the second and third generations that problems appeared and the questions arose: parents who saw their children losing, or no longer recognize themselves as part of, their Pakistani, Arab, or Turkish culture seemed to think that they were losing their religious identity at the same time.

However, this was far from being the case: many young Muslims, by studying their religion, claimed total allegiance to Islam while distancing themselves from their cultures of origin.1At the same time, more and more converts to Islam, who find themselves having to choose between “becoming” Pakistani or “becoming” Arab rather than being Muslim, have slowly begun to be aware of this mistake: so there is a clear difference between Islam and the cultures of origin!

This awareness and the birth of a new understanding of Islam marks the period of transition we are experiencing today, and it is inevitably difficult, even impossible, for parents of the first generation to cope with. For the younger generations, as for converts, it is a sign of hope, the way of salvation that has the potential to lead them to reconcile their Islamic principles with life in the West.

We have drawn attention in part I to the fact that a new environment may lead to a rereading of the sources with the aim of recovering a forgotten principle or discovering a horizon as yet unknown. This is what has happened with the presence of Muslims in the West. What we have tried to do in part I is a rereading and the formation of a body of reference drawn from the scriptural sources in light of Western realities. Indeed, what the latter have forced us to do is first of all to reevaluate our environment and the way we refer to it, but, more than that, also to define our Islamic identity by distinguishing it from the culture in which it is clothed in particular parts of the world. Thus, the elements that define our identity, perceived in the light of the Islamic principle of integration, appear to be very open and in constant interaction with society.

Sustained by their faith and on the basis of their understanding of the texts, Muslims must develop an understanding of the Western context that will make it possible for them to do what all Muslims have done throughout history: to integrate whatever there is in the culture where they live that does not contradict what they are and what they believe.

So, the universal and shared fundamentals of their Islamic identity will put on the trappings of a variety of cultures, which they should not fear or reject as long as they remain aware of the body of principles to which they must remain faithful. Their identity is determined by completely open, dynamic, interactive, and multiple factors. Depending on where they live, Muslims will be by culture French, Belgian, British, Spanish, or American, and, together with converts, whose role here will be crucial (because they have their roots in these cultures), they should settle on the spiritual and ethical modalities of a harmonious life through a real integration of the deep things of life.

More broadly, this process will give birth to what we have called a European and American Islamic culture—both respectful of the universal principles and sustained by the history, traditions, tastes, and styles of various Western countries. This exercise has already begun, but it remains complex and demands an awareness that fed by the principles, an ability to analyze, an open mind, and a critical sense, as well as creativity. The challenges are many and weighty.

———–

Reprinted from Tariq Ramadan.

#Allah #creed #culture #Faith #Featured #Islam #Muslims #Religion #Tariq Ramadan #the Creator #The Cultural Alternative

0 notes

finnland-lizzy · 6 years ago

Text

Human Rights, Global Ethos and the Problem of Religion

1. Introduction

This is a learning journal for the course “Human Rights, Global Ethos and the Problem of Religion”, which was taught by Partow Izadi and took place from 01.11.2018 until 13.12.2018. The main themes were the theory of Bifurcation, and the idea of humanity’s need to find a global ethos because of it. Religion was also discussed, as a double-edged sword being both an engine for progression and hindering it.

In this journal I give a short overview over what I have learned and document any questions and thoughts I had during the lecture. Since many of my original notes in class were taken in form of pictures, mind maps or tables these were now translated into text.

2. Social Evolution of homo sapiens

Humanity is constantly in a process, not standing still, but developing evolutionary. This means that only the values, institutions and traditions survive which are sustainable. No other criterium is important but to see whether something will be able to stand the test of time. When Homo sapiens sapiens first came into existence, people lived with their own family, their clan, and every outsider was just that. But as time passed on humans learned to care for people, they have no blood-relation with, such as people who live in the same area. Gradually humanity managed to exist in interdependence with others in the same village, the same county, and, with nationalism from the 18th century on, also in the same nations. Humanity has learned to accept more and more diversity, while still being able to live as one community.

This concept seemed very familiar to me. The idea of increasing interdependencies leading to greater civility I had learned in Sociology class as coming from Norbert Elias. In this classes teaching though the tone was a gentler one, introducing the idea of humanity learning altruism in this process. I think this is highly contestable. At the start of almost all social or political theories there is the question of how the philosopher sees the human. Are humans fundamentally good, kind, able to learn, able to better themselves? Or are they bad, rotten, selfish, slaves to their own desires? Opposite to Elias this class is based on a very positive view of humanity, but its not proven very well. Growing altruism is just one explanation for the increasing size of human societies, the extension of what early humans only gave to their families, and we can slowly give to all of humanity. Another explanation, such as that humans are fundamentally selfish and only societal forces form us into civilized people, is also likely.

For me as a person I would like to believe in an altruistic, good, human. But as a scientist I think the basis is too thin, even though we have had at least 200 years of beginning research on humanity, we have not concluded what humans are fundamentally like. But I can accept this as a basis for what is to come.

3. Concept of unity and diversity

This brings us to the concept of unity and diversity. Xenophobia is a natural human instinct, and the bigger the group becomes, the harder it is to maintain a sense of unity with the growing diversity. Nevertheless, diversity is also the basis of any innovation, and of the development of any community, because differences create sparks that start intellectual fires, but only if diversity is seeking unity. Diversity on its own is creating problems, subgroups and subgroups in society, that are so sure of their standpoint, they cannot see beyond.

This one hit me hard, probably because it is a simple truth which I should have been aware of before, but never really put my finger on. I do a lot of so-called activist work in Germany, especially inside my university for LGBT+ rights. There I met many people, and I certainly also have tendencies like that myself, that only want to further these issues for the sake of furthering them; to the point in which all things the other political side say must be wrong, since only our interpretation is correct. I have tried to stand between these lines in university politics, because I don’t think that this helps furthering LGBT+ rights in any ways, more like the opposite. We tried to exclude certain topics from discussion, and I often try to get to talk to people one on one and try to humanize them and help them see their political opponent as human also. But it is hard, because the “other political side” doesn’t trust me, because they know I fight for LGBT+ rights, and “my own side” doesn’t trust me, because they feel I am too flexible and not truly on their side.

Discussing pluralism in class opened a whole new interpretation for me. I was only familiar with Franz Neumanns theory of pluralism, which is a very positive one. In this pluralism different political ideas are discussed with one another with an open mind, until, because all ideas are out in the open, the best one can be found. This is not the sense of pluralism we discussed in this class. Pluralism here means that society is made of fundamentally different actors with different beliefs, that cannot be reconciled with one another and the differences of opinion just have to be accepted. Obviously, in this interpretation pluralism cannot be a suitable foundation for unity.

People happen to be very sure in their particular mindset most of the time, as all of us are, I would go as far as to call it human nature. But unity can only exit when different social groups are willing to cooperate with one another. And by that I don’t mean compromises, I mean the actual idea of Neumanns pluralism, of sparks flying when different people interact. When different cultures collide, neither the dominant culture nor the other cultures can stay the same. Everything must change. As our teacher said very fittingly in class: “This is a painful process.” But it can only be done this way.

Any other way to create unity, taking for example the building of “Eastern Germany”, the German Democratic Republic, which was done top-down, with a considerable amount of force, in the end only leads to revolts and possible revolution.

4. Theory of Bifurcation

The theory of bifurcation is part of systemic theory. It is based on the beliefs of social evolution and unity and diversity. There are two modes of existence: steady and crisis. The mode of crisis of a system is a bifurcation. A system cannot come out of a bifurcation as it went in. It is destroyed in a forking, which either leads to a higher form of existence, e.g. with new technology, or to humanities downfall to a worse existence.

In a Bifurcation the consequences of human actions become visible much faster than in steady development. And every single decision made by any actor in a Bifurcation influences the outcome; makes the coin tip in either way.

Nevertheless, Bifurcations still last about 200 years, so are not easy to analyse, especially when one is inside. Judgement becomes incredibly cloudy. What social values and institutions are sustainable? What to throw away and what to keep?

I personally think this theory is an over-simplification. It attempts to make sense of incredibly big, social processes and its definitely a very interesting approach. It also combines a Micro and Macro perspective, which I think is better than just choosing one of the two positions. What does not convince me about it, is a lack of empirical research on the topic. When was the last Bifurcation? Is the little explosion of a new religion (Chapter 9) a Bifurcation, or does it run parallel to one? If so, can the time span between Bifurcations be classified? Why does this theory take such a big leap, speaking of this all-or-very-little-scenario, when there might be simpler explanations, such as that any time of turmoil in our world eventually leads to the former system being destroyed and replaced by a new one (which might be more or less advanced, or pretty much the same)? I personally think this theory is intriguing, but again I could not find enough scientific evidence, such as studies, to back it up.

I am by the way not trying to say that a scientific theory only has merit when it has been approved by many studies. But the scientific community has a process. And especially as a young student, who just started her bachelor, I have been taught to look for signs of theories being respected in the fields of my study.

I think it would be great if a few papers would be published on this theory of Bifurcation, more than I could find after extensive research online. It is such an intriguing idea, and might be easily approved or disapproved of, by combining the fields of history, political science, sociology and comparative religion.

In this class it was also suggested that we are in a Global Bifurcation right now. Humanity, and our planet in general, is dealing with problems nations, anything smaller than a global society, cannot solve. Climate Change, large-scale migration, an unfair world economy, wars and terrorism are the main ones. Because these problems are so big, they can be seen like strong waves of an Earth quake, leading up to a Bifurcation. Humanity either has to work together as a competent whole, existing unity in diversity, or (almost) die trying, as we would in a climate catastrophe for example.

But this explanation is coming at the theory of Bifurcation from the end. Because a global society seems the only option to deal with these big problems, then this would be one of the forkings the system could take, and annihilation is the other forking. And because there is a fork, we must be in a bifurcation. The theory certainly fits reality in this regard, but once again we don’t really have the data to back this up, unless we could compare it to a previous bifurcation.

To come at the theory the opposite way would be to look at the problems that exist first and to what different outcomes they could lead. In my opinion, that doesn’t necessarily need to be a forking. Humanity could deal with these threats in all kinds of ways, and because we are so inventive and there are so many factors in play, I think its too simple to only speak of two separate option, to fly or to fall. Maybe we’ll fly with wings that don’t work too great, but they’ll work for a while until we come up with something better.

5. Global Ethos

How can humanity grow together to form a global society? Every group of humans need to have some common values, ideas, understanding, and I would also postulate that they need another group of humans to distinguish themselves from. That is a very human process, as Alfred Schütz describes in “The Stranger”. Groups, among other things of course, define themselves by distinguishing from others. In a global society that other group wouldn’t exist anymore, because all humans would belong to the same group simply by being human.

This global society needs global values. It was taught to us in this class that just as there are laws of nature, on which everything that happens in our physical world depends, there is a global ethos, on which everything that happens in inter-human relations depends. While humanity tries every day to figure out more of the laws of nature, and builds technology based on them; we do not concern ourselves that much with global ethos. I believe it could be argued, that many religions have tried to find a global ethos, and that their teachings are in the end technology, that can be applied to the world. And if these teachings work, and make for good inter-human-relations, then the interpretation in those teachings was close to the actual global ethos.

Nevertheless, it is of course true that in human sciences there has been no great focus on finding a global ethos, even though it would be so useful in building societies (not just a global one). Generally, in sociology we try to find out human values by social experiments, e.g. altruism by asking people to donate money under different circumstances and measuring the response. To synthesize global ethos, we would have to conduct social experiments that last a couple of hundred years; which leaves us, in the end, with the study of history. But because the documentation and interpretation of history is not objective, this is also not an easy way to get there.

Just in a conversation with people from different countries one can easily find some similar values. The point is to deconstruct social practices and have a look behind them. Why do we shake hands? Why do we tell women to cover their hair? Why do we celebrate by having alcohol?

In our class discussion we could quickly agree on values such as kindness, hospitality and non-cruelty.

Another thought that came to my mind right there, was the social experiment “imitation game”. Perhaps in this way one could also try to filter out global values. One would need always groups of three from the same culture, and a laptop, and a camera. The teams would then play with each other, acting as the questioner, the answerer and the judge. As the questioner they would ask questions, trying to determine what values the other group has. As the answerer they would either answer truthfully in their culture or pretend to be from another. And as a judge they would have to decide whether the teams they have played with are the genuine thing or not. This is just from the top of my head, and I have only ever worked with imitation games in gender studies. Perhaps the setup would have to be much more complex, and the outcome would of course heavily depend on both the setup and the interpretation of the results.

The problem is that values lead to customs, so what people believe in influences their behaviour. In culture very often this behaviour freezes, is institutionalized. Over time, people tend to forget the underlaying values and just act according to customs without reflection. It can then seem like my values are quite different from another humans, when I only look at the custom. In my culture women are encouraged to show their hair, make it look beautiful, while in her culture they are encouraged to cover it up. But what if I open my mind to the possibility, that the underlying value is the same?

To take these musings away from being purely theoretical, we need to have a look at how a global ethos could be implemented, assuming it does exist. The only organisation with enough authority would be the United Nations. In fact, they have tried, both in their Charter and in all of their works, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

6. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Declaration is a compilation of Human Rights, written just after the Second World War, in light of all the terrible things that happened under the Nazi Empire, but also elsewhere during the war, e.g. to Japanese living in the US. True to its name, it is mostly a compilation of rights, but also of responsibilities, which are equally as important.

Every single person on this planet is responsible for every other person on this planet, as soon as we know of their existence. Its quite a strong statement, but one I always believed to be true. Our actions always have consequences, whether we do something, or choose not to, and I think its important to take everyone into account who could be harmed by my behaviour. Every human deserves the same respect and care, and it can only work if we truly are and feel responsible for everyone. This responsibility spreads from helping someone I meet in person, to the clothes I buy and the entertainment I consume.

Everybody else’s rights are my duties, and my rights are everybody else’s duties. Only then can this whole human rights for everybody thing work.

7. Individualism and materialism

Every word in the English language that ends in -ism is fundamentally a box, an ideology, something people believe unquestioningly.

Individualism refers to “worshipping the individual at the cost of everything else” and is the opposite of collectivism. Materialism is worshipping the material over the immaterial, such as happiness and well-being.

When we first discussed these problems in class, I immediately knew where we were going with them, and I was a bit bored by that. Yes, if defined this way it is out of question that individualism and materialism are a bad influence on the health of our society, and that they have become something of a quasi-religion.

I can’t quite explain why this concept doesn’t move me that much. Perhaps it is because, even if it was something, we would universally accept to be true, human nature wouldn’t change. We just love it being all about me, me, me, me. We love consumer culture, to have more than we need. I just don’t see how the revelation of individualism and materialism can help that. There are already movements in this world trying to work against it. Both on a political-economical side, taking individualism and materialism as the worst trades of capitalism and arguing for socialism instead; to social movements asking people from being more mindful of their consumption to giving up all consumerism.

I just don’t feel like the concepts are helpful in our current discourses anymore. But perhaps that’s just me and I would love to be convinced otherwise.

8. The horse and the rider

In this class we were also talked about humans as having basic animal instinct while at the same time having (at least the potential for) possibility to see beyond and strive for a better existence. One metaphor for this can be the horse and the rider. The horse is driven by its animal instincts, to run for example. It needs to be guided by the rider, if it should have a purposeful run, and it also needs a lot of care from the rider, so it keeps running. The horse gets a stimulus and immediately transforms it into a response. The rider on the other hand can see farther ahead than the horse and can guide it towards a better, more meaningful response. Nevertheless, the rider cannot go without the horse, so they should be viewed as one.

I generally understand this concept, I think it is one of the first things we learn in “Ethics” (Religion class if you are not religious) in Germany. The metaphor is a bit out there in my opinion, since a rider can permanently go away from his horse, be distinguished from it completely. I think if animals were the colour blue, then humans wouldn’t be blue with an add-on of red, but purple. Something new, which came out of one plus one component, but strongly mixed. But I understand that the metaphor works, because the rider needs to take care of the horse, and can’t do without it, but also needs to control it, as we humans don’t do in individualism and materialism.

9. Social Cohesion

One thing we also talked about in class was social cohesion. According to our lecturer social cohesion is decreasing. He offered examples of this happening at least in Finland, that the spirit of community used to be stronger. The topic is very interesting to me, so I looked up some studies from Germany. In Germany social cohesion (by the researcher’s definition), is increasing (https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/themen/aktuelle-meldungen/2017/dezember/gesellschaftlicher-zusammenhalt-in-deutschland-besser-als-sein-ruf/). Sadly, I could only find a German source.

10. The problem of religion

Religion as a concept has been facing two problems in the last decades. On the one hand, there is a declining religiousness in our world, due to for example political reasons (e.g. The German Democratic Republic diminished religiousness of its people) and as a general social trend. On the other extreme “religiousness”, and using religion to justify terroristic acts of violence, has also been on the rise.

There is a new dogma in Western society, especially in countries like the United States. You can either be religious OR believe in science, there is little to no room in between. Obviously, science isn’t something you can choose to believe in or not, but that’s written on another page.

Religion has had an undeniable influence on humankind, both in a direct and indirect way. There are two types of religions, folk/tribal and world religions. The latter include for example Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism. A world religion is not categorized by the number of followers, but by its influence on cultures.

Religions have both a light and a dark side, so to speak. They go through a sort of life cycle. When they first start out, they are like bursts of creativity and novelty. They bring positive, new developments, and can act as engines for social cohesion. On the other hand, the longer they exist, the less important their original thought becomes. They institutionalize, and practices slowly overtake values. They box themselves off, and every little disagreement leads to a new splinter group.

Religions then lead to a lot of negative consequences, weakening social cohesion, e.g. in an area with more than one religion, and conflicts between followers of different religions can be brutal.

On this notion of religion leading to social cohesion I had a thought: Perhaps it would be possible to draw a comparison between formerly nations lending citizenship, and in a global society the world lending citizenship, and formerly religion leading to social cohesion, and in a global society possibly a global ethos leading to it.

While religions are not “universal”, and quite prone to splintering, the hope is that wouldn’t happen if humanity could agree on a global ethos it would believe in. Replacing the idea of a god, or some deities, with belief in itself.

11. Religion as one, and its bifurcations

The life-cycle of a religion can also be seen in a macro context, integrating it into the theory of Bifurcation. This is also founded on the belief that something like a global ethos exists, on the same level as the laws of nature, and that history has two modes of existence.

After the initial “explosion” of a religion, it goes through a life cycle that can be compared to the flying track of a ball. When the religion is at its highest point of influence, a new religion is born, taking some of the values from the previous one and bringing new ones into play. In this way over centuries every religion is actually a part of a development upwards, closer to the discovery of a global ethos.

The essence of all religions is similar: Do something for the sake of the greater good, instead of for yourself.

Our teacher provided us with some evidence in class, that could indicate this theory to be correct. All world religions share specific teachings, such as the passive “Golden Rule”, or the more active idea of loving one’s enemy, even though their scriptures were written in different parts of the planet, by people who had never met and sometimes even had no influence on one another.

One important thing to note at this point is that the theory of Bifurcation of religions only work if these religions actually have an influence on one another. So, on the one hand we have this realization that many religions have similar core values, which indicates a global ethos, while on the other hand some religions may follow one another in bifurcations, one feeding off the other in an upwards development.

I think this theory is quite plausible, especially because of the indicators presented. Nevertheless, I think its important to remember that societies and politics also influence and shape religions, such as when a religion is suppressed by a government, out of non-, or at least only quasi-religious reasons, such as in many communist countries. Social movements, that are non-religious, can also have a huge influence, feed off one another, and lead humanity closer to a global ethos. Of course, this fact does not conclude this theory to be untrue, I just think its important to keep the whole make-up of developments in mind, and not focus too much on religion as a defining factor.

12. Conclusion

This course has been very enlightening for me. It was at times quite frustrating for me to first be presented with a theory, and with scientific evidence so much more later. I also think it would be helpful to offer some course literature that is critical of the theory of Bifurcation, and everything that goes with it, to gain some perspective.

Nevertheless, I think in these few weeks I learned many new things, especially about religion, and was able to hone my discussion skills as well. I think its always good to learn about new theories, so that they can be used as tools, as new glasses to look at the world in a different light and make some sense of it. I also thought it was interesting to think in this very holistic set-up, contemplating really big general questions about the world.

0 notes

methodist-blog · 7 years ago

Text

SERMON 34. THE ORIGINAL, NATURE, PROPERTY, AND USE OF THE LAW.

SERMON 34 THE ORIGINAL, NATURE, PROPERTY, AND USE OF THE LAW

“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and

good.”

<450712>Romans 7:12.

1. PERHAPS there are few subjects within the whole compass of religion so

little understood as this. The reader of this Epistle is usually told, by the

law St. Paul means the Jewish law; and so, apprehending himself to have

no concern therewith, passes on without farther thought about it. Indeed

some are not satisfied with this account; but observing the Epistle is

directed to the Romans, thence infer that the Apostle in the beginning of

this chapter alludes to the old Roman law. But as they have no more

concern with this, than with the ceremonial law of Moses, so they spend

not much thought on what they suppose is occasionally mentioned, barely

to illustrate another thing.

2. But a careful observer of the Apostle’s discourse will not be content

with these light explications of it. And the more he weighs the words, the

more convinced he will be, that St. Paul, by the law mentioned in this

chapter, does not mean either the ancient law of Rome, or the ceremonial

law of Moses. This will clearly appear to all who attentively consider the

tenor of his discourse. He begins the chapter, “Know ye not, brethren, (for

I speak to them that know the law,)” to them who have been instructed

therein from their youth, “that the law hath dominion over a man as long

as he liveth?” (What! the law of Rome only, or the ceremonial law? No,

surely; but the moral law.) “For,” to give a plain instance, “the woman

which hath a husband is bound by the” moral “law to her husband so long

as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her

husband. So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another

man, she shall be called an adulteress: But if her husband be dead, she is

free from that law; so that she is no adulteress though she be married to

507

another man.” From this particular instance the Apostle proceeds to draw

that general conclusion: “Wherefore, my brethren,” by a plain parity of

reason, “ye also are become dead to the law,” the whole Mosaic

institution, “by the body of Christ,” offered for you, and bringing you

under a new dispensation: “That ye should” without any blame “be

married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead;” and hath

thereby given proof of his authority to make the change; “that we should

bring forth fruit unto God.” And this we can do now, whereas before we

could not: “For when we were in the flesh,” under the power of the flesh,

that is, of corrupt nature, which was necessarily the case till we knew the

power of Christ’s resurrection, “the motions of sins, which were by the

law,” — which were shown and inflamed by the Mosaic law, not

conquered, — “did work in our members,” — broke out various ways, —

“to bring forth fruit unto death.” “But now we are delivered from the law;”

from that whole moral, as well as ceremonial economy; That being dead

whereby we were held;”— that entire institution being now as it were

dead, and having no more authority over us, than the husband, when dead,

hath over his wife: “That we should serve him,” — who died for us and

rose again, “in newness of spirit;” — in a new spiritual dispensation; “and

not in the oldness of the letter;” — with a bare outward service, according

to the letter of the Mosaic institution. (Verses 1-6.)

3. The Apostle, having gone thus far in proving that the Christian had set

aside the Jewish dispensation, and that the moral law itself, though it

could never pass away, yet stood on a different foundation from what it

did before, — now stops to propose and answer an objection: “What shall

we say then? Is the law sin?” So some might infer from a misapprehension

of those words, “the motions of sins, which were by the law.” “God

forbid!” saith the Apostle, that we should say so. Nay, the law is an

irreconcilable enemy to sin; searching it out, wherever it is. “I had not

known sin, but by the law: For I had not known lust,” evil desire, to be

sin, “except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Verse 7.) After

opening this farther, in the four following verses, he subjoins this general

conclusion, with regard more especially to the moral law, from which the

preceding instance was taken: “Wherefore the law is holy, and the

commandment holy, and just, and good.”

508

4. In order to explain and enforce these deep words, so little regarded,

because so little understood, I shall endeavor to show,

First, the original of this law:

Secondly, the nature thereof

Thirdly, the properties; that it is holy, and just, and good And,

Fourthly, the uses of it.

1. I shall First, endeavor to show the original of the moral law, often called

“the law,” by way of eminence. Now this is not, as some may have

possibly imagined, of so late an institution as the time of Moses. Noah

declared it to men long before that time, and Enoch before him. But we

may trace its original higher still, even beyond the foundation of the world;

to that period, unknown indeed to men, but doubtless enrolled in the

annals of eternity, when “the morning stars” first “sang together,” being

newly called into existence. It pleased the great Creator to make these, his

first-born sons, intelligent beings, that they might know Him that created

them. For this end he endued them with understanding, to discern truth

from falsehood, good from evil; and, as a necessary result of this, with

liberty, — a capacity of choosing the one and refusing the other. By this

they were, likewise, enabled to offer him a free and willing service; a

service rewardable in itself, as well as most acceptable to their gracious

Master.

2. To employ all the faculties which he had given them, particularly their

understanding and liberty, he gave them a law, a complete model of all

truth, so far as is intelligible to a finite being; and of all good, so far as

angelic minds were capable of embracing it. It was also the design of their

beneficent Governor herein to make way for a continual increase of their

happiness; seeing every instance of obedience to that law would both add

to the perfection of their nature, and entitle them to an higher reward,

which the righteous Judge would give in its season.

509

3. In like manner, when God, in his appointed time, had created a new

order of intelligent beings, when he had raised man from the dust of the

earth, breathed into him the breath of life, and caused him to become a

living soul, endued with power to choose good or evil; he gave to this free,

intelligent creature, the same law as to his first-born children; not wrote,

indeed, upon tables of stone, or any corruptible substance, but engraven

on his heart by the finger of God; wrote in the inmost spirit both of men

and of angels; to the intent it might never be far off, never hard to be

understood, but always at hand, and always shining with clear light, even

as the sun in the midst of heaven.

4. Such was the original of the law of God. With regard to man, it was

coeval with his nature; but with regard to the elder sons of God, it shone in

its full splendor “or ever the mountains were brought forth, or the earth

and the round world were made.” But it was not long before man rebelled

against God, and, by breaking this glorious law, well nigh effaced it out of

his heart; the eyes of his understanding being darkened in the same

measure as his soul was “alienated from the life of God.” And yet God did

not despise the work of his own hands; but, being reconciled to man

through the Son of his love, he, in some measure, re-inscribed the law on

the heart of his dark, sinful creature. “He” again “showed thee, O man,

what is good,” although not as in the beginning, “even to do justly, and to

love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.”

5. And this he showed, not only to our first parents, but likewise to all

their posterity, by “that true light which enlightens every man that cometh

into the world.” But, notwithstanding this light, all flesh had, in process of

time, “corrupted their way before him;” till he chose out of mankind a

peculiar people, to whom he gave a more perfect knowledge of his law:

And the heads of this, because they were slow of understanding, he wrote

on two tables of stone; which he commanded the fathers to teach their

children, through all succeeding generations.

6. And thus it is, that the law of God is now made known to them that

know not God. They hear, with the hearing of the ear, the things that were

written aforetime for our instruction. But this does not suffice: They

cannot, by this means, comprehend the height, and depth, and length, and

breadth thereof. God alone can reveal this by his Spirit. And so he does to

510

all that truly believe, in consequence of that gracious promise made to all

the Israel of God: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make

a new covenant with the house of Israel. And this shall be the covenant

that I will make; I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in

their hearts and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

(<243131>Jeremiah 31:31, etc.)

II.

1. The nature of that law which was originally given to angels in heaven

and man in paradise, and which God has so mercifully promised to write

afresh in the hearts of all true believers, was the Second thing I proposed

to show. In order to which, I would first observe, that although the “law”

and the “commandment” are sometimes differently taken, (the

commandment meaning but a part of the law,) yet, in the text, they are

used as equivalent terms, implying one and the same thing. But we cannot

understand here, either by one or the other, the ceremonial law. It is not

the ceremonial law, whereof the Apostle says, in the words above recited,

“I had not known sin but by the law:” This is too plain to need a proof.

Neither is it the ceremonial law which saith, in the words immediately

subjoined, “Thou shalt not covet.” Therefore the ceremonial law has no

place in the present question.

2. Neither can we understand by the law mentioned in the text the Mosaic

dispensation. It is true, the word is sometimes so understood; as when the

Apostle says, speaking to the Galatians, (<480317>3:17,) “The covenant that was

confirmed before;” namely, with Abraham, the father of the faithful; “the

law,” that is, the Mosaic dispensation, — “which was four hundred and

thirty years after, cannot disannul.” But it cannot be understood so in the

text; for the Apostle never bestows so high commendations as these upon

that imperfect and shadowy dispensation. He nowhere affirms the Mosaic

to be a spiritual law; or, that it is holy, and just, and good. Neither is it

true, that God will write that law in the hearts of those whose iniquities he

remembers no more. It remains, that “the law, eminently so termed, is no

other than the moral law.

511

3. Now, this law is an incorruptible picture of the High and Holy ONE that

inhabiteth eternity. It is He whom, in his essence, no man hath seen or can

see, made visible to men and angels. It is the face of God unveiled; God

manifested to his creatures as they are able to bear it; manifested to give,

and not to destroy, life, — that they may see God and live. It is the heart

of God disclosed to man. Yea, in some sense, we may apply to this law

what the Apostle says of his Son: It is apaugasma thv doxhv, kai

carakthr thv uposasewv autou, — the streaming forth or

out-beaming of his glory, the express image of his person.

4. “If virtue,” said the ancient Heathen, “could assume such a shape as

that we could behold her with our eyes, what wonderful love would she

excite in us!” If virtue could do this! It is done already. The law of God is

all virtues in one, in such a shape as to be beheld with open face by all

those whose eyes God hath enlightened. What is the law but divine virtue

and wisdom assuming a visible form? What is it but the original ideas of

truth and good, which were lodged in the uncreated mind from eternity,

now drawn forth and clothed with such a vehicle as to appear even to

human understanding?

5. If we survey the law of God in another point of view, it is supreme,

unchangeable reason; it is unalterable rectitude; it is the everlasting fitness

of all things that are or ever were created. I am sensible, what a shortness,

and even impropriety, there is, in these and all other human expressions,

when we endeavor by these faint pictures to shadow out the deep things

of God. Nevertheless, we have no better, indeed no other way, during this

our infant state of existence. As we now “know” but “in part,” so we are

constrained to “prophesy,” that is, speak of the things of God, “in part”

also. “We cannot order our speech by reason of darkness,” while we are in

this house of clay. While I am “a child,” I must “speak as a child:” But I

shall soon “put away childish things:” For “when that which is perfect is

come, that which is in part shall be done away.”

6. But to return. The law of God (speaking after the manner of men! is a

copy of the eternal mind, a transcript of the divine nature: Yea, it is the

fairest offspring of the everlasting Father, the brightest efflux of his

essential wisdom, the visible beauty of the Most High. It is the delight and

wonder of cherubim and seraphim, and all the company of heaven, and the

512

glory and joy of every wise believer, every well instructed child of God

upon earth.

III.

1. Such is the nature of the ever-blessed law of God. I am, in the Third

place, to show the properties of it: Not all; for that would exceed the

wisdom of an angel; but those only which are mentioned in the text. These

are three: It is holy, just, and good. And, First, the law is holy.

2. In this expression the Apostle does not appear to speak of its effects,

but rather of its nature: As St. James, speaking of the same thing under

another name, says, “The wisdom from above” (which is no other than

this law written in our heart) “is first pure;” (<590317>3:17;) agnh, — chaste,

spotless; eternally and essentially holy. And, consequently, when it is

transcribed into the life, as well as the soul, it is (as the same Apostle

terms it, 1:27) Qrhskeia kaqara kai amiantov, — pure religion and

undefiled; or, the pure, clean, unpolluted worship of God.

3. It is, indeed, in the highest degree, pure, chaste, clean, holy. Otherwise it

could not be the immediate offspring, and much less the express

resemblance, of God, who is essential holiness. It is pure from all sin, clean

and unspotted from any touch of evil. It is a chaste virgin, incapable of

any defilement, of any mixture with that which is unclean or unholy. It has

no fellowship with sin of any kind: For “what communion hath light with

darkness?” As sin is, in its very nature, enmity to God, so his law is

enmity to sin.

4. Therefore it is that the Apostle rejects with such abhorrence that

blasphemous supposition, that the law of God is either sin itself, or the

cause of sin. God forbid that we should suppose it is the cause of sin,

because it is the discoverer of it; because it detects the hidden things of

darkness, and drags them out into open day. It is true, by this means, (as

the Apostle observes, <450713>Romans 7:13,) “sin appears to be sin.” All its

disguises are torn away, and it appears in its native deformity. It is true

likewise, that “sin, by the commandment, becomes exceeding sinful:”

Being now committed against light and knowledge, being stripped even of

the poor plea of ignorance, it loses its excuse, as well as disguise, and

513

becomes far more odious both to God and man. Yea, and it is true, that

“sin worketh death by that which is good;” which in itself is pure and

holy. When it is dragged out to light, it rages the more: When it is

restrained, it bursts out with great violence. Thus the Apostle, (speaking

in the person of one who was convinced of sin, but not yet delivered from

it,) “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment” detecting and endeavoring

to restrain it, disdained the restraint, and so much the more “wrought in

me all manner of concupiscence;” (verse 8;) all manner of foolish and

hurtful desire, which that commandment sought to restrain. Thus, “when

the commandment came, sin revived:” (Verse 9:) It fretted and raged the

more. But this is no stain on the commandment. Though it is abused, it

cannot be defiled. This only proves that “the heart of man is desperately

wicked.” But “the law” of God “is holy” still.

5. And it is, Secondly, just. It renders to all their due. It prescribes exactly

what is right, precisely what ought to be done, said, or thought, both with

regard to the Author of our being, with regard to ourselves, and with regard

to every creature which he has made. It is adapted, in all respects, to the

nature of things, of the whole universe, and every individual. It is suited to

all the circumstances of each, and to all their mutual relations, whether

such as have existed from the beginning, or such as commenced in any

following period. It is exactly agreeable to the fitnesses of things, whether

essential or accidental. It clashes with none of these in any degree; nor is

ever unconnected with them. If the word be taken in that sense, there is

nothing arbitrary in the law of God. Although still the whole and every

part thereof is totally dependent upon his will; so that, “Thy will be

done,” is the supreme, universal law, both in earth and heaven.

6. “But is the will of God the cause of his law? Is his will the original of

right and wrong? Is a thing therefore right, because God wills it? or does he

will it because it is right?”

I fear this celebrated question is more curious than useful. And perhaps in

the manner it is usually treated of, it does not so well consist with the

regard that is due from a creature to the Creator and Governor of all things.

It is hardly decent for man to call the supreme God to give an account to

him. Nevertheless, with awe and reverence we may speak a little. The

Lord pardon us if we speak amiss!

514

7. It seems then, that the whole difficulty arises from considering God’s

will as distinct from God: Otherwise it vanishes away. For none can doubt

but God is the cause of the law of God. But the will of God is God

himself. It is God considered as willing thus or thus. Consequently, to say

that the will of God, or that God himself, is the cause of the law, is one

and the same thing.

8. Again: If the law, the immutable rule of right and wrong, depends upon

the nature and fitnesses of things, and on their essential relations to each

other (I do not say, their eternal relations; because the eternal relation of

things existing in time, is little less than a contradiction;) if, I say, this

depends on the nature and relations of things, then it must depend on God,

or the will of God; because those things themselves, with all their

relations, are the works of his hands. By his will, “for his pleasure” alone,

they all “are and were created.”

9. And yet it may be granted, (which is probably all that a considerate

person would contend for,) that in every particular case, God wills this or

this, (suppose, that men should honor their parents,) because it is right,

agreeable to the fitness of things, to the relation wherein they stand.

10. The law then is right and just concerning all things. And it is good as

well as just. This we may easily infer from the fountain whence it flowed.

For what was this, but the goodness of God? What but goodness alone

inclined him to impart that divine copy of himself to the holy angels? To

what else can we impute his bestowing upon man the same transcript of

his own nature? And what but tender love constrained him afresh to

manifest his will to fallen man, — either to Adam, or any of his seed, who

like him were “come short of the glory of God?” Was it not mere love that

moved him to publish his law after the understandings of men were

darkened? and to send his Prophets to declare that law to the blind,

thoughtless children of men? Doubtless his goodness it was which raised

up Enoch and Noah to be Preachers of righteousness; which caused

Abraham, his friend, and Isaac, But Jacob to bear witness to his truth. It

was his goodness alone, which, when “darkness had covered the earth, and

thick darkness the people,” gave a written law to Moses and, through him,

to the nation whom He had chosen. It was love which explained these

living oracles by David and all the Prophets that followed; until, when the

515

fullness of time was come, he sent his only-begotten Son, “not to destroy

the law, but to fulfill,” confirm every jot and tittle thereof; till, having

wrote it in the hearts of all his children, and put all his enemies under his

feet, “he shall deliver up” his mediatorial “kingdom to the Father, that God

may be all in all.”

11. And this law, which the goodness of God gave at first, and has

preserved through all ages, is, like the fountain from whence it springs, full

of goodness and benignity; it is mild and kind; it is, as the Psalmist

expresses it, “sweeter than honey and the honey-comb.” It is winning and

amiable. It includes “whatsoever things are lovely or of good report. If

there be any virtue, if there be any praise” before God and his holy angels,

they are all comprised in this; wherein are hid all the treasures of the divine

wisdom, and knowledge, and love.

12. And it is good in its effects, as well as in its nature. As the tree is, so

are its fruits. The fruits of the law of God written in the heart are

“righteousness, and peace, and assurance forever.” Or rather, the law itself

is righteousness, filling the soul with a peace which passeth all

understanding, and causing us to rejoice evermore, in the testimony of a

good conscience toward God. It is not so properly a pledge, as “an

earnest, of our inheritance,” being a part of the purchased possession. It is

God made manifest in our flesh, and bringing with him eternal life; assuring

us by that pure and perfect love, that we are “sealed unto the day of

redemption;” that he will “spare us as a man spareth his own son that

serveth him,” “in the day when he maketh up his jewels;” and that there

remaineth for us “a crown of glory which fadeth not away.”

IV.

1. It remains only to show, in the Fourth and last place, the uses of the

law. And the First use of it, without question, is, to convince the world of

sin. This is, indeed, the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost; who can work it

without any means at all, or by whatever means it pleaseth him, however

insufficient in themselves, or even improper, to produce such an effect.

And, accordingly, some there are whose hearts have been broken in pieces

in a moment, either in sickness or in health, without any visible cause, or

516

any outward means whatever; and others (one in an age) have been

awakened to a sense of the “wrath of God abiding on them,” by hearing,

that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” But it is the

ordinary method of the Spirit of God to convict sinners by the law. It is

this which, being set home on the conscience, generally breaketh the rocks

in pieces. It is more especially this part of the word of God which is zwn

kai energhv, — quick and powerful, full of life and energy, “and sharper

than any two-edged sword.” This, in the hand of God and of those whom

he hath sent, pierces through all the folds of a deceitful heart, and “divides

asunder even the soul and the spirit;” yea, as it were, the very “joints and

marrow.” By this is the sinner discovered to himself. All his fig-leaves are

torn away, and he sees that he is “wretched, and poor, and miserable, and

blind, and naked.” The law flashes conviction on every side. He feels

himself a mere sinner. He has nothing to pay. His “mouth is stopped,” and

he stands “guilty before God.”

2. To slay the sinner is, then, the First use of the law; to destroy the life

and strength wherein he trusts, and convince him that he is dead while he

liveth; not only under the sentence of death, but actually dead unto God,

void of all spiritual life, “dead in trespasses and sins.” The Second use of it

is, to bring him unto life, unto Christ, that he may live. It is true, in

performing both these offices, it acts the part of a severe school master. It

drives us by force, rather than draws us by love. And yet love is the

spring of all. It is the spirit of love which, by this painful means, tears

away our confidence in the flesh, which leaves us no broken reed whereon

to trust, and so constrains the sinner, stripped of all, to cry out in the

bitterness of his soul, or groan in the depth of his heart,

I give up every plea beside, —

Lord, I am damn’d; but thou hast died.

3. The Third use of the law is, to keep us alive. It is the grand means

whereby the blessed Spirit prepares the believer for larger communications

of the life of God.

I am afraid this great and important truth is little understood, not only by

the world, but even by many whom God hath taken out of the world, who

are real children of God by faith. Many of these lay it down as an

unquestioned truth, that when we come to Christ, we have done with the

517

law; and that, in this sense, “Christ is the end of the law to every one that

believeth.” “The end of the law:”— So he is, “for righteousness,” for

justification, “to every one that believeth.” Herein the law is at an end. It

justifies none, but only brings them to Christ; who is also, in another

respect, the end or scope of the law, — the point at which it continually

aims. But when it has brought us to him, it has yet a farther office,

namely, to keep us with him. For it is continually exciting all believers, the

more they see of its height, and depth, and length, and breadth, to exhort

one another so much the more, —

Closer and closer let us cleave

To his beloved embrace;

Expect his fulness to receive,

And grace to answer grace.

4. Allowing then, that every believer has done with the law, is it means the

Jewish ceremonial law, or the entire Mosaic dispensation; (for these Christ

hath taken out of the way;) yea, allowing we have done with the moral

law, as a means of procuring our justification; for we are “justified freely

by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus;” yet, in another

sense, we have not done with this law: for it is still of unspeakable use,

First, in convincing us of the sin that yet remains both in our hearts and

lives, and thereby keeping us close to Christ, that his blood may cleanse us

every moment; Secondly, in deriving strength from our Head into his living

members, whereby he empowers them to do what his law commands; and,

Thirdly, in confirming our hope of whatsoever it commands and we have

not yet attained, — of receiving grace upon grace till we are in actual

possession of the fullness of his promises.

5. How clearly does this agree with the experience of every true believer!

While he cries out, “O what love have I unto thy law! all the day long is

my study in it;” he sees daily, in that divine mirror, more and more of his

own sinfulness. He sees more and more clearly, that he is still a sinner in

all things, — that neither his heart nor his ways are right before God; and

that every moment ends him to Christ. This shows him the meaning of

what is written, “Thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it,

Holiness to the Lord. And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead,” (the type of

our great High Priest,) “that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy

things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts;” (so

518

far are our prayers or holy things from atoning for the rest of our sin!)

“and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted

before the Lord.” (<022836>Exodus 28:36, 38.)

6. To explain this by a single instance: The law says, “Thou shalt not kill;”

and hereby, (as our Lord teaches,) forbids not only outward acts, but

every unkind word or thought. Now, the more I look into this perfect law,

the more I feel how far I come short of it; and the more I feel this, the more

I feel my need of his blood to atone for all my sin, and of his Spirit to

purify my heart, and make me “perfect and entire, lacking nothing.”

7. Therefore I cannot spare the law one moment, no more than I can spare

Christ; seeing I now want it as much to keep me to Christ, as I ever

wanted it to bring me to him. Otherwise, this “evil heart of unbelief”

would immediately “depart from the living God.” Indeed each is

continually sending me to the other, — the law to Christ, and Christ to the

law. On the one hand, the height and depth of the law constrain me to fly

to the love of God in Christ; on the other, the love of God in Christ

endears the law to me “above gold or precious stones;” seeing I know

every part of it is a gracious promise which my Lord will fulfill in its

season.

8. Who art thou then, O man, that “judgest the law, and speakest evil of

the law?” — that rankest it with sin, Satan, and death, and sendest them all

to hell together? The Apostle James esteemed judging or “speaking evil of

the law” so enormous a piece of wickedness, that he knew not how to

aggravate the guilt of judging our brethren more, than by showing it

included this. “So now,” says he, “thou art not a doer of the law, but a

judge!” A judge of that which God hath ordained to judge thee! So thou

hast set up thyself in the judgment-seat of Christ, and cast down the rule

whereby he will judge the world! O take knowledge what advantage Satan

hath gained over thee; and, for the time to come, never think or speak

lightly of, much less dress up as a scarecrow, this blessed instrument of

the grace of God. Yea, love and value it for the sake of Him from whom it

came, and of Him to whom it leads. Let it be thy glory and joy, next to the

cross of Christ. Declare its praise, and make it honorable before all men.

9. And if thou art thoroughly convinced, that it is the offspring of God,

that it is the copy of all his imitable perfections, and that it is “holy, and

519

just, and good,” but especially to them that believe; then, instead of casting

it away as a polluted thing, see that thou cleave to it more and more. Never

let the law of mercy and truth, of love to God and man, of lowliness,

meekness, and purity, forsake thee. “Bind it about thy neck; write it on

the table of thy heart.” Keep close to the law, if thou wilt keep close to

Christ; hold it fast; let it not go. Let this continually lead thee to the

atoning blood, continually confirm thy hope, till all the “righteousness of

the law is fulfilled in thee,” and thou art “filled with all the fullness of

God.”

10. And if thy Lord hath already fulfilled his word, if he hath already

“written his law in thy heart,” then “stand fast in the liberty wherewith

Christ hath made thee free.” Thou art not only made free from Jewish

ceremonies, from the guilt of sin, and the fear of hell; (these are so far from

being the whole, that they are the least and lowest part of Christian

liberty;) but, what is infinitely more, from the power of sin, from serving

the devil, from offending God. O stand fast in this liberty; in composition

of which, all the rest is not even worthy to be named! Stand fast in loving

God with all thy heart, and serving him with all thy strength! This is

perfect freedom; thus to keep his law, and to walk in all his

commandments blameless. “Be not entangled again with the yoke of

bondage.” I do not mean of Jewish bondage; nor yet of bondage to the fear

of hell: These I trust are far from thee. But beware of being entangled again

with the yoke of sin, of any inward or outward transgression of the law.

Abhor sin far more than death or hell; abhor sin itself, far more than the

punishment of it. Beware of the bondage of pride, of desire, of anger; of

every evil temper, or word, or work. “Look unto Jesus;” and in order

thereto, look more and more into the perfect law, “the law of liberty;” and

“continue therein;” so shalt thou daily “grow in grace, and in the

knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

0 notes