Spiritualism - Lesson #18
This lesson gave a challenging assessment of the personal qualities needed for ministry. We are human-beings with human-limitations but there can be no room for pride or self-serving in ministry as if we possess all the answers; our motivation should be to serve others in humility gaining rapport through listening and empathy. But as the writer of the course makes clear we have no means of knowing what motivates someone into ministry, charity-work or any other profession if it comes to that. As one charity worker once said about volunteers working for their organisation: "volunteers need us as much as we need them." People are driven by powerful unseen forces e.g. guilt, insecurity, inferiority, superiority, regret and loss etc. I repeat what I said above that we are human; consequently we all wear masks.
During this course it soon became apparent that much of the material presented was subjective rather than objective in tone so it was informative to read that the writer had intended this. Since time began everyone who has ever lived has had an opinion which they've either keep to themselves or sought to force on others. Because of that it's a wonder that agreement about anything has ever been obtained. Emanating from the subconscious self-interest is a powerful motivator craftily manifesting itself as concern for others. It's part of the human-condition which we would do well to be mindful of. While a person's thoughts cannot be known one only has to look on social media to see the kind of destructive, critical comments people hurl at others from the anonymity of a computer. And it's noteworthy that when those who make such comments are traced by the authorities they're often embarrassed or remorseful at the distress they've caused. With that sobering thought ringing in the ears anyone responding to a "call" to ministry should not be surprised to find themselves in the cross-hairs of critics who "think they know better" and get great delight from kicking the legs out from under us. That may be so hard to bear it may well precipitate a collapse into the darkness of despair. It is not unknown that when a person shows compassion to another they are accused of being "holier than thou" by people hiding from something deep within themselves. Again, we are all human on a journey trying to make sense of life's mystery – and we all come to that journey from different directions.
I have both the Republic and the Crito which have so much to teach about human-nature, people and their problems. And it's interesting that during the final hours of his life Socrates, surrounded by his friends all urging him not to drink the poison, was composed and serene within himself – casually drinking the poison before laying down to die. As a man who confessed to knowing nothing Socrates calmly told his friends that if there was another life beyond death that was fine; likewise if death was nothing but a long sleep that was fine too. To have arrived at that point of contentment within himself with neither regret nor remorse and without heaping blame on the authorities for sentencing him to death Socrates showed great fortitude, courage and a quiet contentment that comes from the assurance of not needing to strive to know anything – that kind of "certainty" is beyond all of us. Yet for many people "fear," with its gnawing-partner "doubt" drives us to cling to life at all costs; yet we know so little about what life is. And here I agree with the writer that we know nothing – nothing meaningful that will survive our time here. For example as a people we have no idea how this planet got here or who may have been here before us – and we will never know that. We can look at Mars through a telescope and speculate whether life existed there billions of years ago; and we can measure, weigh and observe the universe in which we live yet we will only ever scratch the surface of "knowing" anything. The best we can do as far as "certainty" is concerned is concur with Euclid who discovered that in any triangle the internal angles always add up to 180 and that a straight line can be drawn between any two points. But that's hardly earth-shattering knowledge nor even discovering that "pie" is an infinite number. Maybe the best we can say about that is that a mere mortal, Euclid, was able to glimpse something of the immortal.
As a minister my "calling" came out of an acute crisis that almost brought about psychological collapse. But that's not a bad place from which to start - in a heap on the floor. But it was a great leveller. Today, in my preaching ministry I do not hold to any feelings of grandeur; quite the reverse I consider myself inadequate and therefore dependant on God! For those who've been to the "bottom" will recognise that these thoughts, though irrational and silly, are difficult to override. For me it means that every service I conduct (and I've been preaching for around 25 years) and every funeral I preside at I feel incredibly weak and vulnerable. But as the Apostle Paul said: "when I am weak then I am strong" – that is very much my testimony. If knowing oneself is the aim of philosophy I have a long way to go to get there – but not that many years left to complete the journey. The Bible has a verse which says: "If God is for us who can be against us?" My reply is: "myself" I can be my own worst enemy, critic, judge, jury, jailor and cynic. To believe in oneself is probably the hardest concept for me to hold to. Others too may feel the same way as we all carry baggage with us loaded upon us by parents, teachers and others in authority who were labouring under their own heavy burdens. In that sense no-one can know anything about anything that hasn't first come to us through the prism of someone else's prejudice. But those who have been through the mill and survived the dark-night of faith are often the most dedicated, gifted and empathic ministers having been to the bottom and survived. That is the story-line running through the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures so we are in good company.
The plight of others can be so moving it lays on the bleeding-heart a desire to help. I watched a programme on TV the other day about people who drink themselves to oblivion. They wasted their money, were reckless with their health; their lives; their careers; their families and their prospects. Yet they were broken people with heart-rending stories and as sick in body and mind as anyone with a physical illness. Their injuries were mostly self-inflicted yet so sad and moving to watch; these people were God's children (all sharing the image of God) suffering deep traumas often because they weren't able to face the truth about themselves. And I guess that most people would see something of themselves in them. Philosophy asks questions and builds on the insights of those who went before them. Yet how often those insights were manipulated to gain power over others. We may be able to change society but human-nature is constant and cannot be altered so there will always be those who seek to lord it over others. For many life is a riddle. It's as if we've been deposited on this planet not knowing where we came from and so left puzzling what cannot be fathomed. Some people seek answers in science; others bury their heads in activity; still others drink (or take drugs) to dull their fears and insecurities. Words are inadequate to express these gnawing feelings although poetry does help by painting pictures of the obscure. Our task in ministry is to meet people where they to support them in their dilemmas shining a light on the way ahead that they might find their way to the "Spirit." Speaking personally the answer is found in God. That doesn't mean I have some kind of higher knowledge than other people and should I be tempted to think otherwise the Apostle Paul has some helpful words here: "I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to" (Rom. 12:3). So this is obviously a perennial problem! As as ministers we are merely guides pointing the way. In the work we do we may be ridiculed, laughed-at, ignored or side-lined but we take for our example the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah – who though rejected and abused was vindicated and rewarded. So too will those who serve others faithfully (with humility and compassion) from the heart.
Rog
1st May 2016
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #17
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #17
I can only speak from my own experience of ministry in England. But what has become increasingly evident to me over the years is that often depressive illness and emotional distress are the result of people feeling: overlooked, insignificant, powerless and frightened; with the result that they live futile, meaningless and empty lives. The causes are complex but amongst them is a secular society that is growing in confidence and seeking at every turn to eradicate religion from its midst; to get rid of the very faith that gave it birth and which still underpins its laws and institutions. In Britain TV output is also increasingly atheistic in content decided, I'm sure, by people who think they know better and therefore seek to control what people think. No wonder people are increasingly resorting to anti-depressants, and other talking therapies, to ease their spiritual pain. People were created to be in community with one another each contributing of him/herself to its life, vitality and cohesion. But much of that is now lost. Today, governments emphasise individualism i.e. standing on one's own two feet regardless of others. The result is selfishness and a catastrophic fragmentation of society where people no longer talk to each other, no longer know their neighbours and have to lock themselves behind their own front door to keep away strangers. How far we have declined. It wasn't that long ago you could go out and leave the key in the lock of your door. But not anymore.
As a Christian minister I increasingly encounter people living on the edge who harbour underlying fears and desperation. On the surface they seem fine but underneath they are scared of a world perceived as hostile, alien and set against them. But often the immediate cause of distress is loneliness i.e. no-one to talk to, to share their concerns with. So they consult the doctor who dutifully writes out a prescription for tranquillisers or anti-depressants even though there is no evidence this form of mediation works but plenty of evidence to the contrary that it makes matters worse. But what is taking place here between doctor and patient is a kind of unspoken contract. The patient consults the doctor expecting him/her to give him/her something to solve their distress; and the doctor responds by writing out a prescription for the patient thus keeping everyone happy. Happy until the pills don't work and the patient returns for more. And so it goes on. Yet many people suffering from depression (which after all is caused by the "disconnection" from self and one's environment) would benefit from an honest conversation with a friend or family member. But in an increasingly fragmented and individualistic society we've forgotten how to do this and so shunt our loved ones off to the "psychiatrist" or else shut the door on them having no answer to their malady. But there is no pill in existence able to solve our spiritual and emotional demise. What people need to do is "reconnect" with one-another and become a joined-up society again; one that talks to each-another; cares for each-other, listens to each-other, values each-other and supports each-other. In his ground-breaking work Freud traced most personality disorders back to childhood particularly the formative years from birth to around 8. He believed that during this period traumatic experiences are repressed and accessible only through psycho-analysis - a talking therapy also known as "free association." Freud also placed great stock on dream therapy for similar reasons. Today psycho-dynamic therapy, behaviour therapy and CBT etc. are heralded as therapies most likely to help the "depressed" get well again. Yet modern psychology knows very little about the human brain and for the most part does rejects the concept of an immaterial "mind." So we need to look elsewhere for an answer for the popularity of science. And we don't have to look far. People have become accustomed to believing that science has an answer for every question – which is untrue of course. The real answer to psychological distress is paying attention to people; hearing their stories and reconnecting them to their spiritual selves as the only way of restoring hope, meaning and purpose to their lives. That is exactly what I try to do in my ministry and that's so important because as a Christian I do not have the same materialistic-outlook as others do. As a minister I am in the business of "people." Ministry by definition is submitting to God and the "service of others" in his name. People are not a collection of chemicals or a machine devoid of meaning and purpose. People were created in the image of God i.e. a combination of body, soul and Spirit despite what psychology and psychiatry teaches. Just mentioning "God" to a psychiatrist is a sign of delusion! I have psychology books in my library which state confidently as "fact" that the human brain contains ancient and modern bits i.e. new bits added over time yet retaining the most primitive bits but to our emotional detriment. According to this theory the so called "fight or flight" response is left over from the time we were hunter gatherers seeking food whilst dodging wild beasts eager to make us their latest meal. But now that we buy our food in supermarkets and so don't have to evade wild beasts to obtain it the "fight or flight response" affects us in new ways i.e. through phobias and other emotional triggers. However, these "experts" who write this stuff have no more idea than anyone else whether this is fact or fiction; true or false. And this is the problem with science in my view. And because it is we would do well to heed Descartes' words who said that: when developing an argument keep it simple and build it up methodically otherwise you may end up talking nonsense. How true that is. Scientist's today talk confidently of evolution as if it is an established fact. But they would do well to heed Hume's caution; just because an effect is observed doesn't mean we can determine a cause of that effect even where a pattern appears to confirm it. We humans have vivid imaginations and tend to link ideas together to draw incorrect conclusions. Plants, animals and people change but it would be foolish to pronounce as fact why these changes occur. Several years ago I attended a lecture given by a university lecturer who spoke against evolution citing various organs, joints and so on in the human (and animal) body which couldn't have evolved but must have been irreducibly-formed for survival to occur: e.g. the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, the wings of various birds etc. There are many more example of course which show that evolution cannot be as simple as Darwin thought. Besides, Darwin was a religious man whose Christian wife constantly prayed for him. Darwin believed that God created the world and then set it free to obey laws he set for it. Yet, today there are people teaching in British universities who no longer believe in evolution yet continue to teach it. One wonders why. Is this what science has become? Some scientists would rather cling doggedly to belief in a material universe rather than admit to there being a creator. It seems it's more palatable to stick with something they don't believe rather than admit to a "mind" (outside space and time) that is greater than that of humanity. Yet scientists are given the greater voice in today's confused and spiritually barren world. But maybe things are changing. Today, spirituality is increasingly being acknowledged as vital for human health and well-being even where it lacks any religious content. Today, people are encouraged to be "mindful" of themselves, their surroundings, their gifts, activities, connectedness to themselves, the environment and one-another i.e. to pause; be aware of their thoughts; their breathing and their surroundings using various modalities. And this is good for reconnecting with one's spirituals nature and with God. For neither: psychiatry, anti-depressants, evolution, materialism nor science in general can solve the emptiness of humanity starved of spiritual nourishment and living in denial of its God-given roots. It is only through belief, hope, creativity, intuition, prayer, faith and spiritual reawakening that the spiritual wilderness in which the western-world is currently languishing will be healed and set free. And for this a sincere, faithful and educated minister is required.
Rog
April 2016
I can only speak from my own experience of ministry in England. But what has become increasingly evident to me over the years is that often depressive illness and emotional distress are the result of people feeling: overlooked, insignificant, powerless and frightened; with the result that they live futile, meaningless and empty lives. The causes are complex but amongst them is a secular society that is growing in confidence and seeking at every turn to eradicate religion from its midst; to get rid of the very faith that gave it birth and which still underpins its laws and institutions. In Britain TV output is also increasingly atheistic in content decided, I'm sure, by people who think they know better and therefore seek to control what people think. No wonder people are increasingly resorting to anti-depressants, and other talking therapies, to ease their spiritual pain. People were created to be in community with one another each contributing of him/herself to its life, vitality and cohesion. But much of that is now lost. Today, governments emphasise individualism i.e. standing on one's own two feet regardless of others. The result is selfishness and a catastrophic fragmentation of society where people no longer talk to each other, no longer know their neighbours and have to lock themselves behind their own front door to keep away strangers. How far we have declined. It wasn't that long ago you could go out and leave the key in the lock of your door. But not anymore.
As a Christian minister I increasingly encounter people living on the edge who harbour underlying fears and desperation. On the surface they seem fine but underneath they are scared of a world perceived as hostile, alien and set against them. But often the immediate cause of distress is loneliness i.e. no-one to talk to, to share their concerns with. So they consult the doctor who dutifully writes out a prescription for tranquillisers or anti-depressants even though there is no evidence this form of mediation works but plenty of evidence to the contrary that it makes matters worse. But what is taking place here between doctor and patient is a kind of unspoken contract. The patient consults the doctor expecting him/her to give him/her something to solve their distress; and the doctor responds by writing out a prescription for the patient thus keeping everyone happy. Happy until the pills don't work and the patient returns for more. And so it goes on. Yet many people suffering from depression (which after all is caused by the "disconnection" from self and one's environment) would benefit from an honest conversation with a friend or family member. But in an increasingly fragmented and individualistic society we've forgotten how to do this and so shunt our loved ones off to the "psychiatrist" or else shut the door on them having no answer to their malady. But there is no pill in existence able to solve our spiritual and emotional demise. What people need to do is "reconnect" with one-another and become a joined-up society again; one that talks to each-another; cares for each-other, listens to each-other, values each-other and supports each-other. In his ground-breaking work Freud traced most personality disorders back to childhood particularly the formative years from birth to around 8. He believed that during this period traumatic experiences are repressed and accessible only through psycho-analysis - a talking therapy also known as "free association." Freud also placed great stock on dream therapy for similar reasons. Today psycho-dynamic therapy, behaviour therapy and CBT etc. are heralded as therapies most likely to help the "depressed" get well again. Yet modern psychology knows very little about the human brain and for the most part does rejects the concept of an immaterial "mind." So we need to look elsewhere for an answer for the popularity of science. And we don't have to look far. People have become accustomed to believing that science has an answer for every question – which is untrue of course. The real answer to psychological distress is paying attention to people; hearing their stories and reconnecting them to their spiritual selves as the only way of restoring hope, meaning and purpose to their lives. That is exactly what I try to do in my ministry and that's so important because as a Christian I do not have the same materialistic-outlook as others do. As a minister I am in the business of "people." Ministry by definition is submitting to God and the "service of others" in his name. People are not a collection of chemicals or a machine devoid of meaning and purpose. People were created in the image of God i.e. a combination of body, soul and Spirit despite what psychology and psychiatry teaches. Just mentioning "God" to a psychiatrist is a sign of delusion! I have psychology books in my library which state confidently as "fact" that the human brain contains ancient and modern bits i.e. new bits added over time yet retaining the most primitive bits but to our emotional detriment. According to this theory the so called "fight or flight" response is left over from the time we were hunter gatherers seeking food whilst dodging wild beasts eager to make us their latest meal. But now that we buy our food in supermarkets and so don't have to evade wild beasts to obtain it the "fight or flight response" affects us in new ways i.e. through phobias and other emotional triggers. However, these "experts" who write this stuff have no more idea than anyone else whether this is fact or fiction; true or false. And this is the problem with science in my view. And because it is we would do well to heed Descartes' words who said that: when developing an argument keep it simple and build it up methodically otherwise you may end up talking nonsense. How true that is. Scientist's today talk confidently of evolution as if it is an established fact. But they would do well to heed Hume's caution; just because an effect is observed doesn't mean we can determine a cause of that effect even where a pattern appears to confirm it. We humans have vivid imaginations and tend to link ideas together to draw incorrect conclusions. Plants, animals and people change but it would be foolish to pronounce as fact why these changes occur. Several years ago I attended a lecture given by a university lecturer who spoke against evolution citing various organs, joints and so on in the human (and animal) body which couldn't have evolved but must have been irreducibly-formed for survival to occur: e.g. the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, the wings of various birds etc. There are many more example of course which show that evolution cannot be as simple as Darwin thought. Besides, Darwin was a religious man whose Christian wife constantly prayed for him. Darwin believed that God created the world and then set it free to obey laws he set for it. Yet, today there are people teaching in British universities who no longer believe in evolution yet continue to teach it. One wonders why. Is this what science has become? Some scientists would rather cling doggedly to belief in a material universe rather than admit to there being a creator. It seems it's more palatable to stick with something they don't believe rather than admit to a "mind" (outside space and time) that is greater than that of humanity. Yet scientists are given the greater voice in today's confused and spiritually barren world. But maybe things are changing. Today, spirituality is increasingly being acknowledged as vital for human health and well-being even where it lacks any religious content. Today, people are encouraged to be "mindful" of themselves, their surroundings, their gifts, activities, connectedness to themselves, the environment and one-another i.e. to pause; be aware of their thoughts; their breathing and their surroundings using various modalities. And this is good for reconnecting with one's spirituals nature and with God. For neither: psychiatry, anti-depressants, evolution, materialism nor science in general can solve the emptiness of humanity starved of spiritual nourishment and living in denial of its God-given roots. It is only through belief, hope, creativity, intuition, prayer, faith and spiritual reawakening that the spiritual wilderness in which the western-world is currently languishing will be healed and set free. And for this a sincere, faithful and educated minister is required.
Rog
April 2016
Monday, April 11, 2016
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #16
Nietzsche was first and foremost a classics-scholar who became a professor in his mid-twenties influencing such notable writers as: Lawrence, Shaw and Yeats (some achievement). It was only later that he turned from literature to philosophy but even so his literary bent shone through his writings which in parts were a combination of myth and abstract thought. And I think this is the way to approach probably his greatest work: "Thus Spoke Zarathustra."
And it's interesting that a man who came to reject religion particularly all things Christian e.g. loving one's neighbour, turning the other cheek and showing compassion to those who suffer etc. that he created a new "prophet" (Zarathustra) who descends the mountain (a bit like Moses generations before) to pronounce a new gospel that: "God is dead." But I'm not sure it was God whom Nietzsche rejected or the servility of people who cling to inherited values without thinking about them. For Nietzsche man is capable of so much more but is held back by deferring to a set of values (and a defunct morality) which prevent him from reaching his full potential. Nietzsche writes urging people to reject all this and live authentic lives (to be yourself) even if that means disregarding the feelings and needs of the "herd." Nietzsche also rejected Plato's ideal world just as he rejected the heaven preached by Christians which, he believed, looked for jam tomorrow while rejecting the here and now. To him this was simply turning away from life. This is a man in a hurry, a philosophical "hot-head" who tears up the philosophical rule-book and starts again. Nietzsche wants us to question everything we've come to accept without thinking about ethics and the meaning of life. According to him many of the things we believe are good and wholesome are in fact limiting to us. Nietzsche wants us to see life in a different way and through a different lens having rejected Kant's theory that we're unable to know "things in themselves" For Nietzsche this was a useless doctrine and so held to one world only – this one. But something doesn't add about all this especially when seen alongside his theory of "eternal recurrence" where every living experience comes around again and again as if to give us a second crack at it – sounds a bit like religion to me! Nevertheless, having brought down like a pack of cards all previous ideas of a perfect and imperfect world the stage was set for a re-evaluation of values, ethics and morality. So enters "Superman" the master of the world for it follows that if this world is all there is and if man has dispensed with any authority from above man is free to choose his own values and stand on his own two feet. But there is a problem here and it's one we've encountered several times before i.e. "human nature." Human nature being self-centred and power hungry forever seeks its own ends despite the lofty ideas of people like Nietzsche. Someone somewhere will be looking for ways to lord it over others, and with the green light from Nietzsche to live life as we please without regard for others (although he didn't actually intend that for there is some compassion in his philosophy) the result will be anarchy, social breakdown and ultimately total confusion. This is one reason, in my view, multi-culturalism has failed. For society to cohere it is vital that people share common values; a shared heritage and so on. But where this is rejected, or lacking, society will eventually fall apart. There is another aspect to the materialistic way of thinking i.e. Determinism. Determinism holds that no-one can he held responsible for their actions which, in a closed material world, couldn't be other than they are. But the law doesn't see it that way! The law demands that each person is responsible for their actions. Self-determination is much closer to our actual experience in life. It's people who make decisions, who feel compassion, who love, value and respect others. The brain may be a material organ, able to be studied, measured and investigated, as is the physical body, but the immaterial mind, soul, emotions and intuitions are every bit as real. These things are what it means to be human (with emotions) living together in community. I can understand where Nietzsche is coming from in advocating the inauthentic life. And it's true that some people do strive to be something they're not wearing all kinds of masks to impress others; to fool themselves; to get ahead and to get even. Most people want to impress someone or be better than others even at the cost of their own, personal well-being (it's aby-product of culture). But it's a shaky house of cards we create that will come crashing down one day leaving us in a devastated heap. We may be able to fool others but we cannot sustain fooling ourselves for very long. And I have met many people who have been crushed by the fall-out from this kind of self-deception who then find themselves struggling to build a new life having faced the terrible truth about themselves. It's an unpleasant experience but a learning curve too from which many blessing can flow if lessons are learned so bringing forth the sweet, fragrant blossom of new personal growth. Maybe Nietzsche was plagued by self-doubt which ultimately led to the "death" of an old way of life which he was unable to bring himself to face: madness is next to genius after all.
Rog
11th April 2016
And it's interesting that a man who came to reject religion particularly all things Christian e.g. loving one's neighbour, turning the other cheek and showing compassion to those who suffer etc. that he created a new "prophet" (Zarathustra) who descends the mountain (a bit like Moses generations before) to pronounce a new gospel that: "God is dead." But I'm not sure it was God whom Nietzsche rejected or the servility of people who cling to inherited values without thinking about them. For Nietzsche man is capable of so much more but is held back by deferring to a set of values (and a defunct morality) which prevent him from reaching his full potential. Nietzsche writes urging people to reject all this and live authentic lives (to be yourself) even if that means disregarding the feelings and needs of the "herd." Nietzsche also rejected Plato's ideal world just as he rejected the heaven preached by Christians which, he believed, looked for jam tomorrow while rejecting the here and now. To him this was simply turning away from life. This is a man in a hurry, a philosophical "hot-head" who tears up the philosophical rule-book and starts again. Nietzsche wants us to question everything we've come to accept without thinking about ethics and the meaning of life. According to him many of the things we believe are good and wholesome are in fact limiting to us. Nietzsche wants us to see life in a different way and through a different lens having rejected Kant's theory that we're unable to know "things in themselves" For Nietzsche this was a useless doctrine and so held to one world only – this one. But something doesn't add about all this especially when seen alongside his theory of "eternal recurrence" where every living experience comes around again and again as if to give us a second crack at it – sounds a bit like religion to me! Nevertheless, having brought down like a pack of cards all previous ideas of a perfect and imperfect world the stage was set for a re-evaluation of values, ethics and morality. So enters "Superman" the master of the world for it follows that if this world is all there is and if man has dispensed with any authority from above man is free to choose his own values and stand on his own two feet. But there is a problem here and it's one we've encountered several times before i.e. "human nature." Human nature being self-centred and power hungry forever seeks its own ends despite the lofty ideas of people like Nietzsche. Someone somewhere will be looking for ways to lord it over others, and with the green light from Nietzsche to live life as we please without regard for others (although he didn't actually intend that for there is some compassion in his philosophy) the result will be anarchy, social breakdown and ultimately total confusion. This is one reason, in my view, multi-culturalism has failed. For society to cohere it is vital that people share common values; a shared heritage and so on. But where this is rejected, or lacking, society will eventually fall apart. There is another aspect to the materialistic way of thinking i.e. Determinism. Determinism holds that no-one can he held responsible for their actions which, in a closed material world, couldn't be other than they are. But the law doesn't see it that way! The law demands that each person is responsible for their actions. Self-determination is much closer to our actual experience in life. It's people who make decisions, who feel compassion, who love, value and respect others. The brain may be a material organ, able to be studied, measured and investigated, as is the physical body, but the immaterial mind, soul, emotions and intuitions are every bit as real. These things are what it means to be human (with emotions) living together in community. I can understand where Nietzsche is coming from in advocating the inauthentic life. And it's true that some people do strive to be something they're not wearing all kinds of masks to impress others; to fool themselves; to get ahead and to get even. Most people want to impress someone or be better than others even at the cost of their own, personal well-being (it's aby-product of culture). But it's a shaky house of cards we create that will come crashing down one day leaving us in a devastated heap. We may be able to fool others but we cannot sustain fooling ourselves for very long. And I have met many people who have been crushed by the fall-out from this kind of self-deception who then find themselves struggling to build a new life having faced the terrible truth about themselves. It's an unpleasant experience but a learning curve too from which many blessing can flow if lessons are learned so bringing forth the sweet, fragrant blossom of new personal growth. Maybe Nietzsche was plagued by self-doubt which ultimately led to the "death" of an old way of life which he was unable to bring himself to face: madness is next to genius after all.
Rog
11th April 2016
Monday, April 4, 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #15
Spiritualism - Lesson #15
The views expressed in this lesson concerning Marx were reasonably stated and sensitively presented. Whatever one might think of Marx he certainly left a huge mark on history. One writer described him as a social scientist, political philosopher and revolutionary. In my view he was none of these things but a man who took Hegel's philosophy and turned it on its head - even Marx himself admitted doing this. Marx began his career as a romantic poet and political journalist before turning his attention to converting Hegel's dialectic ideas into a theory concerning the power of economics. He certainly grew up in the atmosphere of Hegel's philosophy but other influences acted upon him too e.g. his empirical study of working-class life and movement. Consequently, Marx rejected Hegel's political concepts and outlined his own sociological theory of the state which was not socialist but democratic. What "Spirit" was to Hegel were the forces of production to Marx. And where for Hegel ideas were confrontation for Marx it was competing socioeconomic classes that mattered. For Marx it was all about the material world rather than Hegel's "Geist" which Marx denied. It was class struggle that Marx understood as the recurring pattern of history i.e. the haves against the have nots. History showed that those in power pass laws to subdue the working classes so re-enforcing their economic dominance over them. And as Marx admitted to his daughter it was "servility" he detested above everything else. The class system had been present in ancient times in master/slave relationships, also in feudal times, in the Lord/serf relationship, and present now in the industrial age through the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie i.e. property owners) and the proletariat (working classes). It was, Marx believed, confrontation between these two groups which would bring about change. Marx argued that the industrial way of life sets the wealthy (a minority group) against the great mass of alienated, subsistence workers; a way of life that would eventually collapse under its own internal contradictions to produce a classless society in which work and its rewards would be equitably shared each according to his ability and needs. In such a society no one person would be higher than any other whether doctor or sweeper both would receive equal pay. But the only way to achieve this was for the instruments of economic-production to be held in common. For Marx it was here, in the real process of change, that Hegel's "dialectic" would be worked out in a perfect society where everyone worked together. And one can understand where Marx was coming from when we consider that he lived through the trauma of what today is described as the Industrial Revolution when western society changed from being a predominantly agricultural way of life to an industrial economy. Marx witnessed first-hand the dreadful fall-out of this on the poor when he moved to London, England during the time that Britain was first to industrialise becoming the Workshop of the World. But why was this change necessary? The population of England had begun to increase at the close of the seventeenth-century but by the eighteenth-century it had begun to rise rapidly. New ways had to be found to feed this rising population if Malthus' warning about starvation was to be averted. Prior to this people were cottagers, producing at home what they needed for themselves at a subsistence level. But as the need to grow more food increased, fields were enclosed, new crops introduced and selective breeding experimented with etc. which saw many labourers as well as yeoman farmers driven from the land to seek work in the newly emerging towns – they were becoming "alienated." But the new towns were crowded, crude, unhygienic and disease- ridden. Sanitary conditions in towns were revolting so that cholera was a regular visitor killing many. At this time there were no public health acts, no health service and no support for the needy. Many turned to drinking gin as a means of escape. This state of affairs persisted throughout most of the nineteenth-century while Marx was writing – and we need to set him against this context. With little control of industry, the absence of factory acts, and no escape for the poor the lot of the working classes was dire indeed. True, there were some enlightened employers (often Quakers) and other philanthropists who built homes for their employees and looked after their interests; but these were in the minority. Factories were dangerous places to work while young children were sent to work down coal mines often from dawn to dusk. For those who fell by the wayside their only chance of survival was the workhouse. Here, the old, the sick and the dispossessed were often treated as criminals i.e. husbands separated from wives; then made to wear "uniforms" and required to eat their meals in silencer. Even by the turn of the twentieth-century when Booth did his survey into the conditions of the poor in London the results were alarming. The poverty, hygiene, housing and deprivation were still very widespread. However, while Marx criticised religion as a fantasy it was the Church that intervened to educate the poor through Sunday schools and later day schools. Concerned people observed that on Sundays, the only day of the week children didn't have to work, they ran amuck without control. Sunday schools were introduced and proved to be a stabilising influence on them as were day schools, when they came into being later, even though the education offered was basic and primitive. But at this time in England Government was not interested in educating the masses although it did eventually take over this responsibility. But for Marx religion was not the answer; the only answer was total, social and political change. And I'm sure his intentions were honourable when we consider what has been described above. For Marx in this new classless society government would be by the leaders of the revolution (the communist party) – while the new state would be called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." At this point the "dialectic" would come to an end in a perfect society without dissent or criminality. Alienation would be over and freedom attained – the people would be in control their own economic forces which, after all, would be their own forces. It sounds like Utopia but the reality was very different. What Marx failed to understand is that while it might be possible to change society one cannot change human-nature which is power- hungry, self-centred and unreliable. And the final result? Totalitarianism leading to the extermination of millions – not Marx's intention as he only sowed the seed. It's a tragic tale of the suppression of the human-spirit which (being creative) cannot be silenced and will not be crushed. For God is in all and cannot be excluded from any part of his creation.
Rog
5th April 2016
The views expressed in this lesson concerning Marx were reasonably stated and sensitively presented. Whatever one might think of Marx he certainly left a huge mark on history. One writer described him as a social scientist, political philosopher and revolutionary. In my view he was none of these things but a man who took Hegel's philosophy and turned it on its head - even Marx himself admitted doing this. Marx began his career as a romantic poet and political journalist before turning his attention to converting Hegel's dialectic ideas into a theory concerning the power of economics. He certainly grew up in the atmosphere of Hegel's philosophy but other influences acted upon him too e.g. his empirical study of working-class life and movement. Consequently, Marx rejected Hegel's political concepts and outlined his own sociological theory of the state which was not socialist but democratic. What "Spirit" was to Hegel were the forces of production to Marx. And where for Hegel ideas were confrontation for Marx it was competing socioeconomic classes that mattered. For Marx it was all about the material world rather than Hegel's "Geist" which Marx denied. It was class struggle that Marx understood as the recurring pattern of history i.e. the haves against the have nots. History showed that those in power pass laws to subdue the working classes so re-enforcing their economic dominance over them. And as Marx admitted to his daughter it was "servility" he detested above everything else. The class system had been present in ancient times in master/slave relationships, also in feudal times, in the Lord/serf relationship, and present now in the industrial age through the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie i.e. property owners) and the proletariat (working classes). It was, Marx believed, confrontation between these two groups which would bring about change. Marx argued that the industrial way of life sets the wealthy (a minority group) against the great mass of alienated, subsistence workers; a way of life that would eventually collapse under its own internal contradictions to produce a classless society in which work and its rewards would be equitably shared each according to his ability and needs. In such a society no one person would be higher than any other whether doctor or sweeper both would receive equal pay. But the only way to achieve this was for the instruments of economic-production to be held in common. For Marx it was here, in the real process of change, that Hegel's "dialectic" would be worked out in a perfect society where everyone worked together. And one can understand where Marx was coming from when we consider that he lived through the trauma of what today is described as the Industrial Revolution when western society changed from being a predominantly agricultural way of life to an industrial economy. Marx witnessed first-hand the dreadful fall-out of this on the poor when he moved to London, England during the time that Britain was first to industrialise becoming the Workshop of the World. But why was this change necessary? The population of England had begun to increase at the close of the seventeenth-century but by the eighteenth-century it had begun to rise rapidly. New ways had to be found to feed this rising population if Malthus' warning about starvation was to be averted. Prior to this people were cottagers, producing at home what they needed for themselves at a subsistence level. But as the need to grow more food increased, fields were enclosed, new crops introduced and selective breeding experimented with etc. which saw many labourers as well as yeoman farmers driven from the land to seek work in the newly emerging towns – they were becoming "alienated." But the new towns were crowded, crude, unhygienic and disease- ridden. Sanitary conditions in towns were revolting so that cholera was a regular visitor killing many. At this time there were no public health acts, no health service and no support for the needy. Many turned to drinking gin as a means of escape. This state of affairs persisted throughout most of the nineteenth-century while Marx was writing – and we need to set him against this context. With little control of industry, the absence of factory acts, and no escape for the poor the lot of the working classes was dire indeed. True, there were some enlightened employers (often Quakers) and other philanthropists who built homes for their employees and looked after their interests; but these were in the minority. Factories were dangerous places to work while young children were sent to work down coal mines often from dawn to dusk. For those who fell by the wayside their only chance of survival was the workhouse. Here, the old, the sick and the dispossessed were often treated as criminals i.e. husbands separated from wives; then made to wear "uniforms" and required to eat their meals in silencer. Even by the turn of the twentieth-century when Booth did his survey into the conditions of the poor in London the results were alarming. The poverty, hygiene, housing and deprivation were still very widespread. However, while Marx criticised religion as a fantasy it was the Church that intervened to educate the poor through Sunday schools and later day schools. Concerned people observed that on Sundays, the only day of the week children didn't have to work, they ran amuck without control. Sunday schools were introduced and proved to be a stabilising influence on them as were day schools, when they came into being later, even though the education offered was basic and primitive. But at this time in England Government was not interested in educating the masses although it did eventually take over this responsibility. But for Marx religion was not the answer; the only answer was total, social and political change. And I'm sure his intentions were honourable when we consider what has been described above. For Marx in this new classless society government would be by the leaders of the revolution (the communist party) – while the new state would be called the "dictatorship of the proletariat." At this point the "dialectic" would come to an end in a perfect society without dissent or criminality. Alienation would be over and freedom attained – the people would be in control their own economic forces which, after all, would be their own forces. It sounds like Utopia but the reality was very different. What Marx failed to understand is that while it might be possible to change society one cannot change human-nature which is power- hungry, self-centred and unreliable. And the final result? Totalitarianism leading to the extermination of millions – not Marx's intention as he only sowed the seed. It's a tragic tale of the suppression of the human-spirit which (being creative) cannot be silenced and will not be crushed. For God is in all and cannot be excluded from any part of his creation.
Rog
5th April 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)