Looking back and surveying memories; there are periods of my adult life when I seem never to have experienced participation.
I mean those memories (characteristic of childhood, especially) that have a special and "romantic" quality. For example the visual memories that of are surrounded by a literal hazy glow; that seems to represent the experienced reality of us being part of the scene. The haziness represents that entities are not separate objects, but entities are instead concentrated or condensed from a single reality-field.
(You might say barriers between entities are "permeable" or that entities are "connected" - but actually it is more that entities were not separated in the first place - that it is the separation which is secondary and illusory.)
But it strikes me that there were long periods (extending up to a few years) throughout my adult life when my memories indicate that I did not experience this - when my memories are wholly mundane.
It is as if I remember that something happened, but in memory I am observing from the outside, as a mere description - I am not "in the scene", and indeed memory says I was not really in my life at these times.
And these periods when genuine participation was apparently absent, now seem in retrospect to be times when I was off the "destined" spiritual path of my life.
Analyzing the phenomenon; I seem to need both to personally to have the right attitude, and to be in the proper situation.
When I was not in the proper situation - for instance when I was pursuing the wrong aims or with the wrong people, or in the wrong place - then no amount of striving was able to induce that sense of participation.
In a basically-wrong situation - the harder I tried to attain romantic participation the more mistakes I made, the wronger the things I did.
Furthermore; even when I was in the right situation and properly aimed; there were situation in which I was deluding myself...
I mean, the things I "wanted" would need that I be an impossibly different person; or would need to inhabit a non-existent place or time (maybe somewhere else I could not go, or a time in the past and gone)...
For example; after becoming a Christian, I was sometimes drawn to types of Christianity that were fundamentally alien to my nature; that were, it now seems, based on a fantasy about what kind of person I would like to be but was not, and life-circumstances that I felt would be preferable but did not actually exist (and in which, even if they did exist, I would not be able to function).
All this has to do with a lack of intuition - to do with a superficial and external scheme of myself and the world; a fantasy scheme that, while appealing in a day-dreaming way, lacked positive and deep inner endorsement. Also, for which a deep inner endorsement simply could not be manufactured; instead only a kind of fake conformity and public support.
I seem to detect exactly this faked inner-endorsement in most of what I read from most self-identified Christians.
I do not believe that they intuitively believe that which they publicly affirm. It rings false. I infer they life in the same kind of superficial conformity to external structures and systems that I myself professed, and which memory now reveals was inauthentic.
I suppose that some people must live for such long periods (maybe all their adult lives?) without that "romantic" quality of experience I describe above. Maybe this happens because they have the wrong aims, or are in the wrong place, or among the wrong people...
Whatever the cause; because they are off the proper path of their spiritual destiny, they are like I was for those months or years in which memory indicates that I was not really "in" the world.
Perhaps they rationalize this situation as Real Life, or Necessary, or even as Best?
This may explain the active hostility to romanticism that is so prevalent.
The idea that romanticism is either outright evil, or at least liable to lead to evil: the insistence that the Good Life - the Christian life - ought to be lived at the secondary level of my memories "about" things, and to eschew those hazy, participative memories of being "in" my life and world.
Or that romanticism is deluded, a day-dream, people fooling themselves...
Whereas my memory tells me that it is romanticism that is reality, and the mundane is when people are fantasizing and telling themselves lies...
Self-lies which, deep down, they don't themselves believe, and which consign them to the mundane and the secondhand in life. But they dishonestly respond to their endemic and self-inflicted alienation by refusing to acknowledge their own unbelief - and by scorning the romantic.
I can't think of any arguments that would persuade such people. As usual - it is down to intuition applied to fundamental assumptions. Either we intuitively know that romanticism is right and best - or we don't.
NOTE ADDED: Why is this important? Well, it is not necessarily important too all people, all of the time; but it becomes important for some people when (on the one side) their faith is not strong enough to resist the many temptations from all around, to put the values of this world above eternal resurrected life in Heaven - or (on the other side) to regard this mortal life as ultimately futile, or essentially negative in its potential.
11 comments:
"after becoming a Christian, I was sometimes drawn to types of Christianity that were fundamentally alien to my nature; that were, it now seems, based on a fantasy about what kind of person I would like to be but was not, and life-circumstances that I felt would be preferable but did not actually exist (and in which, even if they did exist, I would not be able to function)."
some years ago, before the birdemic, I was attempting to become an orthodox christian and in retrospect I can see how it fits perfectly with what you described above. I have no idea if others are sincere or faking, but I know for sure that I would have been fooling myself.
related to this, the years I was trying to be a traditionalist, first catholic then orthodox then not knowing what (after the birdemic and before I found your blog), were the least creative in my life. in retrospect I was stunted, paralyzed - afraid to make a move or use my imagination because, according to the orthodox tradition especially, it is considered diabolic, nine times out of ten.
in time I have come to observe this in others as well, a paralysis of creativity in previously highly creative people. I had the opportunity to discuss this with others and they saw the same - in themselves and others. I have been thinking about this phenomenon for quite a while and couldn't quite put my finger on why - despite the teachings of orthodoxy, it was clearly not the case in earlier times, not to the same extent at least.
I think you have just given the answer, which is that these concerns are performative, not authentic, like they were in myself: and creativity has to come from a place of sincerity, of being our-selves, and when we run away from our selves, it dries up.
sorry for the rambling, but I'll finish with a question: have you observed this phenomenon, this drying up, in yourself and others?
thank you
Laeth
@Laeth - What you describe from your experience is also what I felt as a pressure: i.e "afraid to make a move or use my imagination because, according to the orthodox tradition especially, it is considered diabolic, nine times out of ten".
Did I see it in myself? - Yes. I felt it beginning to happen as soon as the early phase of exploration and understanding and moved onto the "performative" others. I felt that - from then onwards - my thinking (and secondarily writing) would just be variations on an established theme and within pre-set bounds. And I was trying to feel good and honest that this was necessary and wholesome, and tried to excoriate myself and repent for lapses.
Yes, I see it in others; people for whom you already know how they are going to answer any question or tackle any theme - in the sense that you know exactly where they will end-up, whatever the route taken.
I may find this dull, but I don't regard it as spiritually dangerous. On the other hand, much worse; is when I know that whatever deep problems that I see with their fundamental assumptions; these problems will be denied completely - and their assumptions will be asserted as necessary and binding facts.
The above sounds like postmodern sensation seeking, I expect. But in fact, after I had begun to arrive at my current basic theology, which was about a decade ago, the changes were more of the nature of filling in gaps and deepening understanding. I don't feel constrained, because I have a basic confidence that if I am honest and make the effort, then I will oscillate around truth and reality.
So I do not need to seek stimulation of excitement by change. What happens is that I become aware of something that does not satisfy, does not ring true, seems somehow dishonest when I state it - and I work on that. Sometimes it eventually leads to a trivial modification, sometimes more major. But I'm never bored with this activity (only bored when I can't or otherwise don't do it).
@Bruce,
I don't remember being 'bored' exactly with Orthodoxy, in general. the liturgy, at least, was always if nothing else an awesome aesthetic experience - in hindsight I think I was mostly engaging with it as an artistic performance (which of course it is too), but it nagged me that it should be 'more'. After a while, and thinking through the theology, I could see no point at all in this life - it just did not make any sense from the premises given, and so it just added to the fear of doing or thinking something not in line with what I was supposed to be thinking.
Perhaps this is related to your studies in the creative personality. Highly creative people tend to have a 'dark side', high neuroticism I think is the technical term, and hence they tend not to be 'nice people' in a conventional sense. For many reasons the traditional teachings of most religions, or at least of most typical paths in most religions, tend to try to correct or suppress this dark side, which in many ways is a good idea, especially as a default. But the result ends up being that it smothers the creativity of the creative soul, it directs the focus outward, towards more direct and 'normal' ways of 'doing good' - and for the creative personality this means more or less killing or dulling a part of themselves, the part that makes them who they are, and not someone else.
@Laeth - "creative people tend to have a 'dark side', high neuroticism I think is the technical term"
It's actually psychoticism (as argued by Eysenck) although I reconceptualised this a the Endogenous Personality.
https://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/search?q=psychoticism
"smothers the creativity of the creative soul, it directs the focus outward, towards more direct and 'normal' ways of 'doing good' "
I think what it actually has done is much worse than smothering a few creatives; it pushes the most innerly-driven, most creative people, outside of Christianity; and (usually, therefore - given the options) onto the anti-Christian side. So, for some 200-plus years, we have have most of the most-creative people working against Christianity - because there was no place for them inside.
This choosing the side of darkness is, of course, a personal choice, for which the evil genius is personally responsible - but the fact is there are (ever fewer, with each generation!) exceptions such as Tolkien - but that is why Tolkien is such a rare beacon. And most of these exceptions highly-creative Christian exceptions are shunned by the orthodox/ mainstream Christians as heretical (or even categorized as Not Christian) - such as William Blake, Steiner, Barfield (or Arkle).
Indeed, among a slice of the US evangelical Protestants; even Tolkien and CS Lewis (as well as JK Rowling of the Deathly Hallows era) are vilified as pro-demonic.
My point is that the exclusion of the most genuinely innerly-driven creatives from what-counts-as-Christianity, has undoubtedly strengthened The Enemy, and hastened the death of orthodox/ church-based Christianity - and continues to do so.
On the other side; in an ultimate sense this shift of Christianity to being rooted in the personal is both inevitable and Good. The problem is therefore not so much the decline of churches, as the impression created by orthodoxy that to be against "Church X" or "denomination Y" means you are not and cannot be "A Christian".
This is just about the most damagingly anti-Christian strategy it is possible to imagine - yet that is precisely what has happened!
@Bruce
Psychoticism, yes. was recalling from memory. apologies.
and I agree, that's what it used to do - pushing creatives away from Jesus. but I don't know if that's the main case anymore. As with many things, I think the circumstances have changed dramatically. I don't see any creativity really in the enemies of God, none whatsoever, neither on the part of Ahriman nor on the part of Sorath (for different reasons, real creativity is undesirable for both). The problem now, as I see it, is really that the creative personalities have realized that indeed the left has nothing to offer in terms of creativity (it was debatable before, but no more). But now the creatives really tend to go, perhaps as overcompensation, to the side of traditionalism, and hence smother themselves voluntarily. And, now as much as before, we need them to be what they are, and be on the side of Good - both things at the same time.
About the 'dark side' I wasn't saying to 'choose darkness' exactly, nor even equating the darkness with evil - I think they are different, although they can overlap, but not always. I would consider industrialism/ahriman a form of Light-Evil, not Dark-Evil, and for example Romanticism I would consider Dark-Good, not Light-Good. what I meant was that this darkness is, in many ways, and as it's written, 'where the light shines'. Where there is only light, seeing is all but impossible - which is more or less what I think happened to the churches and the pushing away, and now voluntary smothering, of creativity. Not completely of course, but enough to be notceable and pernicious. Because the 'rule-following' and 'playing it safe' cannot not challenge Ahriman - in fact, it serves it - and only real creativity can counter the desire for real destruction from Sorath.
@Laeth - " smother themselves voluntarily"
I take your point. Although careerism has been a more usual cause of this IMO - at least it was while I was still working in academia. It has become impossible to combine a career with creativity - e.g. in science or the arts. Creativity must occur outside of the major institutions; as an amateur, and without (significant) money changing hands.
(You can see this even in blogging. Monetized blogs or those linked to businesses or selling stuff/ books are all fundamentally mainstream in perspective; addicted to this-worldly optimism - none allow themselves to recognize how bad things actually are.)
About your dark-light distinction - not sure about that. To me, it sounds a bit like a variation on what I regard as the false dichotomy of "lawful versus chaos" (or order versus entropy).
As you know, I have come to believe that creativity is primary and its own thing - and transcends the order-chaos distinction.
"In a basically-wrong situation - the harder I tried to attain romantic participation the more mistakes I made, the wronger the things I did."
Are you able to make an effort that is rightly aligned when you are off target?
[I have trouble understanding your exhortations on 'choice' and 'agency.' When you write directly on such themes it reads as if your assumption is one has it, or, but for the exercise of it. Yet when you address these themes - of something missing - it reads more like one cannot turn the ship around by simply willing it. If you do requests, I'd like a post ruminating on choice during fallow periods.]
@to - This isn't a subtle point.
It is, surely, generally acknowledged that we cannot behave as we want? We have ideals, but do not and cannot live up to them.
This is the same kind of thing.
Ah sorry. I was interested in your take on what one *does* about that non-subtle point. That one can persist and make things wronger is familiar. A mystery (to me) is what induces my coming to my senses? I don't experience it as volitional; something eventually dawns on me and in *retrospect* I realize I was off key. My query was whether or not you had to wait until you saw it in the rear-view mirror, or really could alter course against the flow in real time - which to me would be an indicator of real agency and/or will.... A lot of your spiels question the reliance on external influences, which to my eye is another way of saying agency and will are in abeyance. No matter. I guess one of the hazards of writing a blog is you have to suffer what your readers make of it.
@to (BTW, you submitted your comment in triplicate. The blog comments are moderated, which sometimes takes me a few hours/ overnight).
"My query was whether or not you had to wait until you saw it in the rear-view mirror, or really could alter course against the flow in real time - which to me would be an indicator of real agency and/or will.... A lot of your spiels question the reliance on external influences, which to my eye is another way of saying agency and will are in abeyance. "
In a sense we always see in the rear view mirror, in that consciousness is secondary - it has awareness of that which has already come into existence. But, with that proviso, yes it does happen in real time, if that is what is chosen (although most people apparently find an inner resistance to such a change of course).
My recent spiels are often suggesting that people are indeed making inner choices, and are not merely being blown around by external influences; but that they deny the reality of these inner choices - they strenuously refuse moral responsibility for their actual choices.
For instance, I think that most modern religous traditionalists are continually making inner sdiscernments and choices, but dishonestly present the process as a humble obedience to what they assert is obviously and undeniably valid authority - which is an objective reality independent of their own evaluations.
Don't know how that happened. Thanks for the reply. I had taken you to mean unconscious of not in denial of. And that you put consciousness second gave me a start, although I don't know why.
Post a Comment