One of the ways in which we are misled and fall prey to temptation; is is having a false picture of our core assumptions. For instance, Christians have been led deep into sin and desired-damnation, by false pictures of the nature of Love - such as regarding love as essentially an emotion.
Another potential problem lies in conceptualizing Purpose in life. Most Christians would recognize that we need purpose in life, and that purpose is focused on resurrected eternal life in Heaven. But what it is to have A Purpose, is often unclear or inaccurate.
If pressed for an answer; I guess that most people would have a picture of purpose in life as something like a shining lamp, up ahead, towards which they are striving. A vision of where they want to be, and what they want to be doing.
The difficulties with such a picture is that it is (again, as with the example of love) very much about emotions; secondly it entails a separation of here-and-now from the-goal. It raises all kind of means-and-ends problems about how we ought to get from here to there - and almost inevitably our actual mortal lives (here-and-now) start to seem like merely a means to the end of Heaven.
In other worlds, we tend to devalue this life, as something we want to get-through, get out of the way, over and done-with - soon as possible.
By this way of thinking; we don't want to be here (earth), we instead want to be there (Heaven). And the journey (mortal life) is an annoying delay.
But if (as I believe) this mortal life is important - for as long a God sustains it - then this is a mistaken attitude. We are wishing-away something that God is sustaining us through - for, no doubt, good reasons.
Thus the idea (which I believe true) of mortal life as learning.
Yes, mortal life is indeed a temporary and transitional phase, and considered-of-itself therefore evanescent. But its learning consequences may be everlasting - may affect of post-mortal life for eternity: especially if we are able to learn those life-lessons that God provides for each of us, according to our need and benefit.
What all this implies is the need for a picture of (or perhaps a metaphor for) purpose in mortal life, that gives proper value to this life.
Also, to be effective, it needs to be the kind-of-picture that is in-practice suitable to motivate Modern Men - as we actually-are.
And I mean by this that we cannot any longer depend on spontaneous and unconsciously right-understandings; our situation begins with alienation, cut-offness, most often an assumed materialism.
This means that our picture of life's purpose needs to be something consciously chosen - therefore the kind-of-thing than can be chosen.
Negatively; this means our purpose can't depend heavily on emotions; it cannot be underpinned by emotions - because we can't choose to have particular emotions, and we need to be able to continue with our purpose even when (as will surely happen) emotions are adverse.
In other words; our purpose needs to be more like an understanding of reality, than like an emotional drive.
So, what kind of picture of purpose fits the bill? I think the answer is that the picture should be an assumption. We choose to assume that such-and-such is true reality.
Choosing to assume that the picture is real means various things - firstly that we want our world-picture to be real, and also that we regard the world-picture as really-real (at least in essence, if not in detail).
Both wanting it and regarding it as true, is the combination that makes for motivation.
I suppose we could consider the picture as a God's Eye-View of our mortal life and beyond; by which we see mortal life from the outside, as one part of a larger and more complex scheme.
Form such a perspective, we can see that the problem with the "lamp" analogy for purpose in life, is that it is a Man's-Eye-View - which is why it fails to see properly beyond death, and hastens towards Heaven without proper regard for Earth.
By our eternal natures; we all have the divine within us; however weakly or imperfectly - and it is this innate divinity (if we acknowledge it) which enables us validly to take a God's-Eye-View on things, and to know that the picture is essentially valid.
3 comments:
I really enjoyed this post, thanks.
Guenon often talks about "intent" and it seems to be a crucial thing for him. I don't fully understand what he means, but, for example, he speaks of the appropriate *intent* for a ritual. And also, that there is an appropriate *intent* towards life or experience.
The Shakespeare quote about all life being a play comes to mind, and my own occasional sense that I am acting out a role God wrote for me and that I should give it my best even if it is a very minor bit part.
This is not quite what you were talking about, but I was struck by the thought as I read, and thought you might find it interesting.
As always, thanks for your posts. They mean a lot to me and rhey make a difference in my life.
@S - Thanks. My guess is that Guenon is supporting the broadly Romantic Christian point that - as Man's consciousness has changed - so has the nature of (for example) a ritual.
(To simplify) In the past, say High Medieval times, the performance of a ritual had an "objective" effect: that is, the participation in a ritual *made* the participants think alike, be motivated alike etc. The external passed into the internal.
Nowadays this has weakened greatly or even ceased to operate; and ritual no longer works in this objective (almost irresistible) manner.
What matters now (at least in a positive sense) is the internal - and the external is secondary - it may help or may hinder the internal, but does not "compel" it, in the way it used to.
I would say that because of the greater ease of destruction than creation, ritual continues to be pretty effective in a destructive way - but not in a positive, Christian way. So the rituals of leftism (the "training" in antiracism, for example), which employees are compelled to participate-in, do have some negative and destructive effect on the participants. Simply because it is much easier to encourage sin than to virtue.
Likewise the rituals of the birdemic succeeded in creating (the sin of) fear; but it would Not be possible to use these same methods to encourage (i.e. fill with courage) people.
I'm not able to say if Guenon was a Romantic Christian. He was a Traditionalist (THE Traditionalist) and took the view that there was a Tradition temporaly prior to and over and behind Christianity.
For the record, Guenon was opposed to Steiner and Theosophy. He viewed them as "syncretists" as opposed to his "synthesism". Rightly or wrongly, he put Steiner in the same box as Blavatsky and Theosophists generally. And felt they had cobbled together their various teachings and that these teachings lacked unity with what he would call Truth (capital T). His own teachings, he felt, were unitary and in accord with the Primordial Tradition (capital P and T). This Tradition reflected not only reality here, but also the "reality" of the supra-human states. Note that both he and the Theosohphists made claim to possession of esoteric data which originated in a real geographic place populated by real living people who were themselves in possession of the Truth and have been so without breaks since the "beginning".
As to a consciousness change... I suppose so, if humanity is considered as a whole and their mindset is what we are talking about. I think he would say that because time is cyclic and we are in the very bottom of a Kali Yuga, that Truth and Tradition has withdrawn very far from humanity. It still exists and is still accessible to a tiny select and privileged few but is de facto non-existent. Almost everyone is Thomistic "matter" at this point. Even in his time, he felt that there was no connection available in The West. Specifically, that all initiatory organizations in The West had no more connection with the Tradition and Shangri-la (or whatever one calls the geographic seat of the Tradition). He did believe that this connection still existed in The East when he was writing. This is why he himself moved East and converted to Islam (Islam being chosen as his mentors thought that religion was most conducive to him personally).
I think Guenon would say that Ritual (from sanskrit "rta" or "right action") still works but is simply not available. And moreover, that it cannot be perverted and is indeed "irresistible". And that despite the participation of ignorant and even immoral people on either side... For him "qualification" to perform or participate in a Ritual was about things other than morals or understanding. Likewise, the transmission of the initiatory gift was not predicated on the sophistification or inherent qualities of the passer-on....
I also think Guenon would say that Ritual cannot be destructive definitionally. It is "right action" which means it is in accord with all levels of existence and brings the participants into that accord.
Now, Guenon was quite insistent that there was a thing callled "The Counter-Tradition" that was made up of people and entities opposed to Tradition. I don't remember him discussing any counter-rituals of the Counter-Tradition. But that sounds very possible and lots of things today seem to take that form.
Two interesting things about the Counter-Tradition:
1) it is totally cut off from the higher states of existence. It exists only on our level and lower. It is very fond of the "psychic" realm and lower states of existence.
2) Guenon usually says something like "... to the extent it (Counter-Tradition) can be opposed". The idea being that direct opposition of the Counter-Tradition is almost always counter(!)-productive. I really like that idea and it feels like something you might say (I think).
sorry for the long reply and if I stated things you already knew.
Post a Comment