As part of my PoF studies, I want to ask myself how the main themes of Chapter Two are expressed in my own character.
How do I oppose Nature in thought, word and deed? I can answer that for two of my friends, but it's not so easy to answer for myself.
My friend Ellen, a tiny fireball of a farmer, wields her will like a flaming sword against all the climate-enhanced entropy of the semi-tropical island where she lives. She seems to get smaller every year, as if in the working of her loving purposes into the world she burned off more of her own physical substance than all that fresh cream and coconut could replace.
Ellen doesn't understand why anyone would ever require coffee, or a computer. And woe betide the slow-sitted person who doesn't instantly grasp the relevant parts of her lightning-fast demonstration of some small but crucial household chore!
My friend Rachel is in some ways Ellen's exact opposite. In all her long life she has never learned how to cook. Her opposition against Nature takes the form of extreme compassion for all living things, including each individual in the trail of tiny ants that periodically invade her condominium.
The world is not as Rachel wants it to be, because suffering exists, and because certain old people, who were the shining lights of their generation, are passing out of the world, to be replaced by callous, empty-headed, greedy philistines. Rachel is like Ellen, however, in the way that she burns up her own body in her work, which is now the devoted care she gives her bedridden mother, who is one of those shining lights about to go out.
I can see my friends' opposition against and their unifying with Nature, partly just by contrasting them with myself, which is easy because I have a contrary disposition. When someone is a buzzing bee, like Ellen, I turn into an elephant. When someone else is compassionate toward a whole trail of ants in her sink, I show my impatient, practical side.
Perhaps this almost compulsive tendency to polarize a situation gives a contrary person the experience of many points of view. You have to grasp something of the other person's point of view and thinking, in order to oppose it. This gives you a kind of flexibility just to facilitate your obstinancy. But this grasping can be almost unconscious, due to its semi-compulsive nature.
I've been learning to become more conscious of this grasping, in order to appreciate more fully the other person's point of view, without having to oppose it all the time. My next step is to learn how to see the world through their eyes, and try to think with their thoughts.
Goethe
Here is one of my favorite quotes from "Goethe's World View"
(p. 7,8)
'A problem which the person believes he has solved takes away from from him the possibility of seeing clearly a thousand things that fall into the domain of this problem. He is no longer attentive to them,because he believes himself to be enlightened abouth the region into which they fall. Goethe would rather have two opposing opinions about an issue than ONE definite one. For each thing seems to him to comprise an infinitude, which one must approach from different sides in order to percieve something of its entire fullness.
"It is said that the truth lies midway between two opposing opinions. Not at all! It is the problem that lies between, the unseeable, the eternally active life, thought of as at rest."
Goethe wants to keep his thoughts alive so that he could transform them at any moment, if reality should induce him to do so. He does not want to be right; he wants always "to be going after what is right"
At two different points in time he expresses himself differently abouth the same thing. A rigid theory, which wants once and for all to bring to expression the lawfulness of s series of phenomena, is suspect to him, because such a theory takes away from our power of knowledge its unbiased relationship to a mobile reality"
Great comment, Jay! I
Great comment, Jay! I especially like the idea that the truth is not some average, like a bunch of numbers added up and then divided so as to arrive at a mere corpse of a number with no relation to anything living. If the 12 points of view are real, then it would have to be that none is dispensible!
Or imagine if all the notes of a symphony were translated to numbers and then that was all averaged out to arrive at one number that was then turned back into one note! Ghastly!
Salesmen
If I could add my own quote on to the end of that it would be:
"And if anyone says anything different, they are selling something."
Richard Dawkins is Not a Goethe of the Spirit
Hi,
I'm reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" at the moment (I will post a report on my experience of his world view shortly). In the meantime Jay's quote above has really helped open my eyes to a quality of Dawkins' approach to "the God problem":
A problem which the person believes he has solved takes away from him the possibility of seeing clearly a thousand things that fall into the domain of this problem. He is no longer attentive to them,because he believes himself to be enlightened abouth the region into which they fall.
For all his clear thinking and open-mindedness in some areas, Dawkins is not a Goethe in the realm of human spirituality because he believes he has solved the "problem" of God. His solution is that God does not exist.
For that reason, as soon as he ventures into the area of religion and spirituality (as he does in the first few chapters of this book), I find that he is literally stumbling around in the dark:
In contrast, as soon as Dawkins reaches the point of debunking the arguments of Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents, he is once again on firmer ground in his search for truth - because, for example, he is willing to start from the beginning when addressing a certain example raised by Creationists and honestly admit the possibility that complex organs might not be able to develop gradually.
From there he is quite willing to follow a more realistic path: he will think about whether, for example, half an eye might be of some use to an animal, and he will also observe nature to see whether something like half an eye actually exists (which it does).
However, he would like to apply a "scientific" approach to God without really understanding the problem - for example, Christians believe in the power of prayer, an experiment is done which indicates that prayer has no effect on people's health, therefore God does not exist.
It appears that Dawkins believes God is proposed as a solution to the problem of how ever more complex life forms appear in the universe - which is a very one-sided view of the whole state of affairs!
In the spirit of Lori's comment, I think that extreme characters like Dawkins (I met his Australian equivalent, Ian Plimer, once and he was very similar) are destined to be the eternal opposition for the Creationist/Intelligent Design lobby because each side is blind to what the other offers.
If only the "Intelligent Design" lobby would reserve a bit of that "Intelligence" they attribute to this fellow "God" for themselves that would be a good thing!
On the other hand, if only Dawkins, Plimer and others would see that the "God" they believe they are disproving is just a straw man of their own creation they might look a bit more deeply into the whole matter and perhaps develop a little more humility, reverence and openness in their approach to such matters.
The problem to me is that the thinking of both Creationists and Dawkins is deeply rooted in Materialism, but neither side is willing to examine what that really means and whether they need to see the world from other viewpoints also.
Problems
I so agree with this analysis, and resonate with Lori's experience and am in awe of the Goethe quote, but...
I can't help the thought coming in to my mind that as long as we locate the problem in someone else (ie Dawkins and the Creationists) then all our endeavours are going to take us in a circle. Am I being absurd to ask "what can I do?" after the analysis of the situation, rather than "what could they do diffently?"?
Opposition is True Friendship
Hi Sebastian,
Thank you, it is very easy to fall into negative thought patterns which as you say are not necessarily helpful for the future.
I don't necessarily see this situation as a problem, I've come to realise after observing the creationist/scientific debate for a while that the two extreme parties need each other to strengthen their own resolve, sharpen their wits in the debate etc. They seem happy throwing themselves endlessly into the same debate, perhaps even fulfilled in a certain way!
In William Blake's memorable phrase "Opposition is true friendship". I think that's something of what Lori was getting at in this post also.
Perhaps my "if only" comments are almost meant in the sense of a wishful parent, friend or similar who sees someone else going off on what they think is a wrong path - very patronising of course so maybe one thing I need to do is be more accepting and have the thought that there will be reasons why such people appear to get "stuck" into a certain way of thinking/looking at the world.
As for "the God Delusion" itself I am happy to live in a society where such a book can be written and read freely along with many others.
I think what I can do is take what he says seriously, think, observe and draw my own conclusions. Dawkins is certainly able at least to point us to the fact that our picturings/imaginings/thoughts about the divine are often inaccurate, poorly thought through and subjected to excessive wishful thinking - in fact we often try and "protect" our thoughts about the divine from our own rational thought, something Steiner fortunately was not so prone to!
By the way, if you want a great conversation starter just leave a copy of "The God Delusion" lying around in a prominent location - the cover does rather draw people's attention, whatever you think about the contents!
Regards,
Tim Bourke
It glared at me in the airport a couple of days ago
Hi Tim,
I couldn't bring myself to buy it although I knew I should. The thought of all the feelings that would rise up, and all that challenging thinking... I'm so impressed that you have read it!
Your conversation starter is a good temptation though.., I wonder if I'm ready to read it now, after these last few weeks working with POF on this web site - I have certainly experienced changes in my life as a result...
S.
Harris
Interesting - have you read Sam Harris's book "End of Faith" (I have not but have perused significant portions of it)...
If so what did you think of it?
Sam Harris
Hi Jay,
No I haven't read that one but Dawkins does quote Harris extensively and is, I believe, in a similar "camp" - anyway, Dawkins' very definitely expressed opinion in the part of the book I've read so far is that religion should be completely done away with because of all the evils it entails.
Regards
Tim Bourke
It's kind of odd, but
It's kind of odd, but that's what my friend Rachel, the infinitely compassionate one I just wrote about, also thinks about religion. She just loathes all the evil things done in the name of whatever God it might be. "Why can't people just forget about religion and learn to get along?" she often says. I guess she's a "humanist," if you have to classify her. She thinks Anthrosposophy is a cult, even though I've told her a hundred times it's not a religion. I don't talk to her about it anymore.
In the name of religion
Lori, you could tell your friend if the evil things were not done in the name of religion they would be done under another name. It's the forces that we have to become aware of, not the packaging. I like nietzsche's comment that'religion is the tinsel with which we deck out our weaknesses.' Dawkins decks out his weaknesess in different ways.
Agree
I agree
This is a good suggestion,
This is a good suggestion, Simon, and I'll try it out next time my friend laments the existence of religion!
Thanks!
L
Dawkinsology!
Thanks for your comments on Dawkins. As you point out, Dawkins is part of the appalling polarisations that abound at the present time, with little sign of any clarity or intelligence. I have heard people in the scientific profession maintain that Dawkins has the last word on our biology and evolution and as such it is a truth statement. They all conveniently shove thinking into a blind spot whilst ignoring a host of paradoxes in what they say.
Anyone making 'truth' assertions has a hidden motive which runs counter to how their theories work. The model of mankind as machines suits certain vested interests and, of course, it feels good to be 'in control'.
Agree
Yes, I agree with this too.
Post new comment