Last night we looked at various aspects of symbolism. We reflected on symbols used in the titles of well-known mystical works, such as 'The Cloud of Unknowing' and 'The Interior Castle'.
We also looked at characteristic symbols used to describe spiritual progress ('ladder' 'maze' 'path'), and our multi-faceted relationship with the Ineffable: Hildegarde's 'a feather on the breath of God', St Teresa's 'spiritual marriage', and or even being hounded, as in Francis Thompson's 'The Hound of Heaven' - 'Whither shall I flee from Thy Spirit'.
We mentioned in passing the idea of the complementary paths: the Via Affirmativa and the Via Negativa, which we'll come back to later in the course. Meanwhile, here is a quote from Damascius: 'The universe is double: that which is seen and that which is not seen - the world within the world we see. The seen is a symbol of the unseen, the material a parable of the real. The visible world is the garment and drapery of God.'
We'll pick up next time with what we really mean by the unseen - it refers to more than that which just happens to be invisible to the eye. It is that which can only be approached by intellect in its fullest sense.
The next session will be at 7.00pm Tuesday 10th February.
"The visible world is the garment and drapery of God."
ReplyDeleteThis metaphor reminds me powerfully of the physicist David Bohm's concept of the implicate or "enfolded" order in the universe which he saw as having the potential to unify apparently contradictory phenomena (like quantum theory and relativity theory) at a deeper level. Bohm favoured complexity and uncertainty over more reductionist, fundamentalist or static concepts. Very much can be unseen by us, as still more (of science in particular) was unseen in earlier ages.
These ideas, originally formulated in the 80s, are not particularly well-known or well-accepted in the contemporary scientific world, but do offer a greater degree of accessibility to those who, even with some scientific training like me, cannot quite follow every turn of the experimental developments. There's no question - physics is hard, and mathematics perhaps more of an Art. But a highly abstract idea such as this has the potential to allow the holding in mind of contraditions or conflicts between the spiritual and the scientific approaches.
Bohm was also anxious to promote non-argumentative, non-emotive dialogue (a term preferred to "discussion" between those who held contradictory views). This echoes his insight that perspective changes the appearance of things.
I look forward to catching up before the next session.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe following article by Montague Brown, taken from the Catholic Education Resource Centre (CREC) provides further clarity and a perspective that allows us to engage in the exchange of ideas with greater confidence and trust.
ReplyDelete“Discussion =- sharing ideas for the sake of truth
Discussion presupposes some degree of rational disagreement between us or at least a lack of consensus. If I agreed with you already, we would have nothing to discuss. In a discussion, I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth. If I do not think that what you say is true, then I disagree, stating my reasons as clearly as possible and without animosity. The same is true for you: you present me with your reasons. By sharing our ideas freely and maturely, we hope to arrive at a deeper truth. In a discussion, disagreement is for the sake of agreement.
Discussions may occur in all sorts of contexts. Scientists come together to discuss the results of their research, hoping to learn from each other. Seminars are designed to encourage discussion among participants, for in such a dialogue new insights and deeper truths may emerge. Among family members, discussions seek mutual understanding of relationships and responsibilities. Legislative discussions are central to the political ideal of representative government.
Argument = fighting over ideas for personal victory
An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible.
Although they may have rational grounds for disagreement in the first place, all arguments include an element of bad faith — we are not, with all honesty, pursuing the truth together. Rather, in an argument I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth. Instead of my following reason and leaving passion aside, passion is primary, and reason (if it has a role) works in the service of passion. Quite often, in order to end an argument, we agree to disagree.
Arguments often displace fruitful discussions. Scientists may refuse to share information, accusing each other of stealing ideas. Seminar discussions may degenerate into passionate yelling matches if the participants do not focus on the common work of coming to the truth. Family squabbles may replace open discussions so that power rules in place of reason. Politicians may forget their common purpose in promoting community and turn to character assassination."
If we approach with the attitude that we are all genuine seekers of Truth, then our individual 'complexities' and 'uncertainties' can only be illumined by mental exchanges with like minded others who are also committed to the use of Reason.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/philosophy/discussion-argument.html