Philip Pilkington has written a piece about the problem with individualism and myths, a topic I have written on also. While I agree with the bulk of what he has to say, and I offer some of my own comments (these are taken from a paper in review, a copy is available on request) in what follows, I feel he misses the true culprits in criticising Adam Smith.Magic, Maths, and Money — The relationship between science and finance
Individuality and reciprocity
Tim Johnson — Academic Fellow in the Department of Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh
I just happened on Tim Johnson's blog. Very interesting indeed. He has some very thought provoking posts that I'll have to take a look at. He has an impressive breadth and depth of knowledge.
15 comments:
"and three ‘Christian’ virtues; Hope (Spes); Faith (Fides); and Charity (Caritas). "
This looks like it comes right out of the King James Version of the Greek Scriptures:
"And now abideth faith,
hope, charity, these three; but
the greatest of these [is]
charity." 1 Cor 13:13 KJV
Faith: pistis (belief)
Hope: elpis (expectation)
Charity: agape (devine/spiritual love)
So SHOULD read "faith, expectation, love"
Or like this:
"Yet now are remaining faith, expectation, love -- these three. Yet the greatest of these is love."
Question is: Is agpape correctly translated "charity", or elpis "hope" ... I say NO WAY.
Here is an interlinear:
http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co13.pdf
FALSE: "faith, hope, charity"
TRUE: "faith, expectation, love"
This mis-translation has caused BIG problems in Christendom for centuries imo... charity is a snare (faith thru works which leads to BOASTING, etc..) we are recipients of the love of the Devine and we're not to think of ourselves as in hope, but rather we have an expectation.
The post even implies 'agape' is spiritual love here:
"and agape (spiritual love, Antonio/Bassanio, Shylock’s deficit), clear themes running through the play. We would suggest that the problem Graeber should be tackling in his discussion of debt is not the presence of reciprocity but rather the absence of Charity."
But then he goes back to 'charity' here with the Graeber reference????
Which one is it? 'spiritual love' or 'charity'????? These two are NOT the same thing... the SINGULAR Greek word is 'agape' and I dont believe it has two completely different meanings...
Charity??? I dont even know if a Greek word that could be translated to English "charity" appears in the Greek Scriptures...
rsp,
I am not an expert on Biblical scripture, however I would make the following points in my defence.
It is my understanding that agape, and the four types of love, originates in pre-Christian Greek philosophy, particularly in Niocomachean Ethics, these were integrated into Christianity. Caritas/Charity came in Latin translations of the original Greek. The Oxford English Dictionary (my primary source as I am English) has the primary definition of "Charity" as
1. Christian love: a word representing caritas of the Vulgate, as a frequent rendering of ἀγάπη in N.T. Greek. With various applications: as
b. Man's love of God and his neighbour, commanded as the fulfilling of the Law, Matt. xxii. 37, 39
On the issue of "hope"/"expectation", the standard Latin translation of elpis is spes, which is closer to hope than expectation. The French use the word esperance when referring to mathematical expectation, and Huygens had problems choosing the word expectatio over spes in the first textbook on probability De Ratiociniis in Ludo Aleae
Charity is a tool of the powerful to justify the status quo, period.
"Look, we have 10 bones for 8 dogs, and we want to keep it that way, but we will give you 0.01 bones time to time to keep you fine. You have HOPE."
I would also say that hope is also a powerful emotion used against the masses. See for example, the 'american dream' is completely based around hope. However we know mathematically is impossible for every american to achieve the so called 'american dream'.
You see emotions trump logic and reason, and how these emotions are used against people own interests.
Tim,
Thanks for your info... that is interesting what you posted about the Oxford definition of 'charity'...
I think that is an important distinction (another time) but if I may point out what I see we face here in the US today;
Here is dictionary.com:
char·i·ty [char-i-tee] noun, plural char·i·ties.
1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3. a charitable act or work.
4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5. benevolent feeling, especially toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
Then I would point to this article as an example as to how many on the Christian right here in the US interpret the relationship between these "charities" and government:
http://cnsnews.com/blog/kristina-hernandez/ryan-s-budget-catholic-charity-and-principle-subsidiarity
Excerpt:
"The Catholic Church calls this approach the principle of subsidiarity, which means that individuals, families and communities should be free to care for their own needs and the needs of others on a level apart from the government. Too much government regulation and control over our daily lives can lead to the removal of personal liberty and individual freedom. Paul Ryan adheres to these principles and attempted to put them into action in his budget.
Like other charities, the Missionaries of Charity are dependent upon the goodwill of others. As the economy suffers, so they suffer, and those they care for, as well. When families are struggling to make ends meet or can’t find work, charitable donations are substantially lessened.
Catholics like Paul Ryan understand that Medicare and Social Security will not be around for their kids – nor will the resources needed to fund community groups that do take care of the poor - if no action is taken now."
The first paragraph shows how this person and many others like her here in the US are caught up in the same atheist philosophy as Paul Ryan ... ie social Darwinism and then if "you cant cut it", then it's scraps from the rich man's table for you... this I am positive is demonic.
The second paragraph demonstrates that these people do not understand macroeconomics under a monetary economy utilizing a state currency.... They are blind to this.
And the last segment I bolded is COMPLETELY FALSE and absurd. She cant see that she implies that we wont have the "resources to fund" yet she implies that there WILL be real people available to provide the real goods, services and care; this is absurd, irrational reasoning... stupid.
What this person advocates for with "action taken now" is NO DIFFERENT than the "death panels" that the right warns against from the left; it will result in denial of income for necessities and medical care to our seniors ...
IMO the modern view and/or definition of "charity" is a large part responsible for this chaos...
Example: Here is Paul again from 1 Cor 13:
3 And if ever I should be morselling out all my possessions, and if I should be giving up my body, that I should be boasting, yet may have no love, in nothing do I benefit."
If you use the word "charity" instead of "love" here under the modern day definition this would read like: "If I give everything to charity yet may have no charity..." Whaaaaaaat???? This is absurd and obviously cannot be a correct translation of what Paul was teaching about 'agape' here...
Beware of today's 'charity'... rsp,
Ignacio,
Right ... Oh we have hope! ... let us hope and pray we are one of the 8 dogs! ... Let us hope and pray that the invisible hand will magically allocate a bone for us!
This is all absurd and NOT scriptural imo... rsp,
Matt,
I agree with you that there is a problem with the modern version of charity, which I feel developed in the nineteenth century when the virtues were sentimentalised: charity became giving, courage became killing, temperance became abstaining and hope a panacea. I think before the 1700s the virtues were much more robust
Matt, Tim is correct in assuming that Latin caritas is technically equivalent to Greek agape because the Church Fathers, who wrote Greek simply imported the four "natural" virtues of the classical Greeks with the three theological virtues. But the evolution of these terms bears examination since their meaning was transformed historically owing to change in context.
"Virtue" is also a word that is understood differently in modern English from its Greek equivalent, arete. Arete meant excellence of nature, as in an excellent man, an excellent horse, an excellent sword, etc. Arete signifying excellence and aristos meaning "best" come from the same root. The poets called the heroes "the best of men." Latin virtus was used to translate Greek arete. Vir means "a real man" homo which signifies a human being. Poets used vir and virtus wrt the heroes as men of courage and manliness. Virtus, like agape signified having demonstrated excellence as a man, i.e., valor. Like arete, virtus originally meant excellence of nature rather than adherence to moral standards.
Initially, the Greek and Latin terms related to "virtue" did not have a chiefly moral significance. However, when applied in Christian theology and doctrine, the meaning of "virtue" came principally moral, and moral specifically in terms of the Christian code of morality. This resulted in the theological use and doctrinal use becoming considerably at odds with the ancient Greek and Roman ordinary and poetic use.
Nietzsche, pining for the return of the time of the hero, that is, the Übermensch, railed against the Christian concept of virtue as a negation of life rather than the celebration of the exemplar of "manliness." Nietzsche felt that Wagner had betrayed the cause not only by succumbing to Schopenhauer's Orientalism but also by representing Parsifal as having attained the culmination of the hero through renunciation and the acquisition of compassion, which were not only Christian virtues but also Buddhist.
There was a similar transformation in the meaning of the terms that signify the virtues. For instance, Greek agape and Latin caritas originally meant familial love as distinct from love of friends or friendship, which the Greek called philos and the Romans comes (whence English "comity" and "community"), as well as from sexual love, eros in Greek and amor in Latin. Theologians chose agape and caritas to signify the "familial" human-divine relationship underlying Christianity, although in mystical theology the erotic relationship between the human and the divine is also present, the soul and the Church being depicted a "bride." This type of expression is found in love-based mysticism the world over.
Tom,
I have to look further into the Greek word agape then, it looks important.
One thing I do know, is that Paul taught here that being a member of the body of Christ means a lot more than having to go around cleaning up the messes left by the real morons among us...
Two other words that seemed to go awry in the KJV are the English word "inheritance" vs the Greek word for "enjoying an allotment" klEronomEsousin.
This ends up being misleading from an economic standpoint also...
rsp,
KJV is recognized as a classic poetic rendering but a not so accurate translation. Nor is it based on up-to-date textual scholarship.
One difficulty with translating texts whose use spans a considerable historical period is changing context. Meaning derives from context, so if context shifts, so does meaning.
I think one key is this: the 'self' of a man is an entirely different aspect of existence to the persona.
Back in the 70's Prem Rawat (M. as a child) gave this example which I have never heard repeated since:
One morning, you wake up, go to the bathroom sleepy headed, thinking about the coming day: preoccupied in a fuzzy, haven't had your morning coffee yet sort of way - press the cistern button - and swooosh, the whole universe disappears immediately, down the gurgler!
That's 86 billion light years of it in one flush! 168 billion light years of 'effects'. Then even the john infolds into itself?
You look down, body vanished! There you are, a 'consciousness' floating somehow in some kind of Space and Time, occupied only by YOU - stripped to your essentials (purpose of this exercise).
If you have never spent much time looking at just you - now there will be plenty of opportunity. Absolutely no distractions. Absolutely no other focus possible. Nothing to 'read' about to pass the time; no entertainment; no issues - just you (have you not always been the greatest challenge for you)?
You see, in this primal condition, you may realise - philosophy was something of a luxury to you; you took it for granted and was very content to think and think and think. Religion was something of a luxury to you; art was something of a luxury to you; business and politics etc. etc. etc.
You would get very focused, very fast - on the reality of your situation.
If the consciousness that you are is a 'symbol', then just as a word is a symbol that masks meaning, and meaning is something that masks significance, then I think you would be searching around for a key to unlock the symbol (the consciousness) that is 'you'. You would be searching for meaning and significance. You would want to understand and you would want the Truth.
You might even cry out for some sort of G.O.D. to make you whole! At that point remember Kabir: "the fish is thirsty in the water - and every time I hear that, it makes me laugh!”. What did that ignorant shoemaker know????
He said there is a ‘door’ within a human consciousness, found in the ‘heart’. That in order to enter that door you would have to use the capacity of the human consciousness to ‘feel’ – thinking was the wrong path. Feeling is everything to the Self; thinking belongs to the persona.
You might say: ‘Oh I am 30, 50, 80 … a hundred years old; and I have never ever found a door in the consciousness that I am’.
Well, up until now (that the universe has disappeared) have you ever really looked? And more importantly, do you know how to look? If Kabir is to be believed – do you know how to ‘feel’?
Kabir says (paraphrasing) that stepping in behind that door he found his ‘Beloved’. Standing in the light of his Beloved he finally saw Kabir as he is. Gazing back, far below to the earth and his shoemaker persona he understood the meaning of the word ‘vehicle’. He also understood what Joy is; what Love is. He also understood his ‘consciousness’ as just a symbol. Feeling led to knowing.
And Yes, personas should live in harmony with one another, of course: “Standing in the market-place (the world), watching busy people passing by – no man is my enemy and no man is my friend. To each I wish them, fare well”. That’s black ones, white ones, brown ones, yellow ones, red ones – and every beautiful colour in between. Look into human eyes and see a human being ….. look into the human heart and see the same thirst to know. Respect the opportunity to be alive!
Billions and billions of people come and go on this earth, and vanish, without a trace. Like wildebeest they move in great herds and cycles, believing in their individuality; believing in their 'humanity'. Hoping for something more. And so they should.
But then there was that great injunction, kindness and service rendered from our philosopher friend: “Know thyself”.
That was simple enough.
Then, I think the affairs of the persona would be better understood.
‘Dreaming’ better understood. Being ‘conscious’ better understood. ‘Learning’ better understood. ‘Feeling’ better understood. Existence better understood. The gift of being alive – better understood. The ‘Great Breath’ – better understood. Appreciation – better understood. Gratitude understood. Clarity understood. Love and compassion understood. Science, Psychology and Energy, better understood.
Lot of (under)-standing going on there !!!!
I think the key to all 'human' considerations is this: the 'self' of a man is an entirely different aspect of existence to the persona.
@ jrbarch
Nice. To paraphrase Meher Baba: Ignorance is confusing the trivial with the important.
The problem arises when the actor confuses himself with the character whose role he is playing.
But no matter. All this is also evolutionary if one accepts perennial wisdom.
See Meher Baba, The Journey of the Soul to the Oversoul.
Re the discourse linked to above Tom: I have to say I am unable to understand Meher like I understand for example, riding a bike. What Meher talks about is not something that 'I' know (and know that I know).
Based on my own limited experience I would say there is 'Paramatman', an infinite Sun from which leaps the spark or the 'monad' that is my essence, from which descends 'atma' (which I would call consciousness embedded with the 'I' principle. Sorry if I have used these words incorrectly)!!
Now is the spark the same as the Fire from which it has leapt? I know so; but at the same time it is and is not the Fire. But definitely the consciousness is something created and therefore finite. A witness that hangs between the two worlds. Whether it is the same 'I' that occupies persona after persona I have no idea? I started remembering things from about 6 months, but that's about it! There is only Now, so that's where I focus.
I have a very vague idea that there is something that carries through space and time .... the Fire is always there.
So, I don't understand as Meher equates Atma with Paratma??? There was a time when the consciousness that I am did not exist; now it does; soon it will be gone forever - perhaps some part of it will survive the persona; I shall have to wait and see - am in no hurry to find out!!
I have no idea of the duration of the monad, nor whether its individuality is transferable to atma?? And thereafter linked to the persona. Or whether its all new. Either way is fine by me.
Reading is fine; but I like to know.
But anyways, besides the fuzzy understanding which I may never clear up - I enjoy being alive which is the best thing for me!!
That's the nature of Fire ...
Cheers.
Reading is fine; but I like to know.
As Werner Erhardt, founder of est, used to say, "Intellectual understanding is the booby prize."
But intellectual understanding alerts one to potential and direction, and also articulates means.
All this is set forth in perennial wisdom, the study of which is my "day job." My "night job" is as a "watchman."
Meher Baba has set forth comprehensive understanding of the "what" in God Speaks and of the "how: in Discourses. As a person whose field of specialization is perennial wisdom, I recommend these especially highly because they are comprehensive and written in English by a person writing in the context of our time. (Meher Baba's works can be downloaded here in PDF free.) But the same truth lies at the core of all religions and wisdom traditions, which is what "perennial wisdom" is.
As far as means go, there are many paths and different vehicles, and the path each individual takes is unique. Everyone is on the evolutionary path whether they realize it or not. So just keep on truckin' and always do your best.
"Do your best, then don't worry, be happy — I will help you." — Meher Baba
" I speak eternally. The voice that is heard deep within the soul is My voice — the voice of inspiration, of intuition, of guidance. Through those who are receptive to this voice, I speak." — Meher Baba
Well, that's a good 'day job' Tom. Thankyou for your responses in these matters.
I will browse Meher's discourses from time to time.
In Kabir's terms, I found my 'Beloved' when I was quite young. My mind wanted an explanation I guess. Then I walked into a Theosophical shop in Sydney, straight down the back to where the Tibetan's works (Dwhal Kuhl - amanuensis A.A. Bailey) sat on the shelves and knew I had to buy the lot (~ 2 dozen volumes). I also bought 'Isis Unveiled' and 'Secret Doctrine' because I saw them referenced. Have read them through the years maybe a dozen times over and more: 'Treatise on Cosmic Fire', Esoteric Psychology' and 'White Magic' my favourites. The Tibetan's words ring in me like a bell.
Well, that's my 'theoretical alternative universe' with some personal experience lending to the possibility of its credibility.
I see no conflict with this universe and Science - just different viewpoints! I refuse to get into believing: I like to know - the theoretical is firmly bounded in my mental universe. 99.9% of what is on the internet is like that to me ....
Soon after the 'Beloved' bit, I also discovered Prem Rawat in 1973 - he showed me a way to get in touch with my Divine whenever I want.
So, that is my little effort - every day to practice for a couple of hours and widen that little connection inside of me. That is my one and only 'Reality'. Because it is enjoyable. Understanding seems to come as the connection is deepened - so that's my direction and methodology.
So, on the inside I have the ultimate teacher who speaks to me only in the language of the heart - in feeling! On the outside, I am very fortunate to have at least two great teachers in my life (one theoretical, one practical) as you are to have Meher. I don't know if he will resonate in me as do the other two? But I will browse.
As for your effort in your night job - quite beautiful Tom. If people would just talk to each other instead of picking up a gun - that would be a huge step. Dept. for Peace with even a fraction of the budget as the Dept. for War. Valuing human life far above any temporal Cause.
People just do not realise what an incredible gift it is, just to be alive; what an incredible being a human being is. I mean we, us, - as hapless as we are; after 200,000 years of mostly blind unconsciousness - carry within us the Divine. This seed has to germinate and bloom. In each - one by one, unless they come up with some new type of aerial spray!!!
Post a Comment