Thursday, December 10, 2015
Chris Dillow — The Utopia paradox
The issue about greater prosperity and less happiness is easily explained by perennial wisdom and Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Happiness is not exclusively a function of satisfaction of material needs and wants.
As Aristotle observed in Nichomachean Ethics, happiness (εὐδαιμονία, eudaimonia) is a byproduct of excellence (ἀρετή, arete) in life, both as a human being (person) and an individual.
The basis of liberalism is that freedom is essential because it is necessary for self-actualization as unfolding of full potential. Thus "freedom for" requires "freedom from" and "freedom to." This is the basis for rights and responsibilities.
The foundation of liberalism with respect to individuals is social freedom in a community which determines itself based on rule of law as governance of the people, by the people and for the people. This is the basis of popular sovereignty.
According to the sages, the ultimate freedom is freedom from desire, which is only gained by realizing one's true nature as a human being, which is completely fulfilling in itself and requires nothing else. While the ultimate state of freedom is gained suddenly, it matures gradually in increasing inner fulfillment and independence. This is the foundation of personal spirituality.
Stumbling and Mumbling
The Utopia paradox
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle
See also
Digressions&Impressions
Le Guin as Teacher of Socratic Political Philosophy
Eric Schliesser | Professor of Political Science, University of Amsterdam’s (UvA) Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
For me, this is an age-old problem. Someone looks up into the stars at night and feels a profound sense of reverence, awe, respect for creation – present in their heart. Then straight away, mind jumps in and turns it into a religion. The concepts fly around. The 'I' dances in the moonlight.
Eudaimonia was better left as 'good spirit' and its effects in human nature such as virtue, excellence, morality, strength, bravery, wit, potential, effectiveness and knowledge – better left as effects.
The assumption was that by practising all of the effects, eudaimonia could be attained. I think it is the other way around. Hence the necessity of a teacher: - someone who could unlock the link, and place the student in touch with his own inner nature.
I think it was Kabir who said, some thing like: 'wherever the Infinite goes, it strikes the finite, and the spark that comes out is consciousness'. Nothing about the other way around ….
We stand upon the shore, and gaze back at all the troubles on the land; but never across the ocean to where the Sun, even today, is rising. Probably why, everywhere we look, there is nothing but shadows.
The teapot holds the tea. Maybe we can craft a better teapot. But its useless without the tea.
Happiness is basking in the sun.
"The issue about greater prosperity and less happiness is easily explained by perennial wisdom and Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. "
I'll be honest I prefer X/Y and hygiene theory. (Herzberg).
It is interesting that the social theory books I have on my bookshelf are the only ones I've had for decades. All the IT related ones have been binned due to advances in technology.
Human social evolution is several orders of magnitude slower than technology.
I think it was Kabir who said, some thing like: 'wherever the Infinite goes, it strikes the finite, and the spark that comes out is consciousness'. Nothing about the other way around ….
Nice.
That's true, Neil, but here the subject is not improvement but utopia (ideal life in ideal society).
The sages have spoken abut that as an ideal in the terms I outlined. Maslow and other transpersonal psychologists have attempted to express this in modern scientific terms.
I think it was Kabir who said, some thing like: 'wherever the Infinite goes, it strikes the finite, and the spark that comes out is consciousness'. Nothing about the other way around ….
The basic metaphysical question is, what is being, that is, the Urstoff. The major alternative theories have been matter and consciousness. The dominant position in the scientific age is that matter is basic. Perennial wisdom holds that consciousness is primary, but the consciousness that is primary is infinite consciousness rather than dualistic consciousness in which subject and object appear to be separate.
The fundamental epistemological question is what can we know about being as the Urstoff. The materialist answer is scientific investigation of matter, which so far has revealed that energy is primary. The answer of perennial wisdom is that because consciousness is reflexive, highly developed consciousness is capable of knowing itself completely. This is realization of one's own nature as pure consciousness, infinite and eternal. The journey, which eventually becomes a quest, is unfolding full potential. Nothing is substantial gained; rather, the veils of ignorance are gradually lifted and finally removed by the light of self-knowledge.
Materialists hold that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, hence, consciousness is dependent on matter. Perennial wisdom holds that consciousness is primary and that matter not only depends on consciousness but is conscious to some degree. Evolution is chiefly about consciousness coming to know itself through embodiment in matter. Meher Baba summarizes this in God Speaks (1955).
I think it was Kabir who said, some thing like: 'wherever the Infinite goes, it strikes the finite, and the spark that comes out is consciousness'.
Tom – I am really crap at logic, but I will give it a go.
The basic metaphysical question is, what is being …
Agreed
The major alternative theories have been matter and consciousness.
For me, it has always been - being, consciousness, matter.
You could symbolise them as steam, water, ice. Steam is primary, absolute, unknowable; no words can be said about it, it is beyond the reach and thought of consciousness of any kind – because consciousness (water) transforms into steam. So in this understanding – neither consciousness nor matter are primary.
Consciousness can become aware of Being 'through the finest veil'; the Infinite can touch the finite if the finite is open to it and prepared. With the heart of a child, has always been the prerequisite afaik. The teapot can know the tea but it can never become the tea – because water is destroyed when it becomes steam.
When consciousness knows the tea, the teapot and itself, then in one experience, consciousness is triple, no longer dual. When consciousness is 'seen through' as just a middle-ground, and let go of, then experience becomes truly dual: a straight through connection between the tea and the teapot is made. That is a Master in my definition.
The 'energy' of science is really just force; the ethers of matter. The very first 'energy' that a human being can become aware of, is in the heart.
All of the above deliberations matters not one jot to the human heart, because if it can feel peace ('the perfume of G.O.D.') it is happy, and the persona begins to transform.
I don't know if Meher taught the same, but this is my fundamental understanding.
@ jrbarch
I am simplifying the history of thought into a simple bifurcation that in fact has many aspects historically, so it is more complicated than that and there is a huge literature about it spanning several fields.
A third position is agnosticism, that humans do not know the ultimate, a stronger form of which is skepticism, which holds that human beings cannot know the ultimate. Then there are those who reject all this as just silly nonsense and a waste of time.
The position of perennial wisdom is represented by sages of Qabalah like Moses Cordavero, Sufism like Al-'Arabi, Christian mysticism like Meister Eckhart, Western gnosticism like Plato, Vedanta like Adi Shankara, Buddhism like Gautama Shakyamuni, Sikhism like Guru Nanak, Taoism like Laozi, as well as sages that transcended particular traditions like Kabir, Sai Baba of Shirdi, and Meher Baba.
This view is that the ultimate is nothing as pure potentiality. That potentiality of nothing contains everything. Everything includes both infinite consciousness and infinite unconsciousness. Infinite consciousness is changeless. Infinite unconsciousness is changeable and the direction of change overall is toward realization of infinite consciousness. Mystics of the Abrahamic religions have present this view as fully compatible with the affirmation of unity that underlies them as first principle.
Not all who are considered sages of the various wisdom traditions of the world have expressed this in so many words, nor do all expressions seem to agree exactly, but the various traditions can be understood (interpreted) harmoniously in this way. Moreover, there are different levels of development on the way to realization of infinite consciousness, so these must be distinguished, too, that is terms of states and stations. There are also temporary experiences said to be temporary stages as well as fleeting whiffs, tastes, and peeks through the veil.
Perennial wisdom holds that the ultimate is one and indivisible. There is no difference or distinction wrt to the absolute. Knower, knowing and knowledge are one.
The sages also say that strictly speaking realization is ineffable and cannot only be pointed at. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
When this is spoken of it is paradoxical to those in duality, that is, in states of awareness in which subject and object seem to be separate. Therefore, some of perennial wisdom seems contradictory. For example, Vedanta can be seen as presenting the via affirmativa and Buddhism the via negativa rather than in fundamental opposition. Mystics of the Abrahamic religions have had to be guarded in their expression to avoid charges of heresy, which Spinoza go caught up, in for instance, as well as Meister eckhart and Mansur al-Hallaj.
continued
continuation
According to perennial wisdom, there are three levels of change nested in the relative, manifest that appears to exist in duality — gross, subtle and causal or mental. The gross is the material world of ordinary consciousness. The subtle is the world of life force, which those in ordinary gross consciousness are not directly aware but use. The causal world is the world of intelligence or mind, of which those in ordinary consciousness are not directly aware but use. These are all manifestation in duality of reality, which is indivisibly one and unchangeable. All of these levels and their characteristics, including sub-levels, are reported in the world's mystical literature, art, etc. but this is metaphorical for those who are not on that level and are do not have experience of that level.
It is a highly intricate system that cannot be adequately expressed in language, the context of which is gross. But according to the sages it can be experienced and will be experienced by all as they continue to evolve.
My purpose here is not to elaborate this, since it is not the place. The discussion was about achieving utopia and my saying that research suggests that this is not possible materially, since materiality doesn't result in abiding fulfillment. I then observed that according to the sages, utopia is possible because materiality is not primary, and fulfillment is a function the immaterial rather than the material.
This led to my pitting perennial wisdom as a whole against scientific materialism as a whole. They are both philosophies with many facets, but they can be distinguished as two general positions for convenience. As a matter of fact, the contemporary debate is largely dichotomous on this, with some scientists on both sides.
Those who advance these positions justify them based on experience. Science is based on sense observation and logical bootstrapping from that.Perennial wisdom is based on the experience of sages worldwide from time immemorial. These are the primary competing worldviews at present, other than the agnostic or skeptical views. Another matter whether a scientific explanation of either consciousness or perennial wisdom is possible, in the sense of theory that can generate hypotheses that can be disconfirmed empirically. Seems not, given that most of what is significant is not available on the gross level of awareness.
I think nothing (NO – THING) was just meant to distinguish between the universes (things) and the Universal Energy which created them Tom. Now, whether there is consciousness existing in those universes or not, is just the way it is: – either way, consciousness is limited, a finite construct - even if the universe itself were a conscious entity, as conscious as it could possibly be, or as unconscious as it could possibly be - in both directions as you noted; consciousness is limited. I know there have always been human beings who think that if they merge with that Universal Energy they will become G.O.D., but for me, neither two things nor two beings can occupy each other. Therefore, for me, neither infinite consciousness nor infinite un-consciousness is possible. The teapot cannot become the tea because something has to give. And it won’t be the tea! The universes come out to play, just for a second on the Timeless clock. Includes Messr. Herzberg. For me, consciousness (awareness) is just a limited, privileged, Observor.
Regardless of thought, it is still possible to feel that Energy, appreciate it, and have gratitude arise in your heart because of it.
No matter; as usual we do not think of these curious matters in the same light. And science, politics and business aside, such a discussion is just as relevant to human existence as the others portend (pretend) to be.
@ jrbarch
According to perennial wisdom, no-thing is void, vacuum, emptiness, which Buddhism calls nirvana. Buddhists say that this emptiness is not empty, a typically paradoxical saying. It means that in this emptiness as pure potentiality, everything is. Emptiness is the source and ground.
The vacuum state or state of least excitation of QM is used as an analogy from physics, for example. See Is John S. Hagelin, Consciousness the Unified Field? A Field Theorist's Perspective. (Disclosure: John is an old friend. I met him when he was a grad student at Harvard in the 70s.)
This same term nirvana is used in Vedanta, too, as well as parat para brahman. In Taoism, it is "emptiness" (wu) and "empty state" (wuji). in Qabalah it is ayin — nothing as the source and ground of everything (yesh). In Christian mysticism Pseudo-Dionysius calls it "Darkness beyond light," an anonymous medieval class it "the cloud of unknowing," Eckhart calls it "Godhead" (Gotheit). In Sufism it is called "hidden of the hidden" (ghaib-ul- ghaib), "the pure essence" (zat-al-baht), "the unknowable and undefinable (majhut-un-nat) "beyond the beyond" (wara-ul-wara), "the dark mist" (al Ama) and "the state in which all indications are dropped" (munaqata-ul-Izharat).
The Yoga Sutra attributed to Patanjali defines the state of yoga in terms of "cessation of mental activity" (chitta-vritti nirodhah) (YS 1.2). According to Patanjali, this is experienced as different levels of self-referral consciousness (samadhi), the highest of which he calls dharma-mega samadhi (YS 4.29). "In the absence of activity, the purpose of purusha (pure consciousness, self-referential consciousness) is gained and what remains is kaivalya — the infinite power of consciousness established in its own nature." (YS 4.34 – Egenes, 2010) That is to say, at the point the completeness of emptiness is realized, the fullness of emptiness is realized as infinite consciousness.
Chapter four of the Yoga Sutra is entitled Kaivalya Pada. Kaivalya is often translated as "liberation," but the root is kevala, signifying one, bare, alone, whole, excluding difference, etc. Kaivalya (YS 4.26) means aloneness, oneness, wholeness and implies completion. The process of yoga (discipline) leads to the state of yoga (unity consciousness). This is described poetically in similar terms, as "the flight of the alone to the Alone" (phygi monou pros monon). The Greek term monos signifies alone, solitary, one.
Tom – I would view it thus: mind passes through stages of intellectualism, mysticism, occultism, enlightenment. All of the terms about emptiness-fullness etc. are the mystical mind, looking at something it knows (feels) exists, but cannot see or understand. Patanjali I agree is the Master of a technical description of the process, but his sutras are open to interpretation at any of the above stages. I have found personally, that The Light of the Soul, AAB, Lucis translated under the watchful eye of DK, to be a reliable source in terms of resonance with my own experience. So for example:
(YS I:2) This Union (or Yoga) is achieved through the subjugation of the psychic nature and the restraint of the chitta (or mind).
Control over the lower nature allows manifestation of the higher. Control over the emotional body (desire nature) leads to vision of the inner light (soul – love aspect); control over the mental body leads to knowledge of the Will aspect of the soul – and later, through it, a knowledge of that which has created it. Contact with the soul and its complete subjugation of the persona is the first step. Practically, identification is transferred to the soul.
(YS IV:26) The mind then tends towards discrimination and increasing illumination as to the true nature of the one Self.
The one Self referred to here is the individual soul as a part of the ocean that is Soul. Consciousness = Soul: always limited. Always without in the occult understanding; perhaps not so for the mystics.
(YS IV:29) The man who develops non-attachment even in his aspiration after illumination and isolated unity, becomes aware, eventually, through practiced discrimination, of the overshadowing cloud of spiritual knowledge.
Non-attachment references both persona and soul. The vision of both are lifted towards the one unfathomable One (the final desire). Isolated-unity refers to this unity of soul and persona as one identity (ID), standing alone, aware of a further veil to pierce, and an increased capacity and opportunity to serve one’s kind, and more efficiently. What lies on the other side of that veil has never been able to be put down in words. (Kabir: if the oceans were all ink, and the forests were all paper and pens ….)
So, what does Patanjali have to say about this ‘limited consciousness’ (as elevated as it is above the personality life of the race) when the first glimpse is given; when from above a little spiritual power descends to the waiting and prepared lower vehicles, and for the first time in its long journey, for the soul, a new day breaks on a new reality – long held dear in the heart, longed for. Like a seed that pushes itself up out of the ground, to unfold for the first time tender shoots, in soft morning light ….
(YS IV:32) The modifications of the mind stuff (or qualities of matter), through the inherent nature of the three gunas come to an end, for they have served their purpose.
(YS IV:33) Time, which is the sequence of the modifications of the mind, like wise terminates, giving place to the Eternal Now.
(YS IV:34) The state of isolated unity becomes possible when the three qualities of matter (the three gunas of potencies of nature) no longer exercise any hold over the Self. The pure spiritual consciousness withdraws into the One.
I think that is why (was it Tulsidas?) did not want to go to heaven: he would rather remain conscious, limited, and aware of the ONE, than begone. Have emailed (your Yahoo account) you a copy of the AAB version in case you would like to compare translations at any time (open toc.html). Thankyou, for this discussion Tom.
@jrbarch
Yes, all texts are open to interpretation and the devil is in the details, so to speak. Debate is usually over details.
Those who assume that they are based on the same or similar experience attempt to interpret the texts as compatible regarding the essential and regard difference as due to difference of expression rather than substance. This assumption is itself based on the sages, for instance, "Existence is one, sages speak of it variously as Agni, Yama, and Matarishwan" (ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh) Rig Veda 1.164.46.
One of the difficulties is in translation of these languages into English because they contain technical terms that don't have English equivalents. Moreover, many texts are ancient and the context is no longer clearly discernible. In addition, the means are many although the goal is the same.
The Light of the Soul is not a translation but a rendering. The full title is The Light Of The Soul – Its Science and Effect: A Paraphrase Of The Yoga Sutras Of Patanjali With Commentary By Alice A. Bailey. The paraphrasing departs significantly from the Sanskrit text, putting in words that aren't there in clarification, for example. This is not unusual. Even works that are represented as translations do this because otherwise the result would be obscure. But doing this adds a particular point of view.
This is the case with a great many translations of this and other texts, because literal translations are difficult to understand. There are two ways of handling this. Both are acceptable if the method is made clear. One is providing a literal translation along with separate commentary, and another is a rendering that incorporates commentary in the text. Commentaries are often provided by other sages of the tradition in the original language. For instance, Vyasa commented on the YS (Eng tr by G. Jha (free download)), as did Adi Shankara (Eng tr. Trevor Leggett) Shankara interprets YS in terms of Advaita Vedanta, and I follow him in that.
Your view and Tulsidas's, "I think that is why (was it Tulsidas?) did not want to go to heaven: he would rather remain conscious, limited, and aware of the ONE, than begone," is the POV expressed as Dualistic Vedanta (Dvaita Vedanta) by Madvacharya, e.g., in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra. Madhva expresses the POV of the perfect disciple. That is the level of non-attachment to the goal necessary for attaining the goal that is set forth in YS 4.29. It can be seen as corresponding to the Bodhisattva ideal in Buddhism.
There are two other major POV's are also expressed in commentaries on the Brahma Sutra In addition to Madhva's. These are different POVs of the same truth based on different vantage points regarding it. Madva expresses the dualism of the perfect disciple. Ramanuja expresses the POV from the sixth plane of consciousness in Qualified Non-dualism (Vishishtadvaita), and Adi Shankara, the seventh in Unqualified Non-Dualism (Advaita Vedanta). These teachers tend to be consistent in expressing a single POV. Other teachers alternate among POV's which can seem contradictory.
YS 4.34 refers back to YS 1.3, "Then the seer dwells in his own form or nature." That form or nature is formless. According to YS 4.29 change of form based on transformations of the the fundamental qualities is complete at this stage since their purpose has been fulfilled. "Be beyond the three qualities (that are constitutive of change), Arjuna (nistraigunyo bhavaajuna) Bhagavad Gita 2.45.
continued
continuation
Why is this important for living a good life in a good society, which seems utopian under present circumstances? Because the sages lay out means for raising individual consciousness and also group consciousness, not by adding anything to what is inherently available, but only by removing the obstacles to realizing it and functioning on this basis. It's called "enlightenment" because it is removal of the darkness of ignorance by turning on the light.
However, a foundation needs to be built so that this is encouraged. Presently, the cultural and institutional foundation discourages this. Clearly, education is basic.
Bucky Fuller used to say that humanity's physical resources are limited by our metaphysical resources are unlimited. The way to utopia (He wrote a book entitled, Utopia or Oblivion) is through doing more with less physical resources by engaging and expanding our metaphysical resources. This is the basis for innovation and technology to provide the material life support system that provides the leisure needed to culture metaphysical resources in an autocatalytic system that is self-augmenting.
correction
"Bucky Fuller used to say that humanity's physical resources are limited BUT our metaphysical resources are unlimited."
You have quite an amazing grasp of the different views of the theoreticians Tom. I think it's a bit like economics: there are the theoreticians; then there are the practical people with their nose at the coal-face. I think I could be labelled 'dualistic' from one pov; but looking through my eyes (for me), there is another.
If a little gnat, a bug, flies in the face of a stupendous Sun – he is still just a bug. Even if he sees his essence, his very Life, is a tiny little spark, a part of that Infinite Sun. At most, he is just a little fire-dragon, a little fire-fly, hooked up to an Infinite Light, the power of which has been stepped down, stepped down, stepped down – until it is just a safe, warm, glow in the body. Perhaps that little fire-dragon had at one stage a self; but it is consumed in the fire. Perhaps, having dispensed with the part of its evolution that involves a self, the spark has evolved the little fire-dragon a bit more than most. My point is: - it knows exactly, what it is. It is not the Infinite Sun. It could never say that Infinite Sun speaks through me. It could only say, what is within me is within you. What you are looking for, is within you. For me it is simple Tom. It's a matter of being; not so much a discussion of technical terms and what they mean. Such a firefly, would be the sweetest, kindest, and most humble person, here on earth. What is inside of them would be different.
I summarised something of this process at heteconomist: ... On Raising the Level of Collective Consciousness [II] - which peterc kindly and very broad-mindedly decided to post for me (although he reckons it adds a bit of colour and nuance to his website too – I never ever thought I'd be side-riffing off Marx). :-)
Post a Comment