Previous Entry | Next Entry

A Commentary on Essence

  • Nov. 10th, 2008 at 11:56 AM
River in Vermont
To my mind, there is no such objective thing as essence, at least in the sense of a soul, genius, augoeides, higher self, or other non-corporeal form of self-being. In relation to this, I also do not recognize different spiritual states. By that, I mean that any experience of a "spiritual state" is a purely psychological phenomenon. This is not a bad thing at all; in fact, I am a big proponent of seeking such experiences. But they are purely subjective—no one is "more spiritual" than another person in any essential, objective sense.

There is a reason I put these two things together, spiritual states and essence. Religious transformations have not been shown to change the fundamental nature of people—such experiences can often change things like attitudes, aims, and beliefs, but not personal capabilities, bio-psycho functioning (with a caveat given below), or personality (a la the Big Five). Rather, such transformations often are aimed not at the biopsychosocial self but at one's essential self, frequently in terms of being "born again," "initiated," or "attained." The idea of attaining to objective spiritual states is an ancient one, although it takes a good number of forms, depending on the model one is working within. It's useful to remember that those models are all manmade.

Now then, certain religious practices certainly can change brain function—meditation, Yoga, and entheogen intake, for example. But it must be noted that significant changes to brain chemistry can also be induced by other practices, such as playing music, riding a roller coaster, or making love. The ability to change one's mental state does not imply nor require the existence of a spiritual essence.

For the most part, I don't care one way or another if someone believes in spiritual essence. But I am disturbed by many beliefs associated with it. For example, I very much dislike the idea that one's essence requires certain experiences for whatever reason and manipulates events to make them happen—this is an especially distressing explanation of why suffering and cruelty occur (e.g. "she was raped because her soul needed to learn something from that experience"). This general belief is dangerous because it takes agency and responsibility away from people and places it on mysterious, unseen forces.

Another related problem is spiritual bypassing. In this case, when someone wants to avoid dealing with difficult or intractable problems in real life, or even just normal adult responsibilities, it is possible to focus on one's spiritual essence. Similarly, people who are insecure can assuage their social anxiety by claiming spiritual superiority. In both cases, working with spiritual essence becomes a substitute for improving practical and social skills, becoming more conscientious, and facing personal demons.

For myself, I simply think that spiritual essence is not a very useful idea. Humans are not modeled on a Platonic ideal nor powered by an ethereal battery. We do not have a spiritual constituent within ourselves that rises or falls on some mystical axis. Rather, all things arise dynamically out of the complex soup of reality, a moment to moment emergence of being. As such, our existence does not require an unseen force, just as light does not need a luminiferous aether within which to travel.

It should be no surprise to you by now that I would argue that the root issue is existential anxiety. Belief in a spiritual essence can provide an emotional buffer against an indifferent universe. This makes perfect sense—it's challenging to think of being stuck in such a dangerous place as Nature. There is a social element as well; humans are intrinsically social creatures, and as such are designed to work within hierarchies. When someone feels socially inadequate, imagining an idealized spiritual self can be a great comfort. Again, perfectly sensible.

This is why I believe it is so important in one's spiritual life to work within several core areas, including intentionality, connectivity, character, exploration, and creativity. These are all areas that can lead to improved meaning, fulfillment, and joy. At the same time, it is useful to remember that the flesh is not corrupt, we are not Fallen, and no Final Judgment awaits us. There is no Grand Scale upon which our essential spirits are weighed. We simply are what we are, and what we are is both amazing and sacred, through and through. Our job, therefore, is not to be purified, idealized, or ascended, but rather to examine ourselves and work towards reaching our given potential, whatever that might be. We can always find ways to express ourselves in a more genuine way, to expand our horizons and gain insight into life and the universe. This really is a grand adventure and we are marvelous creatures. If we want to call this totality of our being essence, then I would be satisfied.

Comments

[info]rasputen wrote:
Nov. 10th, 2008 07:43 pm (UTC)
sounds like to me that the "demiurge", in your representation, would exist but there is no Sophia to create at state of union. It reminds me of several psychologist that posed to me the same question , "i.e." "your not a stupid man, so why would you believe in religion?" It seems in psychology that there is no "or" in the either/or maxim. Clinically speaking, it seems there is no room in the absolute study of the mind for unknown values. Though if there were no factors unknown it would seem that there would be a unified theory to spring forth somewhat sooner than later to explain all the phenomenon of existence. I await, with baited breath, the theory that you hopefully will proffer as you continue further exploration into the inter workings of the mental man.
Eros/Agape,
R.
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 10th, 2008 08:24 pm (UTC)
I await, with baited breath, the theory that you hopefully will proffer as you continue further exploration into the inner workings of the mental man.

I'm afraid you will asphyxiate first. The study of psychology is a vast and as yet nascent field, so neither I nor anyone will soon be able to offer a Grand Unified Theory of Psychology. We have some really good starting clues, however, enough to begin building some reasonable hypotheses about nature. Perhaps one day we will discover a new form of energy or matter that operates in ways predicted by religion, who knows. Until that time, science should absolutely explore "unknown values"...that's its job, after all, and we find out new things all the time.

Even beyond psychology, modern physicists and cosmologists are making observations and developing theories that are far more complex and mind-blowing than anything religion has ever come up with. The latest issue of Scientific American is more profound, bizarre, and meaningful than any holy book or ancient prophet. Science is peeking into the most remote areas of nature, both in space and down into the naked particles from which we are built, and what they are finding is incredibly elegant, beautiful, and strange. By comparison, old religious models are clunky and awkward.

But I understand to a reasonable degree why people still accept religious models. The things that science is finding are often so alien, so rarefied, and so complicated that they simply cannot be integrated into people's lives in any meaningful way. So, people accept religious models not because they have anything to do with nature, but because they offer guidance, connection, and a sense of safety. Nothing wrong with that, either. But I am dedicated to developing my own little patch of religion that can serve those basic spiritual needs without ignoring the realities of nature. And I am arguing that nature does not include a spiritual essence, at least not outside of human imagination.

You are, of course, perfectly free to disagree with me.
[info]rasputen wrote:
Nov. 10th, 2008 08:34 pm (UTC)
What is your take on kirlian photography? Also, what is your view of the tree of life? ( like do you see Da'ath as the final point of the tree? To my perception science is validating many of the "religious" concepts, rather than destroying them.

I really do not know enough to agree or disagree here, but do I have a itch to debate issues wherein I have many questions of my own.
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 10th, 2008 08:49 pm (UTC)
What is your take on kirlian photography

I don't know enough about it to have a strong position. Electricity is weird stuff, but I don't think it has anything to do with auras or other New Age beliefs.

Also, what is your view of the tree of life? ( like do you see Da'ath as the final point of the tree?

I view the Tree of Life as an interesting historical model of nature as it was understood at one time. Some Kabbalists recognize Da'ath and some don't; I do not have an opinion.

To my perception science is validating many of the "religious" concepts, rather than destroying them.

Which religious beliefs has science validated?
[info]rasputen wrote:
Nov. 10th, 2008 09:00 pm (UTC)
I feel the "breath of god" bears much in common with the particle matter. (naked particles from which we are built) DNA with its serpentine shape seems very much a "serpent of wisdom". There have been other observations I have felt connected with "religious" symbolism, but I would want to verify the veracity of my recollections before submitting them for peer review. ( and I am having too much fun for that right now nibbling my snickers bar and watching Batman and Robin to go digging around for such dry and fibrous materials)::he laughs::
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 10th, 2008 09:24 pm (UTC)
Particle physics has been used as a metaphor for certain, mostly Eastern spiritual ideas since at least the 1970s. One example, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, was a profound read for me in my early 20s. Authors like Fritjof Capra and Deepak Chopra have helped invent "quantum mysticism", which tries to use quantum mechanics as a way to explain things like change at a distance and eternal life. Actual physicists do not acknowledge those claims as more than metaphor, and I agree with them. But who knows, maybe one day they will...
[info]mobyjane wrote:
Nov. 10th, 2008 09:19 pm (UTC)
Thanks so much for this thoughtful and beautiful post!

I was raised in a religoius tradition that views the spirit as separate from the body -- unaffected by the natural world, and impervious to time -- the classic "ghost in the machine" model.

Now I understand my spirit to be not an entity housed in my body and haunting my life, but rather a living, growing process.

Spirituality is not about communing with unseen forces or changing my nature; it's about aligning my intention with my deepest values. I can grow spritually by living more fully -- developing habits of attention and mindfulness, cultivating self-discpiline, learning (and facing) setbacks and limitations, contributing to the well-being of other creatures, developing my natural abilities, and opening myself to wonder and gratitude.

The challenge is that it's very easy NOT to do these things. It's easy to to forget, or get distracted by the petty stuff that takes up most of our days.

But the amount of control I have over my life is huge. Spirituality is about how I aim my life toward values and goals that will outlast me -- justice, peace, wisdom, truth, and love. Spiritual growth is about making the most of these experiences and committing to the possibility that my one little life actually matters.
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 01:33 am (UTC)
As always, you say things better than I ever could. If only what you describe was as easy and comforting as some suggest it is.
[info]gallows_brother wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:10 am (UTC)
Forward to a more Aristotelian spirituality!
[info]tnatnt wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 01:49 pm (UTC)
I agree...
Completely...:-)

Warmest regards,

T
[info]countess77 wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 02:46 am (UTC)
What!!!?
Think of all those countless hours spent
on reading the Book of the Dead.
And here You are telling me that my
heart will not be weighed against a Feather?!!!
Augh!!!
[info]tnatnt wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
Humans on the whole...
Need something to believe in outside of themselves. An individuals perception of reality is based on the following:

1) Environmental factors that existed as they grew up as well as what belief systems they were instilled with during that time.

2) What eperiences they encounter to either make them stronger or make them avoid reality.

I agree with mobyjane when she states the following:

>Spirituality is not about communing with unseen forces or changing my nature; it's about aligning my intention with my deepest values. I can grow spritually by living more fully -- developing habits of attention and mindfulness, cultivating self-discpiline, learning (and facing) setbacks and limitations, contributing to the well-being of other creatures, developing my natural abilities, and opening myself to wonder and gratitude.<

Because each individual's thought processes are different will depend on how much their true self evolves during their journey. Not everyone will have the same intentions to explore their essence on their spiritual journey. Doesn't make it right or wrong, it is just what it is.

There is no one set way to approach spirituality because we as individuals are different and more importantly we have our own unique experiences that define who and what we are and what we choose to become as we journey through life. Examining our true self may be impossible for some because of life's experiences. So the essence of the individual can stay the same or evolve with each encounter and how they approach dealing with life on the whole.

Warmest regards,

T


Edited at 2008-11-11 03:45 pm (UTC)
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 12th, 2008 07:26 pm (UTC)
Re: Humans on the whole...
There is no one set way to approach spirituality because we as individuals are different and more importantly we have our own unique experiences that define who and what we are and what we choose to become as we journey through life.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, as I go along, I will be introducing a major component of my thinking along these lines.
[info]tnatnt wrote:
Nov. 12th, 2008 07:30 pm (UTC)
Re: Humans on the whole...
Excellent!!! I am looking forward to your thoughts on the topic!

Hope all is well!

Warmest regards,

T
[info]iao131 wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:03 pm (UTC)
Spiritual essence (part 1)
93,

"To my mind, there is no such objective thing as essence, at least in the sense of a soul, genius, augoeides, higher self, or other non-corporeal form of self-being."

It matters how you define these. If your soul is your consciousness in the Descartes sense, would you deny that? If 'genius' refers to the currents of the unconscious woudl you deny that? If the Augoeides or Higher self simply refers to a 'psychological state' as you say where the boundaries of self break down and is correlated with bliss, would you deny that? Im not sure many people would call these a 'non-corporeal form' of anything.

" In relation to this, I also do not recognize different spiritual states. By that, I mean that any experience of a "spiritual state" is a purely psychological phenomenon. This is not a bad thing at all; in fact, I am a big proponent of seeking such experiences. But they are purely subjective—no one is "more spiritual" than another person in any essential, objective sense. "

I doubt many other people would say that 'spiritual states' are more than subjective. Crowley himself recognized this when he said people will say hes dying or in pain but hes having a subjectively blissful experience. I doubt many others would argue that spiritual states are 'not' psychological phenomena as the psyche includes all facets of one's awareness and psyche DOES come from a Greek 'soul.' Further, arguing about people being or not being 'more spiritual' from spiritual experiences being subjective is a non sequitur.

"Religious transformations have not been shown to change the fundamental nature of people—such experiences can often change things like attitudes, aims, and beliefs, but not personal capabilities, bio-psycho functioning (with a caveat given below), or personality (a la the Big Five). "

Isnt this just a contradiction? What do you mean by 'fundamental nature'? Is it the same as 'essence'? And if so why are you talking about it if you dont think it exists? I can give you a few studies which simply contradict your claims at the end of this quote. Here is a study with entheogens where "A majority said their mood, attitudes and behaviors had changed for the better. Structured interviews with family members, friends and co-workers generally confirmed the subjects' remark". I can show you around 8 studies of how meditation literally alters the structure of the brain.

"Rather, such transformations often are aimed not at the biopsychosocial self but at one's essential self, frequently in terms of being "born again," "initiated," or "attained." "

I dare say that you are overgeneralizing and also wrong - one isnt 'born again' unless your biopsychosocial self is transformed. Ask any Christian and the 'effects' they'll speak abotu are 'biopsychosocial' in nature.

" brain chemistry can also be induced by other practices, such as playing music, riding a roller coaster, or making love. The ability to change one's mental state does not imply nor require the existence of a spiritual essence. "

First you claim that 'spiritual experiences' dont change and arent aimed at biopsychosocial qualities but here you not only admit it but show that it can be attained through many other means to different degrees (Id argue the effect of a roller coaster isnt very similar to taking LSD or meditating for 30 years which oversimplifies the complexity of phenomenal states). Next you through in that term 'spiritual essence' again... many people might readily recognize that their 'spiritual essence' is coterminous with their consciousness or an experience in consciousness. It seems more like you are projecting your own (fallacious) notions of 'spiritual essence' 'augoeides' and 'genius' etc. onto all others.

IAO131
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:14 pm (UTC)
Re: Spiritual essence (part 1)
I get the sense that you are trying really hard to find critiques here. Either you aren't reading my words the way I mean them or you are just arguing for argument's sake. In some places you seem to be arguing with a point even when the point agrees with your position. So, I'm a little lost as to how to answer you. I'll simply say thanks for pitching in and I appreciate your interest in the subject.
[info]iao131 wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:35 pm (UTC)
Re: Spiritual essence (part 1)
93,

Im not trying hard at all - I typed that up in about 2 minutes after reading through your essay. They are simply the most glaring ideas that I was thinking about. Im disappointed that you dont take the time to reply to the various points and wondering why you are confused that I might argue a point that I dont ultimately agree with (I might, for example, disagree with your reasoning about the idea). I dont mean to offend but its the way things work that criticisms will take up more space for praising someone only takes a short paragraph - I DO agree with many ideas in the last part of your essay but didnt really feel the need to say anything. I thought that some constructive criticism will help the ideas grow and help you flesh them out but perhaps I was wrong.

IAO131
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:56 pm (UTC)
Re: Spiritual essence (part 1)
I'm disappointed that you dont take the time to reply to the various points...

Your points in this case were a little sloppy, maybe because you didn't have the time to construct them clearly. Perhaps you can take another stab at it.

I thought that some constructive criticism will help the ideas grow and help you flesh them out but perhaps I was wrong.

For future reference, this kind of passive-aggressive language doesn't work well with me.
[info]iao131 wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:04 pm (UTC)
Spiritual essence (part 2)
"I very much dislike the idea that one's essence requires certain experiences for whatever reason and manipulates events to make them happen—this is an especially distressing explanation of why suffering and cruelty occur (e.g. "she was raped because her soul needed to learn something from that experience"). This general belief is dangerous because it takes agency and responsibility away from people and places it on mysterious, unseen forces. "

Technically this is coterminous with a normal, physical understanding of the universe insofar as we believe in agency in a deterministic world and our 'free will' is a myth. Its just as silly to think that one needed to be 'raped' or 'suffer' because your soul needed to learn as any kind of belief in Karma - to many people its a justification of these sufferings from a perspective of Higher Good. It doesnt take away agency but gives an explanatory framework that is satisfying to many. Im not saying I agree with it though.

"Another related problem is spiritual bypassing. In this case, when someone wants to avoid dealing with difficult or intractable problems in real life, or even just normal adult responsibilities, it is possible to focus on one's spiritual essence. Similarly, people who are insecure can assuage their social anxiety by claiming spiritual superiority. In both cases, working with spiritual essence becomes a substitute for improving practical and social skills, becoming more conscientious, and facing personal demons. "

True but this isnt the case in many spiritualities. In Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism - and especially Zen Buddhism - there is an emphasis on engaging in the world. In Thelema there is also an emphasis although many take the back door through obsession with magick and ritual to escape material reality (which I would argue isnt living up to the ideals of Liber AL).

"For myself, I simply think that spiritual essence is not a very useful idea. Humans are not modeled on a Platonic ideal nor powered by an ethereal battery. We do not have a spiritual constituent within ourselves that rises or falls on some mystical axis. Rather, all things arise dynamically out of the complex soup of reality, a moment to moment emergence of being. As such, our existence does not require an unseen force, just as light does not need a luminiferous aether within which to travel. "

The idea of, for example, the Hindu Atman doesnt fit any of these categories. Some people understand the idea of the Soul/Atman as coterminous with Brahman/that whole 'complex soup of reality.' Crowley calls it the 'All-Self' in some places and has many other ideas like All-God and "Purity is live only to the Highest; and the Highest is All." Further he says things like "All things are interwoven" (Liber Aleph). Technically, unseen things are part of this 'interwoven all' and its incorrect to say " our existence does not require an unseen force." Most forces we know about are unseen and there are some that are simply hypothesized (dark flow) but not understood at all but still necessary for understanding the universe....

IAO131
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
Re: Spiritual essence (part 2)
While a scientific understanding of things might be more accurate, it is also likely to be too difficult to integrate into one's meaning-map. As such, I fully support the idea of using spiritual metaphor in such cases. I can't tell if you are trying to argue with me or not, but you aren't saying much here that I don't agree with.
[info]iao131 wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:36 pm (UTC)
Re: Spiritual essence (part 2)
93,

Im not sure why you would assume Im arguing with you - Im fleshing out a lot of points and showing, sometimes, how you are right in different ways (first response) and showing, other times, how you might be overgeneralizing a bit (second and third responses). I hope my writing wasn't too confusing as I thought it was quite clear when I wrote it.

IAO131
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 11th, 2008 06:58 pm (UTC)
Re: Spiritual essence (part 2)
Im not sure why you would assume Im arguing with you

Um, I said I couldn't tell if you were.

I hope my writing wasn't too confusing as I thought it was quite clear when I wrote it.

Perhaps my reading comprehension is fuzzy today. Have mercy on me and try spelling things out more clearly.
[info]omphalos111 wrote:
Nov. 12th, 2008 12:39 pm (UTC)
Why?
"Our job, therefore, is not to be purified, idealized, or ascended, but rather to examine ourselves and work towards reaching our given potential, whatever that might be."


Why is it our work "to examine ourselves and work towards reaching our given potential, whatever that might be?"

When I first read Carl Jung's book Memories, Thoughts and Reflections, it struck me that his assertion that as far as he could ascertain, the sole purpose of man is to light a candle of hope in the eternal darkness, to be merely a variation of the one that states that is our work "to be purified, idealized, or ascended." The same goes for your assertion that is quoted above.

All these assertions presupposes that there actually is an actual purpose to life. There isn't any scientific or philosophical reason to favor any such purpose over any other one, or for that matter any such purpose over lack of purpose. True they all have drastic implications for how we live our lives and consequently the shape of society, but the inherent goodness or badness of that is again as arbitrary in a final sense as any imagined purpose to this existence.

Feeling good or bad or for that matter anything at all are wholly arbitrarily conventions and there is no intrinsic worth in any of them. As such it is natural that whatever ones goals is (be it being a serial killer in the New York, or the tireless helper of homeless orphans in Calcutta), it flows out of ones values which are in a large part informed (whether by conscious adoption and over time ingrained by habit or by unconscious osmosis by the underlying assumptions that lies at the heart of the culture one was born into) by ones cosmological and anthropological conceptualization of the ones known universe.
[info]aletheian wrote:
Nov. 12th, 2008 07:40 pm (UTC)
Re: Why?
As usual, you bring up great points.

Why is it our work "to examine ourselves and work towards reaching our given potential, whatever that might be?"

Good question. I consider this to be a basic moral imperative. You are right that there is no scientific support for such a statement (since, as we all know, science has its limits), but I do believe there is solid reasoning behind it. I don't agree that the statement presupposes a purpose in life, at least in the sense of a preordained destiny; and more to the point, it doesn't need one. Rather, it's predicated on several assertions: (a) that people do have an attainable potential, (b) that individuals and communities can work better when more people try to reach theirs, and (c) attempting to reach that potential can be a source of meaning, fulfillment, and joy.

At the heart of it is the progressive, humanist philosophy which chooses to see human well-being as a valuable goal. That the universe is objectively indifferent to us makes no difference...humans are meaning-making machines, so the choice only becomes which meanings we create and live our lives by.