The Profundity of The Captain and Taneal
“Love – love will keep us together…” Okay, the Captain and Taneal may seem an odd choice to start this post, but it’s all Mbains’ fault. I consider him my “resident atheist” since he comments here occasionally; I’ve linked to his “Silly Humans” blog on my blogroll.
MB is innocent of having referred in any way to the dynamic singing duo. But he did start a train of thought that took me there...
In a comment to my 10/3 post, he picked up on my concluding line, “I have done nothing by myself – ever.” I’d given a couple examples of what I meant, including how looking up into the branches of a tree had occasioned a particular thought. MB emphasized that it was my mind that thunk the thought. And certainly I wouldn’t deny that my own cerebral cortex is the proximate cause of whatever I think.
Literally Whole
Nevertheless, it remains true that reality, whatever it is, functions as a whole - literally. For example, the pressure in the cells of our bodies exactly counteracts earth’s atmospheric pressure: get tossed into outer space without a pressurized suit or vehicle and you’d explode. The heavy elements in our bodies necessary to life were forged in the explosions of second generation stars as the universe unfolded. Anyone knowing a lot more about science than I do could provide a lot more examples.
In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James broadly defines religion as our attitude toward life as a whole. Life, reality, is in fact a whole. I think it’s a good definition.
Some believe reality is a whole with two basic parts: nature, on the one hand, and on the other, God conceived as existing in complete or partial distinction from nature. But it isn’t necessary to have this belief in order to experience, as well as understand, that reality is a whole. Being an atheist is no obstacle.
Experiencing Wholeness
Take love, for example. Love brings us together (hats off to Captain and Taneal…). Love is one way in which we can experience and increase the wholeness of life, and in particular, human life. Empathy, forgiveness, compassion (which, imo, are just variations on the love theme…) – experiencing these things doesn’t require religious beliefs.
Or take the oceanic feelings that occur for many of us in relation to nature. Alone under the sky, we can directly experience something of our personal relationship to the larger reality; sense the fact that we have no existence apart from it, regardless of whether we believe that this all-inclusive reality includes a more or less distinct entity or aspect that we call God or divine.
Or take the unitive states of consciousness that can be known through contemplative prayer or meditation, and that occur spontaneously in some lives. To read descriptions of these experiences by persons who have written about them, and the techniques outlined for entering into them, is to recognize that a single basic kind of experience occurs cross-culturally. This is off the top of my head, but if I recall correctly, there’s a book by an author named Walter Stacey or Stace that’s good on demonstrating this point. I think “mysticism” was in the title, which can be a problematic; this word sometimes refers to alternative belief systems and experiential claims that many people find questionable. But Stace – also James – focuses his discussion on a clearly identifiable form of “altered state of consciousness,” and one that can have far reaching consequences for how we lead our lives.
MB is innocent of having referred in any way to the dynamic singing duo. But he did start a train of thought that took me there...
In a comment to my 10/3 post, he picked up on my concluding line, “I have done nothing by myself – ever.” I’d given a couple examples of what I meant, including how looking up into the branches of a tree had occasioned a particular thought. MB emphasized that it was my mind that thunk the thought. And certainly I wouldn’t deny that my own cerebral cortex is the proximate cause of whatever I think.
Literally Whole
Nevertheless, it remains true that reality, whatever it is, functions as a whole - literally. For example, the pressure in the cells of our bodies exactly counteracts earth’s atmospheric pressure: get tossed into outer space without a pressurized suit or vehicle and you’d explode. The heavy elements in our bodies necessary to life were forged in the explosions of second generation stars as the universe unfolded. Anyone knowing a lot more about science than I do could provide a lot more examples.
In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James broadly defines religion as our attitude toward life as a whole. Life, reality, is in fact a whole. I think it’s a good definition.
Some believe reality is a whole with two basic parts: nature, on the one hand, and on the other, God conceived as existing in complete or partial distinction from nature. But it isn’t necessary to have this belief in order to experience, as well as understand, that reality is a whole. Being an atheist is no obstacle.
Experiencing Wholeness
Take love, for example. Love brings us together (hats off to Captain and Taneal…). Love is one way in which we can experience and increase the wholeness of life, and in particular, human life. Empathy, forgiveness, compassion (which, imo, are just variations on the love theme…) – experiencing these things doesn’t require religious beliefs.
Or take the oceanic feelings that occur for many of us in relation to nature. Alone under the sky, we can directly experience something of our personal relationship to the larger reality; sense the fact that we have no existence apart from it, regardless of whether we believe that this all-inclusive reality includes a more or less distinct entity or aspect that we call God or divine.
Or take the unitive states of consciousness that can be known through contemplative prayer or meditation, and that occur spontaneously in some lives. To read descriptions of these experiences by persons who have written about them, and the techniques outlined for entering into them, is to recognize that a single basic kind of experience occurs cross-culturally. This is off the top of my head, but if I recall correctly, there’s a book by an author named Walter Stacey or Stace that’s good on demonstrating this point. I think “mysticism” was in the title, which can be a problematic; this word sometimes refers to alternative belief systems and experiential claims that many people find questionable. But Stace – also James – focuses his discussion on a clearly identifiable form of “altered state of consciousness,” and one that can have far reaching consequences for how we lead our lives.
posted by Paul @ 12:14 PM
35 Comments:
You wrote: "Or take the unitive states of consciousness that can be known through contemplative prayer or meditation, and that occur spontaneously in some lives. To read descriptions of these experiences by persons who have written about them, and the techniques outlined for entering into them, is to recognize that a single basic kind of experience occurs cross-culturally."
Have you ever looked at "A Course in Miracles"? Here is a quote from it: "A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary. It is this experience toward which the course is directed."
You said ...
Or take the oceanic feelings that occur for many of us in relation to nature. Alone under the sky, we can directly experience something of our personal relationship to the larger reality; sense the fact that we have no existence apart from it, regardless of whether we believe that this all-inclusive reality includes a more or less distinct entity or aspect that we call God or divine.
... I've experienced this often in nature, before and after being a christian. Maybe it's a subliminal recognition of being a creature of this ecosystem ... we belong to this planet.
I'm not sure about the significance of this feeling, though. Does it have to do with love and togetherness? Must not everything here feel/have felt the same way ... even the dinosaurs? :-)
You wrote: "or take the unitive states of conscious that can be known through comtemplative prayer, or meditation...."
I would add that the experience occurs across religions as well as across cultures. Point of fact, these elements may be a unifying rather than dividing factor for many.
Foremostly I enjoyed your description of the types of experiences we have when we experience nature:
"Or take the oceanic feelings that occur for many of us in relation to nature. Alone under the sky, we can directly experience something of our personal relationship to the larger reality; sense the fact that we have no existence apart from it, regardless of whether we believe that this all-inclusive reality includes a more or less distinct entity or aspect that we call God or divine."
Sometimes, our deepest connections occur in nature. I always feel most at home out in the vastness of country or paddling through still water.
Paul, in my experience, Love is an Altered state of consciousness. When I love, I am removed from my daily self into a realm that exists with the 'Whole'as opposed to the mundane world that keeps me separate from myself and others. I have spent my life looking at these states of being and have found that 'Love'is something alot more broad than most would have us assume. We go about,,, looking for love, when in reality it is something that is fluid and ever changing with the cosmos. I do not want a love that is static or fixed into one way of being. I wish for something that is evolving and moving towards another realm that is more than I have hold of at the moment. I expect love to be something that will crush me with its weight, not because it is forceful and unyeilding, but because it is like a waterfall, vast and powerful in movement, not stagnant or stale. Our conscious mind latches onto ideas that we have shaped with myth, story and tales of 'love',but I wish to experience the love that is not known, one that is new and bright, not seen by most. I expect the word to grow with my soul, not contain it.
I think that this is why Nature is so much of a beacon to us regarding 'love', because it is wild, untamed and ever moving in a new evolutionary direction that our souls long to attain. We experience the divine in Nature because it envelopes us in the wholeness of life, and does not separate us into categorys that are, love, hate,jealousy etc. nature is raw and unyeilding to us, and we embrace is because we know that it lifts us upward and does not stand still waiting for us to pick and choose what we feel is correct in our human eyes. We seem to want to put labels on love, when we should just experience things wholeheartedly like the gazzelle jumping through the bush. We grasp at love, when it is something that can only be beheld with our hearts. We wish to trap love, when it is something wild and vicious in nature. We want to control what can only be felt with the most deep inner parts of our souls.
So, Yes, Love---Love will keep us together,, but only if we allow it to be multifaceted and free. Nature is untame, and so is love. to tame love is to make it less than it is meant to be.
sorry to sound so preachy,,, didn't mean to ,, but will not edit what fell out of my heart.
i've read a lot of blogs today with the theme of love, and reality.
so i'll comment on meditation and prayer...
to be in that contemplative state, in the presence of the moment, always. when we eat, run, take photographs, write, talk to someone, have sex. how?
Some believe reality is a whole with two basic parts: nature, on the one hand, and on the other, God
Nature = possible
god = impossible
One we can observe and verify individually and in agreement in groups ad infinitum. It is real. The 2nd needs "faith" and is divisive in its unverifiability thus effecting separation and conflict in the name of an arbitrary unity.
We are each and all alone as Part of Everything.
In other words, I concurr. ;}
What I was being overly emotional in responding intellectually to was the vigor with which so many commenters seemed to jump on the idea that They, Themself, Individually, are nothing if not part of everything.
While that sentimental observation is empirically and observationally true, it is lacking in acknowledgment of the ONE thing that makes homo sapiens (er, our species!) different from any other animal to have evolved on this planet in the 3.5 billions years since its physical inception as a bio-sphere: conscious will to manipulate and create using our individual minds and the resources of our environment regardless of whether any have come before us; though we are certainly intelligent enough to note such and use or discard their experiences with Nature; what is.
Our parents teach us - effectively or not - how to be individuals. It is up to each one - singular - of us to determine what that means to us and how we will act it out both alone in conjunction with everything in our environment.
Love will keep us together, even as the ship sinks and life blurs into a terminated experiment of probability. Reason allows Each of us to ensure a longer life and more meaningful experiences of Love by consciously reaching out to our environment and our fellows.
Namaste - one to all
Holyinheritance: Sure makes sense to me. Certainly it's impossible to reconcile existing religious belief systems, while it appears to me that experientially, people around the world share a great deal.
Crystal: The flowers of the field, the birds of the air...
The people of the globe.
Barbara, absolutely, I meant to include religions.
Bonita: "At home" is a good way to put it, too...
Scott, I'm on the same basic wavelength as you on this. I think the vitality of nature, or as you say, its untamedness, offers a lesson in how to be for human beings. And I think you're right - love can be described as an altered state of consciousness.
Rhein: I've never met anyone who struck me as totally "there," but I think you're describing the goal, the direction.
I remember reading that the Buddha himself emphasized to his disciples how much trouble he himself had following his own Eightfold Path when some of them were trying to deify him.
So I guess my own idea of "enlightenment" is that though we're called to seek perfection, "nobody's perfect."
As far as how to go further in the direction, I personally found readings in Buddhism very helpful because Buddhism offers so much practical advice on how to go about it. Two books I liked were, "Seeking the Heart of Wisdom," by Goldstein and Kornfield, and Thich Nhat Hahn's, "The Miracle of Mindfulness."
I guess togetherness is also a strong emotion that goes towards wholeness. I can see it run through all that you talk about in the last section.
Mbains: What about the way "God" is used by pantheists - God as meaning Everything-That-Is considered as a whole?
I think the God that atheism rejects is God as an Other entity that created nature. At least that's the concept of God I've always heard atheists discuss.
Yeah, for sure: within nature or reality, we humans are the most highly individuated and conscious life form we know of. We need to consciously take our place in the larger whole, knowingly accept the fact of our responsibility - or stewardship, to use the religious term - for the planet. Otherwise we won't last long.
I think of reason a bit differently. I see it as morally neutral. When reason is motivated by love, we do good things. But it can also be motivated by our small, petty, worst selves. The Third Reich, for example, was operated in a pretty rational manner.
Although, as I think about it, Hitler's own greed and egoism led him to make major mistakes, ignore advice, and lose the war. So now I'm wondering if love may not have a closer inherent connection to reason than, say, fear or greed...
Mathew Arnold's phrase, "sweetness and light" comes to mind. Maybe the two are connected...
Experiencing wholeness...that is a wonderful concept to go along with practicing mindfulness and living in the moment. I really like that.
Although, as I think about it, Hitler's own greed and egoism led him to make major mistakes, ignore advice, and lose the war. So now I'm wondering if love may not have a closer inherent connection to reason than, say, fear or greed...
BINGO! LOL!
"Hitler" and his ilk, whether religious or otherwise (Nazism is a religion which, like Buddhism, demurred any awareness of gods) were quite anti-thetical to reason.
Just like any and each of us at times can be.
What about the way "God" is used by pantheists - God as meaning Everything
That's the only def I have never seen a demonstrable refutation of. My only 2 reasons for not subscribing are:
1) "What" is the "whole of the Universe"? thus "what" is "god"? Science endeavors to find out.
2) We (homo) have yet to discover the entirety of the first answer(s) and already have discovered a mathematically probable (via String Theory physical and natural source for "the whole of the universe": an even larger dimension encompassing infinite combinations of possible universes.
Which makes me remember what my best friend once said: "God seems to smile at us through nature..."
I liked this post a lot. You describe things I often feel, but haven't put into words. Sometimes I feel a oneness with the world around me. It's much easier for me to feel this in nature.
I lay on my back, watching a bird flying overhead, and suddenly I am that bird. I feel it's freedom, the cold of the air, it's heart beating, everything. Sometimes it happens through compassion. I am driving my car, I see an old man standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change. He looks beaten down by life, sad and poor. I feel tears in my eyes, even though I don't really know his circumstances, I only guess.
Sometimes I don't even want to feel this connection to life, sometimes it seems like it's too much, you know? But sometimes it's so beautiful too.
I like what irina said: "God seems to smile at us through nature..."
I like that.
Mona, thanks.
Mbains: But Nazism and Buddhism in the same breath? I'll admit they both end with "ism..."
At this point in human history, it seems to me that while religion and science both strive to address life as a whole, they approach it in different ways.
Religion/spirituality seeks a meaningfulness to life or reality as a whole which is congruent with the best that we can be aware of in our own lives in terms of intention, compassion, aspiration, hope, and love. To date, especially in the West, it's done this chiefly in terms of beliefs concerning God.
Science also seeks to understand life or reality as a whole, but it focuses on the world outside ourselves - the physical, observable universe. It simply tries to look at what's there, without regard to its apparent congruence or lack of congruence with human inner life - including, for example, the passionate desire for knowledge and truth that inspires scientists.
To me, it's untruthful for religious people to try to ignore what science has to say about the world. People used to be burned at the stake for surmising the stars were other suns, or that the earth revolved around the sun. To me there is no honest way but to follow where truth leads, and not insist that our present belief systems are state of the art. Yesterday's weren't; why should this time in history be any different?
At the same time, we are so far from knowing the shape of All-Reality that for science to dismiss religious aspirations and spiritual experience as necessarily non-reality based is way premature.
Example: almost everything we see in nature belongs to a kind or category of thing: a tree, an amimal, an ocean, a star, a planet. A universe? We don't know the answer. Cosmologists are divided on whether there exists just this one universe we know, or a multiplicity of them.
What if "universes" are not even the only kind of thing that exists in life or reality as a whole? We don't know what we don't know...
So whether or not we believe in God, or accept someone else's version of God as That which makes life meaningful, I think the question of whether or not life as a whole is meaningful has to be an open one from anybody's perspective.
One more point: while science does "try to find out what the whole of the universe is," it's basically an attempt to describe that whole, to map it out. Religion and spirituality, imo, are finally the aspiration to experience that whole, to be conscious of it. And that whole finally does in fact include us, and even our map-making process, and the map we come up with! The map itself is a new and unfolding creation occuring as part of the reality of All-That-Is.
For those "with ears to hear," science constantly informs our quest for, and consciousness of, meaning. For those with eyes to see, science itself is part of some larger pattern.
I'm sleepy and I think I've just blown my own mind... This may not make sense when I look at it in the morning. Thanks, MB, for such a thought provoking remark.
Irina: Is the God who shines through nature totally other and apart from it? Or a divine dimension of it (as in Paul Tillich's "ground of being...")? Or is the shining something imparted by Nature as a Whole to each and all of its constituent parts?
Kate, thanks for those concrete examples. I'm curious in what way that sense of being part of the whole can sometimes feel like "too much."
A: Yes, and I think that our own ability to be whole and together as one single-though-diverse-world-people on this planet is moving into ever sharper focus as the key to our survival.
Hi Kathy T. - I'd ask you the same question I asked Irina...
hmmm...all interesting. I am deeply spiritual and have experienced my own miracles that leads me to believe a certain way (following experience, not a particular religion). I was also raised by a father who taught biology, chemistry and physics. I love the sciences and I don't have any conflict embracing that part as well because science at its pure heart says we don't know what is out there; we're just giving you our best guess until there is more evidence that proves one way or the other. I love that openness and willingness to accept new information (I'm talking about pure science - indidviduals involved in science bring their own experiences to the table). Not that all atheists are the same, but they can have good points that keep your feet on the ground. THANKS!
p.s. on another topic. you are you guys getting your picture posted. i haven't been able to figure it out on blogger.
I find it hard to separate "god" and "nature" for I see all as one, but with many aspects of life (both known and unknown) -- to experience the whole.
I understand more about love and how it connects us individually and collectively --- but only from my personal experiences and interactions with humans and nature.
Nature is raw, it does not discriminate. However nature is not judge for it dark side --- it's simply thought of as a balance. This is how I look at God/Creator or whatever you may refer to the invisible force. I see God as all there is, darkness and light, love and hate --- and the beauty and perfect balance of this God is mirrored in Nature's perfect balance --- the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Paul, your writing is so very profound, and I have to read it over and over again to really grasp the wonder of it all. IMO --You have answers without your questions, and questions within your answers --- a perfect balance! Still there is room for the observer to grow and explore.
Hi Zahirah - I like that about science too - the fact that it never claims to have the final and permanent answer, but always remains open to improving its understanding of the physical world. Some mistake this for a weakness - there science goes again, "changing its mind" - because they don't understand the scientific method.
To me, it makes science a real quest and a part of our overall search for truthful meaning.
Liquidplastic: On the other hand, does nature really have a dark side? The violence animals do comes from their desire to survive. The "violence" of earthquakes and floods just happens because we build our houses where they occur.
The violence that we do today is rarely initiated for survival reasons, and sure doesn't "just happen..." We have a dark side; I'm not so sure about nature...
"The violence that we do today is rarely initiated for survival reasons, and sure doesn't "just happen..." We have a dark side; I'm not so sure about nature... "
Yes, you are right in this respect. Humanity has a dark side and it's not natural.
By the way, I loved C & T ... love keeps us together and love also divide us, based on what it is we love the most.
Gosh, I'd love to add something here, but I feel out of my league. :(
Umm... I'm feeling a duality in my life right now. It's like, I can acknowledge the existance of God with my left hand, and deny him with my right. I wrote a poem about it, it's on my blog today. This is it, recopied:
I dreamed of an enlightened explication
As if God felt he owed me an explanation
I knew I was mistaken
For I had been forsaken
A child without his Father
I told him not to bother
He left me then
He left his next of kin
He looked, though not with scorn
I understood, I was his crown of thorns
He offered to be the wind in my sail
All I was, was the nail
In his hand I was impaled
The exchange, can't you see
He offered me life eternally
I declined his gift
Denied his existence
Spit on his image
Stepped on his grave
To this day He offers me redemption
But I will not make an exemption
For a God that does not exist
Liquidplastic: To me, love is divisive when we mistake love for other forms of attachment.
Hiya, Justin - Not out of your league at all, seems to me. Sounds like you're wrestling with something very genuine: whether you're able to believe certain teachings, even the basic ones, of what I'm assuming is Christianity as you grew up with it.
People end up resolving that in a lot of different ways...
wholeness comes from togetherness, nature is a symphony.
Gulnaz: I'm in sympathy, but it's a symphony with major elements of cacaphony. I hope I spelled that last word right, didn't mean to get scatalogical... Eschatological, yes; scatalogical, no.
Hi Paul,
just a quick note. i do not want to sound jaded, but this thought came to my mind and will appreciate your opinion on this.
I agree with you that love is a binding force. However, sometimes I think that love is self-gratifying.
We love others because it makes us feel good. Even in charity, compassion, empathy, etc. So at the end of the day, it's still "selfish" and "individualistic".
I still haven't reconciled that idea with unity and spirituality yet (just mumbling here).
Thanks.
Asiansmiles: Good question.
It is often pleasant and always self-fulfilling to love; yet self-fulfillment isn't the reason or motivation for love. Love is primarily about the beyond-self or more-than-self, even while acting on love promotes our own spiritual wellness.
Dr. Martin Luther King is a good example. He knew that if he just kept on doing what he was doing, he'd end up dead. He referred to this in his, "But I'm not worried anymore" speech the night before his assassination. He'd received so many death threats he knew it was inevitable.
In that speech, he spoke, with tears in his eyes, of "the advantages to a long life."
I think that no one so intelligent, gifted, and aware of life's value, would opt to be assassinated for the good feelings that can surround acting on love. He'd have to have been crazy, which he sure wasn't.
It was his love for others that motivated King. That was the passion behind his words and acts.
(BTW, it is spelled Capitan and TENNILLE).
You are right to remind us of the "wholeness" of reality. While it is evident that there are natural boundaries and distinctions that allow us to retain our identities (and ultimately express creativity), religions have had trouble resolving this tension. Some want to remove those distinctions and merge us into one indistinguishable whole. Others, like Judaism and Christianity, have gone to other extremes at times by widening the chasm despite the fact that their foundational worldviews ultimately break down these divisions and the mediataions between God and nature, including the spiritual-secular dichotomy (You wouldn't know that, however, by most of their contemporary expressions!)
Both extremes are probably indicative of the uneasiness we all experience in encountering the divine.
Lloyd: Tennille... Hmm... That's the fourth variation I come across.
Captain? T? You out there? If you're reading, please help us out here.
But yeah, certainly what we've got going in the world as we know it is a UNIverse, and yet a fragmented one. Interesting point about how that's a necessary condition for human creativity.
That division between the sacred and secular worlds is one of my pet peeves... But I don't think it's to be resolved by ending the separation of church and state...
Thanks Paul, that helped a lot.
I think God and nature conside with each other. Look where Adam and Eve got their start, In the Garden of Eden.
I do some of my best thinking when I am out walking at the park. I can feel God all around me. We have much to be thankful for and nature is one of those things. Another favorite place to go is up in the mountains in Colorado. I take in the fresh air, the cool mountain breezes and the thousands of stars at night. I love sitting on a huge boulder out in the river and listening to the water go by. It is so rythematic and it hyptomizes me. I can always feel God when I am in these settings. We need to remember that God created this earth and gave it to us to live on. Nature and God definately go together.
Asiansmiles, glad I was able to convey a sense of what I mean. Do wish I had the manuscript published, since chapter one, "What Love Is," explains it more fully.
Lucy, thanks for those illustrations of the kinds of experiences with nature that people often find so meaningful. Sounds like in addition, you have a belief in God existing apart from nature that created it; so such experiences remind you of your belief and help reinforce it for you.
Of course it's also possible to believe in God and not be so responsive to nature; and to be responsive to nature, but not believe in God. I've known both types of people.
Far reaching consequences indeed... the good love I have attracted and chosen (happily) these days is worlds apart from the bad love I've attracted and chosen in the past... I am so lucky to know the difference.
La Coloratura: Good for you. And the "bad love" - the badness there, in my way of thinking, would probably turn out to be something other than love. Love can get mixed up with other things, and even mistaken for other things...
Hey bro! Hope you're doin' better than last time we talked.
I was just checkin' my Site Meter, and the most recent visitor came from a Yahoo Search on:
what does captain and taneal mean
This here post was the Number One link returned! Just thought you'd wanna know. {-;
Post a Comment
<< Home