|by David Eide||.|
Of course you go through stages of credibility. In the beginning you believe just about everything. One could say that 'everything' is simply nature in that it is self-evident. The self-evident is there for a reason. Reason or cause is traced back to cause. Cause equals reality. This produces both history and superstition.
At some point the mind confronts contradictory notions; ie. I believe in God. I don't believe in God. I believe in capitalism and not communism. I believe in communism and not capitalism. A contradiction in belief draws attention to itself. The statement, "I believe in God" is traced back to the cause which produces the belief- ie, the words of the Bible are truer to my experience than any other source. Or, I recognize a realm in experience which is absolutely irrational and which can only be organized by God."
Just as the opposite statement, "I don't believe in God" is traced to experience; disillusionments, competitive God systems and the like plunges one into other forms of credibility.
At some point the mind must force itself out of credulity. It must say to itself, "this is reality."
At some point you have to figure out if the world, the world that comes through by way of the essences, is essentially incredible or forms of knowledge. You could see it both ways. You could see the world as a whole set of "forces" that can be ascribed to a set of specific causes, therefore nothing but the agreement or repetition of those causes. Or you could see that world as forms of knowledge that is in potential cognizant to understanding. Which may even be brought to one as a self-conscious form of knowledge. Self-conscious knowledge comes into being as a resolution between contradictory notions. The positive of that resolution becomes the fact, the reality, etc. the negative of the resolution becomes the incredulous "other." If you look at the large contractionary notions in the world today you can see that this is true. That is the basic nature of religious belief, ideology, self-interested knowledge etc.
What is the nature of this contradiction? Logic reduces nature to law. Law is transformed into object. Object then performs a function among the body and mind of people who then invest the object with the "irrational" -computers being the last or most recent one.
Or, this contradiction? Logic reduces existence to motive. Motive and counter-motives are built up into a structure of organization which then become complex forms of knowledge, which are then invested with the "irrational." Govt., corporations, political parties being the obvious examples.
What if the mind is free of the contradictions? What if the mind understands the logic of machines, the logic of all inanimate objects produced by the mind and as well understands the motives for the structure of organization? Understands to the point of not investing these things with "magic" or power that they do not possess? Then the mind is left with these essential categories of love, hate, justice, beauty ete cetc.
Without taking myself particularly seriously I can say that one of the great pressures I have felt has been the weight of what others believe when they give no evidence of what it is that they believe. Or, why they believe. Only that it is what they believe. And so curiosity tries to put oneself in the mind of the other. If he believes so strongly, then he must see things this way. I began to see most of this belief as a cry of suffering more than anything else, along with the more obvious causes.
Another pressure is the resentment which comes when you puncture the belief of another. This has been so weighty a pressure I can hardly describe it. Most especially among loved ones and intimates. If the resentment becomes powerful enough it can destroy your very ability or desire to do anything worthwhile. You have to fight this like the very devil, since a great deal of primitive reaction is safe and secure in homes and offices which does not give the person the opportunity to view anything other than how they habitually do. And why should he if he has a full stomach, free entertainment, a fine wine and easy sex? I can't describe the weight of this pressure without martyring myself.
If someone believes that they hold the truth they naturally attempt to extend it as far as they can. From the point of view of faith that extension is action. From the point of view of thought that extension is ideas and criticism. Thinkers who are drenched in tradition get into this dilemma. They repeat each successive generation of thinkers and doers. However much content is lost from generation to generation, there is the intention which survives and is repeated. And yet, the thinker has to come to the same conclusion that he comes too about "gods." Every generation or period of history offers its gods. No generation or race or age is immune from the god. Who, what, how, why etc is one god established over the rest as the supreme and authentic god? The thinker faces the same problem when he faces philosophical systems.
But in doing that you reduce the living thing from the common sense logic. You substitute logic for the living forms. As the popular saying goes, "the only certainly is uncertainty." Now, this can only be a boon for the adventuresome, exploring type of mind which can live with uncertainly. But does he live and explore simply to destroy certainty itself? What purpose is served by destroying certainty? That impetus is no longer a driving one since all the deeds have been done.
The argument just revolves around and around because then you are back at religious systems and they seem to answer that question. They seem to say that uncertainty is only a step further toward faith. The thinker is then reduced to the urbane, sophisticated Pilate asking Christ, "what is truth?" Or the figure of doubting Thomas and so forth.
So that to explore uncertainty is to break the absolute hold by the religious faith. Which dumps the individual out at the present time with all its confusions and anxieties. Thinkers don't address these questions because they see them as regressions back to historical epochs. And their own logic has already determined the "beginning and end" of their epoch and they don't want to be implied in the nature of their own logic. And that is why native, provincial brains see thinkers, scientists and so on as attempting to usurp the gods or God.
You have to be playful without jettisoning all respect and regard and so on.
While it is stupid to be ignorant of history - and not to bring to history happy intelligence and to be honest in noting the consequences between types of behavior, it is also not wise to try and "implicate" yourself in history, counting on the ignorance of others to get you there. And it certainly makes no sense to free the mind and spirit from one thing and then ingeniously "trap" it in another thing.
I am not saying anything new here, just old principles that have to be renewed once in a while.
Logic evades as much as penetrates. This is irony.
A success evades rather than penetrates.
When logic is the operating principle in the main of society it will be used to react and evades rather than discover and penetrate. It's no different with Religion, Monarchy, Tyranny and all these other historical operating principles.
If Art or Philosophy were the operating principles of the society the results would be the same.
© 2016 David Eide. All rights reserved.