Christian universalism (IV)

the mystery of being-here: creation or emergence; spirit

3,450 words

3.

Understanding what it’s like to have faith is an entirely interior event. Religion is about relationship and as with all relationships, no one can speak authentically about it who has not experienced it. The very nature of relationship, except for its observable and measurable “exterior effects,” is its interior content: the shared reality ― whatever it might be ― between the parties. In the case of the existential relationship, the shared reality is the empty being-here of the recipient ― its conditioned human life. Its dependent “self” is the content of the transaction. Its “self” belongs as much to the donor as the recipient and it doesn’t cease belonging to the donor upon being received. That is the source of its emptiness. The recipient doesn’t entirely own itself.

The content is what the parties related to one another “carry back and forth,” which is the transactional sense evoked by the underlying Latin verb “re-ferre, re-latus.” In the faith relationship the content “traded” and shared is existence itself, what I am calling being-here. What is being given and received is being-here, life. And while this unique and precious commodity is quite deeply appreciated and intimately cherished by the individual recipient, the donating source ― the provider(s), the co-owner(s) ― remains unknown. What provides being-here is not apparent, and the faith that is its recognition has relied on socially available confirmation, imagery and symbols for its expression: hence it is clothed in the language, ritual and story of the local community ― its religion ― and differs from culture to culture. But the general dynamics ― the operating forces, the “carrying back and forth,” the giving and receiving, the recognition of common ownership, the faith ― are the same for all regardless of locality or culture; faith is universal.

Inter-personal

In the human domain those dynamics are what we call “inter-personal.” Faith is the acknowledgement of an existential relationship seen from the side of the recipient whose very person ― one’s very self ― in perceiving itself as being received, simultaneously adumbrates itself in that same act as having been given. The experience triggers a spontaneous evocation of awe, gratitude and a sense of being embraced by the unknown donating source(s). It is absolutely unavoidable and undeniable. All human beings aware of their dependency know this experience. It is universal.

But what does personal mean when there is no humanoid “person” on which the existential dependency is known to rest? To answer that question is one of the principal goals of these reflections. It is the source of the most common confusion in this area: since the operating dynamic from the side of the receiver is necessarily “personal” (for it makes the human person to be-here and to be supremely grateful), it has been assumed that the existential source was also “personal” and “benevolent.” The fact that there is no consensus among the world’s religions in that regard has not been appreciated, and in the West, especially, rejected categorically. In our times science seems to concur with the view that the only “persons” involved in providing existence were the human ones from whom one is descended.

The West insists the source of being here must be a god-“person.” Well, of course, all the western religions derive from “the Book” and are built on an ancient pre-scientific narrative that imagined a personal god who created the world with a purposeful plan like any craftsman, freed the Hebrews from enslavement to the Egyptians, accompanied them in their conquest of Palestine, gives moral commands, expects to be obeyed and answers prayers in anticipation of rewarding or punishing people for their conduct. Such pre-scientific guesswork ― com­mon sense as it may have been at one time ― is completely inconsistent with the discoveries of modern science. No one in ancient times saw “God” creating the world. We now know we live in an evolving universe constructed entirely of material energy whose organic elaborations (all the known species of living things) are driven solely by the compulsion to be-here, an energy intrinsic to matter. The “common-sense” conjecture of our ancestors that a super-human architect and craftsman was responsible for all this amounted to a primitive “science,” meaning a concrete physical explanation of how the construction actually took place, not a metaphysics. (By metaphysics I mean a theory of abstract [conceptually structured] causation).   They cannot be faulted for making a plausible guess under the circumstances. But, as science, it is no longer valid; we now know that it never happened like that. Construction took place in another way altogether: evolution.

Creation or emergence?

It must be acknowledged, moreover, that the very idea of creation ― the conceptual structure that corresponded to what the ancients thought creation meant ― was derived from and remains wedded to that that mistaken science. “Craftsman” and “creation” are correlative notions that refer to concretely imagined events. You cannot suddenly admit that the “ancient science” was faulty but continue to assert that the belief in “creation,” as a concept, was not. The very idea of creation ― and I mean to include in this idea the thought, planning, and intended purpose for the thing created ― came from the imagery. If you change the image of a rational craftsman who does things for a purpose, the idea of what creation is ― the conceptual and epistemic structure ― changes in tandem. With evolution, the word and concept “creation” no longer embody the reality of the way being-here is known to be shared between source and recipient, because the features derived from rationally applied construction are no longer there.

The new imagery is provided by what is now known to be the actual process ― the “transaction” ― that made all the structures, forces, features and species of living organisms of the known universe to be-here as they are: the evolution of living matter. The action is not one of “creation,” it is one of autonomous self-emer­gence. It is the spontaneous expansive activity of a living matter whose non-personal, non-intentional, non-purposeful dynamism is locked into an unchanging energy of growth and intensification. Life moves in only one direction: more life.

With the transmission of being-here by the evolution of living matter and not by a craftsman’s planned, purposeful creation, the new emergent “thing” transmitted remains as much a part of what did the transmitting (the evolving) as what emerged. In this conception immanence takes on a concrete imagery: the emergent species always remains nested and embraced (like a sponge in the sea) by what gave it rise: living matter. The “new thing” emerges incrementally; it never stops being the “old thing” even as, little by little, it becomes unmistakably what it now is and is not what it came from. And in the case of humankind the perception of emptiness includes all the co-dependent co-arising factors ― human and non-human “causes” ― that are active in the emergence of the human organism. The human being knows that it is, undeniably, a biological organism, the direct offspring not only of its human ancestors, but also of a multitude of other things in this cosmos. The human organism always remains comprised exclusively of the sub-atomic particles, valences, forces and fields from which it emerged and whose continued functioning is necessary for its own continued existence. Its “self” always remains what it was made of, even as it launches itself as autonomous.

4.

The Philosophical Inversion

The conceptual change implied by the change in the scientific description also affects our traditional philosophical assumptions. And in one key respect it actually inverts them. This is significant, so let me digress briefly and try to explain.

The assumptions of Greek philosophy made since the days of Plato are that “things” are what they are by dint of their “essence.” Essence was believed to be the idea of the “thing” that was implanted in it by its creator. Since the Creator was believed to be rational and functioned like a craftsman, the idea of a thing was itself derived from the purpose the craftsman had in mind when s/he created that thing. The idea and the purpose were the same; they were the “essence” of that thing.

That “essence” was spiritual because it was an idea. An idea was the product of a “mind” and since the mind was believed to be a spirit, the ideas it produced were also said to be spiritual items ― which is the way we think we experience them, i.e., as immaterial.. An idea does not occupy space, it is able to co-penetrate matter co-existing in the same “place” without contact or displacement. It is absolutely universal and denotes every instance of its essence without exception: the idea of horse includes every horse that ever was, is or will be. It is also uncomposed; it is not made of parts and so cannot decompose (implicitly it is therefore immortal). Matter, on the other hand, cannot occupy the same space, is limited to the one and only concrete thing that it is, is composed of parts which disintegrate ending the “identity” of the thing.

This “world-view” promoted first by Plato and continued in slightly modified form by Aristotle, defined western thinking from about 350 bce until the modern era. It is really only since Darwin’s proposals about evolution in the 19th century that it has become generally accepted that all of the foundational priorities assumed by “essentialism” are completely wrong. As it has become increasingly irrefutable that matter is self-elabora­ting, the need to have “idea-essences” in order to explain why things do what they do is superfluous. Matter does what it does because it is driven to be-here by its own internal material energy and the forms that it assumes and the abilities it produces are in response to what works ― what allowed it to be-here.

Under the Platonic philosophía perennis, reality was made of two separate and completely dissimilar substances, matter and spirit, and was described in a series of conceptual dyads: act and potency, prime matter and essential form, body and soul, essence and existence. In each of these pairs one side corresponded to immaterial ideas and the other to its material partner.   Notice that it dovetailed with the “rational craftsman” theory of universal construction. They were all different ways of imagining how the ideal immaterial “reality” in the universe interacted with matter. In all cases, spirit was the guiding element ― the immaterial idea coming from the craftsman’s immaterial mind; and the trailing, dead and inert “empty receptacle” which received the enlivening directions coming from the immaterial idea, was matter.   Matter in itself, without form, was dead, inert, lifeless, shapeless, not unlike soft and pliable clay in the hands of the potter. Matter could be acted upon but could not act. Matter was pure empty potential that brought nothing whatsoever to the composite except the ability to be molded, shaped, directed and activated by the idea-form-essence / source of life.

There was a scholastic maxim: existence comes through the form. What comes first in an essentialist world is the idea ― the “whatness” of a thing: that which makes a thing to be what it is, gives it life and therefore explains what it does. And in all cases “what” something was, was determined by the purpose for which it was made by its maker, the idea in the mind of the artisan.   Aristotle called it the “final cause” because it determined the end to which the “thing” was designated. The contribution of the material receptacle into which the essential form was “poured” was precisely its emptiness: its shapelessness and its malleability: its non-determinateness and its readiness to being shaped by form; its inertness and need to be enlivened by spirit. Form worked on matter as a potter’s mental plan on soft, wet clay. But although matter had to ultimately yield to the shaping power of form, the resistance it offered engaged and intensified form’s activity, giving a focus and creativity to the resulting composite that drove the evolving history of the cosmos. (The last image was the contribution of Henri Bergson to the philosophía perennis early in the 20th century, in a book called Creative Evolution. Despite its title, it was a reaffirmation of traditional creationist dualism.)

Essentia-lism was an IDEA-lism. It was dominated by the primary and guiding reality of ideas, and by the spirit-minds that generated and understood them. Ideas and spirit-minds were real. They carried and transmitted being. Matter gave an edge and creativity to being only by its resistance to it; it was a kind of non-being. The Neo-Platonists of the second and third centuries imagined Being like pure brilliant light shining from its source (the “One”) into an infinite darkness of non-being and enlightening whatever it touched in proportion to its distance from the source of light. Hence the cosmos was populated with a hierarchy of “things,” combinations of darkness and light, that differed from one another in brilliance to the degree that they more closely or more remotely reflected the brilliance of the “One.”

The philosophical inversion I speak of occurred when the world realized that ideas are not things, and minds are not entities separate from the bodies they inhabit. There are no “essences.” Ideas are the mental states of the brains of human organisms, and minds are the self-perceived identity behind that activity. Evolution is not the creative result of “spirit” overcoming a resistant “matter” and there are no “idea-plans” or purposes implanted in things by a some celestial Potter. It is living matter itself obeying its own inner dynamism to be-here whose incremental micro-adjustments of its own inner components result in combinations that survive when they match the support potential in the surrounding environment. That is what is occurring in evolution. If I were to use the traditional scholastic terminology, the conceptual relationships are turned on their heads. The “form” or shape that something has does not determine how it will survive, it is in stumbling upon the combinations that survive that gives to things the form and characteristics that they have. That means, in scholastic terms, being does not come through the form, form is the result of the struggle to be-here, form comes through being; essence does not precede existence, it is the other way around: existence precedes essence. In other words, it was in discovering how to be-here that things developed the shape, abilities and characteristics that they have. This turns the philoso­phía perennis on its head.

5.

These developments in our common understanding have resulted in the realization that belief in a separate kind of “thing” called spirit is superfluous, scientifically speaking. If once upon a time, the idea of spirit was necessary to explain both what things are and how they got here, that is no longer the case. And the simple application of Ockham’s razor ― eliminating unnecessary factors in our explanations ― calls for a re-thinking of exactly what reality is made of.

This creates a dilemma. If spirit was a “theory” that was once the best explanation of the cosmic process, but now is no longer needed, it is quite possible that it doesn’t really exist at all and may never have been the object of our experience as we once believed. We also once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but no longer. We can be deluded.

But the issue is complex and far from resolved. Spirit’s role in emergence, is one thing. But there are other areas where “spirit” cannot be so easily dismissed. How do we explain our unique human abilities: self-consciousness and self-identity, thinking, imagination, appreciation of beauty, morality, the pursuit of truth, the desire for immortality and the love that forms the steel hoops that grapple us to our friends and families? There are those who would call such things illusion. I do not. There is no way to deny what we experience, and no amount of sophistry a la Daniel Dennett,[1] can eliminate the reality of a dimension of this cosmos, internally observable to humans, that we have traditionally attributed to a separate spirit. To say that the existence of spirit as a separate kind of reality opposed to matter is no longer needed to explain the cosmos does not necessarily prove either (1) that such a thing does not exist (with another function) or (2) that spirit may not bear a relationship to matter that is different from the “substance”-definition and the associated total separation and opposition imagined by our Platonic forebears.

It is this latter alternative that appears to me to be the most compatible with both the discoveries of science and our own undeniable experience. I believe there is no such separate “thing” or immaterial “substance” called spirit; truly spiritual phenomena exist, but they are the emanations of a property of matter that we had ignored, fatally distracted by the prejudices of our Platonic, Cartesian dualist tradition which denigrated matter as dead, inert and passive.

Transcendent Materialism

Stone reductionists, like Daniel Dennett who are willing to call us “robots” or “zombies” and claim our interior experience of consciousness is an illusion rather than question the mechanistic materialism that he subscribes to, are one group. Unfortunately, the word materialism without qualification, has been identified with that position alone. Many believe that it is impossible to salvage that word for other applications and suggest the use a different term altogether for a reality that is, in fact, comprised of the potential for both kinds of phenomena: spiritual and material. They propose we call this alternative view “neutral monism,” in order to emphasize that (1) it is not a dualism because there is only one kind of substance in the universe, and that (2) that one substance is neither what we used to call “spirit” nor what we used to call “matter.” It is neutral. It is some other thing with the properties of both.

Currently we do not have a word for this view.  I call it Transcendent Materialism: “materialism” because whatever “spiritual” phenomena are-here, are exclusively the emanations of a property of matter; “transcendent” because this potential is responsible for matter evolving — transcending one form and bringing forth other, unique, autonomous and definitive forms. “Transcendent Materialism” explains emergence.

Frankly, I am impatient with those who continue to use the word “materialism” simplistically without qualification to mean physicalist reductionism. There has been enough discussion in academic forums on neutral monism in our times to warrant acknowledge­ment of multiple meanings to “materialism.”

Transcendent materialists look on the spiritual not as a “thing” or substance but as a phenomenon ― an undebatable reality of experience. We are materialists, but for us matter itself even in its simplest most primitive forms has the potential for what it eventually displays after eons of evolutionary complexification: life and consciousness. We adduce the ancient principle “ex nihilo, nihil fit,” which means “nothing comes from nothing” to explain the etiology.  In other words, if “B” truly emerges from “A” and from “A” alone, then the full explanation for “B” must exist in “A.”[2] Whatever it is that is responsible for what we once attributed to a separate spirit, is actually a property of matter. Hence matter, in total contrast to what Plato and Descartes were saying, is far from inert, lifeless and passive. Matter is the bearer of LIFE and thought.

Now we understand the reason why being-here is only and always a perception of the sensory apparatus of the conscious organism: “Spirit” is a material reality. Spinoza said it in his own way in 1665: “Extension is an attribute of God; God is an extended thing.” (Ethics, Part II, proposition II).

 

[1] Daniel C. Dennett, Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005. Chapter 1, “The Zombic Hunch” passim.

[2] Galen Strawson, “Realistic Monism” in Strawson et al., Consciousness and its place in Nature, Imprint-Academic, Charlottesville VA, 2006, pp 3 – 31. The entire essay is an elaboration of ex nihilo, nihil fit.

5 comments on “Christian universalism (IV)

  1. jorisheise says:

    I love your stuff, though (only in my particular case) I find some of the usage of Buddhist terminology not as helpful as I am sure others do. I love your penetrating questions and thoughtful answers (Not always, of course, in Q&A form). Thank you.

  2. Noel McMaster says:

    Hello Tony. I read your essays against the backdrop of my morning reflection
    which mostly begins with the following (under the heading of theodicy):

    The experiences of living and learning through the scientific sequence of
    ‘mind/ order/theory/verification’ plausibly point human inquiry to a
    singularity and an other-wise agent who freely communicates from a timeless
    redundancy; a key theory here is that of material evolution with its
    phenomenal binary of entropy/negentropy. Negentropy is taken to be a
    this-worldly, analogous “invasion of mind” (accompanied from ‘the beginning’
    by the Self-Communicator’s ‘presence of mind’) that variously delivers, or
    measures, meaning in an entropic universe; it particularly covers all
    conscious human agency in history, whence we can reasonably own that, evil
    notwithstanding, we are meant to manifest freedom in loving partnership with
    an All-Wise Self-Communicator.

    My glossary to accompany the above:

    Point – a metaphorical attempt to denote the origination of the cosmos.

    Singularity – denoting a limit to mathematical expressions of space-time.

    Other-wise – not human, not to be found in space-time, yet imaginatively
    suggesting an affinity with our human commitment to
    mind/order/theory/verification.

    Agent – one whose action is analogous to ours, in keeping with mind and
    order.

    Communicates – conveys difference (information) that makes a difference.

    Redundancy – a plenitude of meaning.

    Evolution – the process whereby phenomena will have been foreshadowed by
    proto-forms, inorganic and organic; cf. Darwin, Wallace, neo-Darwinists.

    Entropy/negentropy – evoking “a [successfully] rising eddy on a descending
    current” (Teilhard de Chardin).

    “Invasion of mind” – Bateman’s phrase, in the context of Maxwell’s demon and
    the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Human agency – as in faith/ideology (Juan Luis Segundo), accompanied by
    praxis, in the context of action’s hermeneutic task (Frances Stefano).

    History – proper to persons, from the element of ‘freedom’ in human nature.

    Evil – the crux of theodicy; can be 1st order (natural, physical,
    pre-moral), or 2nd order (i.e., personal-moral, or social-moral), to be
    interpreted within a context of stochastic evolution and binaries of
    entropy/negentropy, descending currents/rising eddies, chance/novelty,
    winners/losers.

    Meant – meaning.

    Freedom – of Self-Communicator, communicants.

    Loving partnership – anthropological faith-in-action, with deutero-learning;
    witnesses to communion.

    All-Wise – source of wisdom

    I try to live in sync with the world of science, while being conscious of
    what we call evil, a falling away from the cohesion spelt out ecologically
    as homeostasis or balance in systems, living and otherwise. With that, we
    can’t lose sight of the fact that human execution never fully realises
    intention, whether we are thinking of what would maintain homeostatic
    circuits, or undo them; that is, we are not perfectly good, or for that
    matter no one is perfectly bad.

    To me, all this derives from communication initiated at the Big Bang.
    Science enables me to be a communicant in the on-going evolutionary project
    to which we belong. The human science of a deep anthropology of faith
    (wagering on the worthwhile) allows for hope from history.

    Hello Tony. I read your essays against the backdrop of my morning reflection
    which mostly begins with the following (under the heading of theodicy):

    The experiences of living and learning through the scientific sequence of
    ‘mind/ order/theory/verification’ plausibly point human inquiry to a
    singularity and an other-wise agent who freely communicates from a timeless
    redundancy; a key theory here is that of material evolution with its
    phenomenal binary of entropy/negentropy. Negentropy is taken to be a
    this-worldly, analogous “invasion of mind” (accompanied from ‘the beginning’
    by the Self-Communicator’s ‘presence of mind’) that variously delivers, or
    measures, meaning in an entropic universe; it particularly covers all
    conscious human agency in history, whence we can reasonably own that, evil
    notwithstanding, we are meant to manifest freedom in loving partnership with
    an All-Wise Self-Communicator.

    My glossary to accompany the above:

    Point – a metaphorical attempt to denote the origination of the cosmos.

    Singularity – denoting a limit to mathematical expressions of space-time.

    Other-wise – not human, not to be found in space-time, yet imaginatively
    suggesting an affinity with our human commitment to
    mind/order/theory/verification.

    Agent – one whose action is analogous to ours, in keeping with mind and
    order.

    Communicates – conveys difference (information) that makes a difference.

    Redundancy – a plenitude of meaning.

    Evolution – the process whereby phenomena will have been foreshadowed by
    proto-forms, inorganic and organic; cf. Darwin, Wallace, neo-Darwinists.

    Entropy/negentropy – evoking “a [successfully] rising eddy on a descending
    current” (Teilhard de Chardin).

    “Invasion of mind” – Bateman’s phrase, in the context of Maxwell’s demon and
    the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Human agency – as in faith/ideology (Juan Luis Segundo), accompanied by
    praxis, in the context of action’s hermeneutic task (Frances Stefano).

    History – proper to persons, from the element of ‘freedom’ in human nature.

    Evil – the crux of theodicy; can be 1st order (natural, physical,
    pre-moral), or 2nd order (i.e., personal-moral, or social-moral), to be
    interpreted within a context of stochastic evolution and binaries of
    entropy/negentropy, descending currents/rising eddies, chance/novelty,
    winners/losers.

    Meant – meaning.

    Freedom – of Self-Communicator, communicants.

    Loving partnership – anthropological faith-in-action, with deutero-learning;
    witnesses to communion.

    All-Wise – source of wisdom

    I try to live in sync with the world of science, while being conscious of
    what we call evil, a falling away from the cohesion spelt out ecologically
    as homeostasis or balance in systems, living and otherwise. With that, we
    can’t lose sight of the fact that human execution never fully realises
    intention, whether we are thinking of what would maintain homeostatic
    circuits, or undo them; that is, we are not perfectly good, or for that
    matter no one is perfectly bad. No one who experiences the human context and is duly confirmed in consciousness is a total loss. The

    To me, all this derives from communication initiated at the Big Bang.
    Science enables me to be a communicant in the on-going evolutionary project
    to which we belong. The human science of a deep anthropology of faith
    (wagering on the worthwhile) allows for hope from history.

    You may have dealt with evil along your way; I wonder how your system with
    its conatus deals with what I call evil?

    Best wishes,

    Noel.

  3. Noel McMaster says:

    Sorry about the repetition, Tony. My comment was meant to conclude with: You may have dealt with evil along your way; I wonder how your system with
    its conatus deals with what I call evil?

    Blessings,
    Noel.

  4. Brian Coyne says:

    To both Tony Equale and Noel McMaster…

    For Tony: you might be interested in the series of responses this series of essays has been generating on catholica. In particular I recommend the response of Ari at: https://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=229951

  5. Brian Coyne says:

    To Noel, in a complete act of randomness and chance your commentary responding to my earlier essay on the huge part played by randomness and chance in creation, and our lives, came up yesterday in the series I’m presently running from our archives: https://www.catholica.com.au/gc4/nm/003_nm_080317.php . I suspect all this flies light years above the heads of Benny Ratzinger’s “little people and simple people” – including what Tony writes. I’m also not persuaded by what you have written in response to me and have been mulling on it more overnight. I hope to write something in response on the catholica forum today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s