Home » baby (Page 38)
Category Archives: baby
The Cloud of Unknowing is Eternally Being Born within Ourselves–Except the Heaven Had Come So Near
No, no, never angry. Let me hold you tight, my fledgling, my darling, my newborn one. I adore you. We will fix everything. We will make everything perfect for everyone. Somehow. You have not been an angelic success, have you? Is God giving you the power to writhe and spit with anger? Faith, in the having mode, is the possession of an answer for which one has no rational proof. It consists of formulations created by others, which one accepts because one submits to those others—usually a bureaucracy. It carries the feeling of certainty because of the real (or only imagined) power of the bureaucracy. It is the entry ticket to join a large group of people. It relieves one of the hard task of thinking for oneself and making decisions. One becomes one of the beati possidentes, the happy owners of the right faith. Faith, in the having mode, gives certainty; it claims to pronounce ultimate, unshakable knowledge, which is believable because the power of those who promulgate and protect the faith seems unshakable. Indeed, if all it requires is to surrender one’s independence, who would not choose certainty? God, originally a symbol for the highest value that we can experience within us, becomes, in the having mode, an idol. In the prophetic concept, an idol is a thing that we ourselves make and project our own powers into, thus impoverishing ourselves. We then submit to our creation and by our submission are in touch with ourselves in an alienated form. #RandolphHarris 1 of 13
While I can have the idol because it is a thing, by my submission to it, it, simultaneously, has me. Once God has become an idol, God’s alleged qualities have as little to do with my personal experience as alienated political doctrines do. The idol may be praised as Lord of Mercy, yet any cruelty may be committed in its name, just as the alienated faith in human solidarity may not even raise doubts about committing the most inhuman acts. Faith, in the having mode, is a crutch for those who want to be certain, those who want an answer to life without daring to search for it themselves. In the being mode, faith is an entirely different phenomenon. Can we live without faith? Must not the nursling have faith in its mother’s milk? Must we all not have faith in other beings, in those whom we love, and in ourselves? Can we live without faith in the validity of norms for our life? Indeed, without faith we become grim soulless mortals, sterile, hopeless, afraid to the very core of our being. Faith, in the being mode, is not, in the first place, a belief in certain ideas (although it may be that, too) but an inner orientation, an attitude. It would be better to say that one is in faith than that one has faith. (The theological distinction between faith that is belief [fides quae creditur] and faith as belief [fides qua creditur] reflects a similar distinction between the content of faith and the act of faith.) One can be in faith toward oneself and toward others, and the religious person can be in faith toward God. #RandolphHarris 2 of 13
The God of the Old Testament is, first of all, a negation of idols, of gods whom one can have. Though conceived in analogy to an Eastern king, the concept of God transcends itself from the very beginning. God must not have a name; no image must be made of God. Later on, in Jewish and Christian development, the attempt is made to achieve the complete deidolization of God, or rather to fight the danger of idolization by postulating that even God’s qualities can be stated. Or most radically in Christian mysticism—from (Pseudo) Dionysius Areopagita to the unknown author of The Cloud of Unknowing and to Master Eckart—the concept of God tends to be that of the One, the “Godhead” (the No-thing), thus joining views expressed in the Vedas and in Neoplatonic thinking. This faith in God is vouched for by inner experience of the divine qualities in oneself; it is a continuous, active process of self-creation—or, as Master Eckhart puts it, of Christ’s eternally being born within ourselves. The key to having unshakable faith is to not consider your circumstances, but consider your God. When you focus on God, you magnify God and your faith rises in your heart. That faith will keep you fully persuaded that God will make a way, even though you do not see a way. And the beauty is that God will show up and do amazing things! #RandolphHarris 3 of 13
My faith in myself, in another, in humankind, in our capacity to become fully human also implies certainty, but certainty based on my own experience and not on my submission to an authority that dictates a certain belief. It is certainty of a truth that cannot be proven by rationally compelling evidence, yet truth I am certain of because of my experiential, subjective evidence. (The Hebrew word for faith is Emunah, certainty; amen means certainly.) If I am certain of a mortal’s integrity, I could not prove one’s integrity up to one’s last day; strictly speaking, if one’s integrity remains inviolate to the time of one’s passing from this Earth, even that would not exclude an absolute standpoint that one might have done violence to it has one lived longer. My certainty rests upon experience of love and integrity. This kind of knowledge is possible only to the extent that I can drop my own id and see that other mortal in his or her suchness, recognize the structure of forces in one, see one in one’s individuality and at the same time in one’s Universal humanity. Then I know what the other can do, what one cannot do, and what one will not do. Of course, I do not mean by this that I could predict all of one’s future behavior, but only the general lines of behavior that are rooted in basic character traits, such as integrity, responsibility, and so forth. #RandolphHarris 4 of 13
This faith is based on facts; hence it is rational. However, the facts are not recognizable or provable by the method of conventional, absolute psychology; I, the alive person, am the only instrument that can register them. There is no conflict between faith in its true nature and reason in its true nature. This includes the assertion that there is no essential conflict between faith and the cognitive function of reason. Cognition in all its forms was always considered as that function of mortal’s which comes most easily into conflict with faith. This was especially so when faith was defined as a lower form of knowledge and was accepted because the divine authority guaranteed its truth. We have rejected this distortion of the meaning of faith, and in doing so have removed one of the most frequent causes for the conflicts between faith and knowledge. However, we must show beyond this the concrete relation of faith to the several forms of cognitive reason: the scientific, the historical and the philosophical. The truth of faith is different from the meaning of truth in each of these ways of knowledge. Nevertheless, it is truth they all try to reach, truth in the sense of really real received adequately by the cognitive function of the human mind. Error takes place if the mortal’s cognitive endeavor misses the really real and takes that which is only seemingly real for real; or if it hit the really real but expresses it in a distorted way. #RandolphHarris 5 of 13
Often it is difficult to say whether the real is missed or whether its expression is inadequate, because the two forms of the error are interdependent. In any case, where there is the attempt to know, there is truth or error or one of the many degrees of transition between truth and error. In faith mortal’s cognitive function is at work. Therefore, we must ask what the meaning of truth in faith is, what its criteria are, and how it is related to other forms of truth with other kinds of criteria. Science tries to describe and to explain the structures and relations in the Universe, in so far as they can be tested by experiment and calculated in quantitative terms. The truth of a scientific statement is the adequacy of the description of the structural laws which determine reality, and it is the verification of this description by experimental repetitions. Every scientific truth is preliminary and subject to changes both in grasping reality and in expressing it adequately. This element of uncertainty does not diminish the truth value of a tested and verified scientific assertion. It only prevents scientific dogmatism and absolutism. Therefore, it is a very poor method of defending the truth of faith against the truth of science, if theologians point to the preliminary character of every scientific statement in order to provide a place of retreat for the truth of faith. #RandolphHarris 6 of 13
If tomorrow scientific progress reduced the sphere of uncertainty, faith would have to continue its retreat—an undignified and unnecessary procedure, for scientific truth and the truth of faith do not belong to the same dimension of meaning. Science has no right and no power to interfere with faith and faith has no power to interfere with science. One dimension of meaning is not able to interfere wit another dimension. If this is understood, the previous conflicts between faith and science appear in a quite different light. The conflict was actually not between faith and science but between a faith and a science each of which was not aware of its own valid dimension. When the representatives of faith impeded the beginning of modern astronomy they were not aware that the Christian symbols, although using the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic astronomy, were not tied up with this astronomy. Only if the symbols of God in Heaven and mortals on Earth and demons below the Earth are taken as descriptions of places, populated by divine or demonic beings can modern astronomy conflict with the Christian faith. On the other hand, if representatives of modern physics reduce the whole of reality to the mechanical movement of the smallest particles of matter, denying the really real quality of life and mind, they express a faith, objectively as well as subjectively. Subjectively science is their ultimate concern—and they are ready to sacrifice everything, including their lives, for this ultimate. #RandolphHarris 7 of 13
Objectively, they create a monstrous symbol of this concern, namely, a Universe in which everything, including their own scientific passion, is swallowed by meaningless mechanism. In opposing tis symbol of faith Christian faith is right. Science can conflict only with science, and faith only wit faith; science which remains science cannot conflict wit faith which remains faith. This is true also of other spheres of scientific research, such as biology and psychology. The famous struggle between the theory of evolution and the theology of some Christian groups was not a struggle between science and faith, but between a science whose faith deprived mortals of their humanity and a faith whose expression was distorted by Biblical literalism. It is obvious that a theology which interprets the Biblical story of creation as a scientific description of an event which happened once upon a time interferes with the methodically controlled scientific work; and that a theory of evolution which interprets mortal’s descendance from older forms of life in a way that removes the infinite, qualitative difference between mortals and animals is faith and not science. The same consideration must be given to present and future conflicts between faith and contemporary psychology. Modern psychology is afraid of the concept of soul because it seems to establish a reality which is unapproachable by scientific methods and may interfere with their results. This fear is not unfounded; psychology should not accept any concept which is not produced by its own scientific work. #RandolphHarris 8 of 13
The function of psychology is to describe mortal’s processes as adequately as possible, and to be open to replacement of these descriptions at any time. This is true of the modern concepts of ego, id, superego, self, personality, unconsciousness, mind, as well as of traditional concepts of soul, spirit, will, and so forth. Methodological psychology is subject to scientific verification, as is every other scientific endeavor. All its concepts and definitions, even those most validated, are preliminary. When faith speaks of the ultimate dimension in which mortals live, and in which one can win our lose one’s soul, or of the ultimate meaning of one’s existence, it is not interfering at all with the scientific rejection of the concept of the soul. A psychology without soul cannot deny this nor can a psychology with soul conform it. The truth of mortal’s eternal meaning is possessed in a dimension other than the truth of adequate psychological concepts. Contemporary analytic or depth psychology has in many instances conflicted with pre-theological and theological expressions of faith. It is, however, not difficult in the statements of depth psychology to distinguish the more or less verified observations and hypotheses from assertions about mortal’s nature and destiny which are clearly expressions of faith. The naturalistic elements which Dr. Freud carried from the nineteenth into the twentieth century, his basic puritanism with respect to love, his pessimism about culture, and his reduction of religion to ideological projection are all expressions of faith and not the result of scientific analysis. #RandolphHarris 9 of 13
There is no reason to deny to a scholar who deals with mortals and their predicament the right to introduce elements of faith. However, if one attacks other forms of faith in the name of scientific psychology, as Dr. Freud and many of his followers do, he is confusing dimensions. In this case those who represent another kind of faith are justified in resisting these attacks. It is not always easy to distinguish the elements of faith from the elements of scientific hypothesis in a psychological assertion, but it is possible and often necessary. The distinction between the truth and the truth of science leads to a warning, directed to theologians, not to use recent scientific discoveries to confirm the truth of faith. Microphysics have undercut some scientific hypotheses concerning the calculability of the Universe. The theory of quantum and the principle of indeterminacy have had this effect. Immediately religious writers use these insights for the confirmation of their own idea of human freedom, divine creativity, and miracles. However, there is no justification for such a procedure at all, neither from the point of view of physical theories referred to have no direct relation to the infinitely complex phenomenon of human freedom, and the emission of power in quantums has no direct relation to the meaning of miracles. Theology, in using physical theories in this way, confuses the dimensions of science with the dimensions of faith. The truth of faith cannot be confirmed by latest physical or biological or psychological discoveries—as it cannot be denied by them. #RandolphHarris 10 of 13
We have forgotten the gracious hands of which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. “And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you if you heed the voice of the Lord your God,” reports Deuteronomy 28.2. Psychoanalysis was brought into being by the failure of will. It is not surprising the Dr. Freud, observing in his Victorian culture how regularly will was used in the service of repression, should have developed psychoanalysis as an antiwill system. In Dr. Freud, the phenomenon of will is crushed in the dialectic of instinct on one side and authority, in the form of the superego, on the other. Dr. Freuds observation that will is under three masters, id, superego, and external World, leaves will lost—or, if not actually lost, powerless under its masters. Needing very much to succeed in the World, our friend Victorian Grayson had an active conscience; but World, id and sugerego—if one accepts this formulation—were hopelessly grinding her motto “where there’s a will, there’s a way” into pathetic mockery and extorting a painful price in her masochistic guilt. #RandolphHarris 11 of 13
Dr. Freud saw will as an implement in the service of repression, no longer a beneficial moving force. Seeking the force and the motive of human acidity, he looked instead into the vicissitudes of instincts, the fate of the repressed libido, and so on. Object-choice, in the Freudian system, is not choice in a real sense, but a function of the transposition of the historical vicissitudes. Indeed, Dr. Freud sees will as the devil of the whole system, in that will has the negative function of setting resistance and repression into motion. Or, if the term devil begs the question, we can use a sophisticated name for it, which we can call counterphobic maneuver. This marks the moment when the unconscious became heir to the power of will. What are the sources of this destruction of will in Dr. Freud’s theory? One source is obvious: Dr. Freud’s accurate clinical observation. A second source is cultural; Dr. Freud’s theory was consistent with and an expression of the alienation it descried. It must not be forgotten that Dr. Freud spoke out of and reflected an objectivistic, alienated, market-place culture. As I have indicated elsewhere, the very overemphasis on will power in Victorian times was part and parcel of the compartmentalization that foreshadowed the culture’s collapse, which indeed occurred in 1914. The overemphasis on will power was parallel to the increasingly rigid pattern of will of the compulsive neurotic before his whole system breaks down. The alienation of Victorian mortals from themselves, under the rubric of will, is expressed in Dr. Freud’s system under the rubric of the opposite pole, namely wish. #RandolphHarris 12 of 13
A third reason is that Dr. Freud needed to replace will because of the requirements of his scientific model, his aim and desire being to make a deterministic science based on the image of nineteenth century natural science. He thus needed a quantitative, cause-and-effect system: he speaks of his mechanism as hydraulics, and in his last book, libido is given the analogy of an electro-magnetic charge. A forth reason for Dr. Freud’s seeking to destroy will was exactly why we are now interested in rediscovering it on a more profound basis: namely, to deepen human experience, to place these phenomena on a level which would reflect more adequately a dignity and respect for human life. For, contrary to its intention, Victorian will power, by implying that every person is a master of his or her fate and could decide the whole course of his life by a resolution on New Year’s Eve or on a chance whim in a Saturday or Sunday-morning church service, actually belittles life, robbed it of dignity, and cheapened human experience. That some of these aspects of Dr. Freud, like the last two, are contradictory, should not daunt us; one of the marks of his greatness was that he could live with such contradiction. He might well have countered such a charge with the lines of Walt Whitman, “I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself.” Do not feel bad if you are not where you want to be at this moment. “Sometimes it was harder to change the past than it was the future,” reports Kate Atkinson. #RandolphHarris 13 of 13
I Want to Live with Him, I See His Face and I Envy the Light that Wakes Him—if Only God Should Count Me Fit
Now a miracle had happened. He did not need to know who had worked the miracle. Having knowledge is taking and keeping possession of available knowledge (information); knowing is a functional and serves only as a means in the process of productive thinking. Our understanding of the quality of knowing in the being mode of existence can be enhances by the insights of as the Buddha, the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, Mater Eckhart, Dr. Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Paul Tillich, Erich Fromm, John H. Brennecke and Robert G. Amick. In their view, knowing begins with awareness of the deceptiveness of our common-sense perceptions, in the sense that our picture of physical reality does not correspond to what is really real and, mainly in the sense that most people are half-awake, half-dreaming, and are unaware that most of what they hold to be true and self-evident is illusion produced by the suggestive influence of the social World in which they live. Knowing, then, begins wit the shattering of illusions, with disillusionment (Ent-tauschung). Knowing means to penetrate through the surface, in order to arrive at the roots, and hence the causes; knowing means to see reality in its genuine form. Knowing does not mean to be in possession of the truth; it means to penetrate the surface and to strive critically and actively in order to approach the truth every more closely. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20
However, it is helpful to dream sometimes, and, if nothing else, it can be enjoyable. Who knows what creative processes such dreaming can trigger in you who may be theorists and psychologists tomorrow? One community relations expert we know says that of the thousands of problems he encounters in his work, eighty percent of the problems are in human relations. So we have not wasted your time or ours in laying these problems out and in exploring ways in which you can find your own part in the problems and the solutions. If we want to understand the dark forces within ourselves, we must give up the haughty idea that we are unique in all creation. This creative penetration is expressed in the Hebrew prophets appeal to the people to wake up and know that their idols are nothing but the work of their own hands, are illusions. Jesus declares, “The truth shall make you free!” Master Eckhart expressed his concept of knowing many times; for instance, when speaking of God he says: “Knowledge is not disinterested and runs naked to God, until it touches him and grasps him. (“Nakedness and “naked” are temporary, the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing.) According to Marx, one needs to destroy illusion in order to create the conditions that make illusions in order to create the conditions that make illusions unnecessary. Dr. Freud’s concept of self-knowledge is based on the idea of destroying illusions (“rationalizations”) in order to become aware of the unconscious reality. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20
All the Enlightened thinkers, Dr. Freud can be called a revolutionary thinker, were concerned with human salvation; they were all critical of socially accepted thought patterns. To them the aim of knowing is not the certainty of absolute truth, something one can feel secure with, but the self-affirmation process of human reason. Ignorance, for the one who knows, is as good as knowledge, since both are part of the process of knowing, even though ignorance of this kind is different from the ignorance of the unthinking. Optimum knowledge in the being mode is to know more deeply. In the having mode it is to have more knowledge. Our education generally tries to train people to have knowledge as a possession, by and large commensurate with the amount of property or social prestige they are likely to have in later life. The minimum they receive is the amount they will need in order to function proper in their work. In addition they are each given a luxury-knowledge package to enhance their feeling of worth, with the size of each such package being in accord with the person’s probable social prestige. #RandolphHarris 2.1 of 20
The school are the factories in which these overall knowledge packages are produced—although schools usually claim they mean to being the students in touch with the highest achievements of the human mind. Many undergraduate colleges are particularly adroit in nurturing these illusions. Form Indian thought and art to existentialism and surrealism, a vast smorgasbord of knowledge is offered from which students pick a little here, a little there, and in the name of spontaneity and freedom are not urges to concentrate on one subject, not even ever to finish reading an entire book. These facts we mentioned may arise in the reader’s mind in questions like these: “Ought we not to try to forget ourselves? Does not consciousness of one’s self make one self-conscious in the sense of being shy, embarrassed and socially inhibited?” Some questioners would no doubt mention the famous centipede, who came to grief because of too much thinking which leg came after which, and so lay distracted in the ditch. The moral of the centipede, obviously is see what happens to you if you get too conscious of what you are doing. Before answering these objections we must point out how unfortunate it is that self-consciousness is identified in this country with morbid introspection, shyness and embarrassment. Naturally, the last thing in the World anyone would want, then, to be is self-conscious. However, our language plays tricks on us. The German language is more accurate in this regard: the word for self-consciousness also means self-confident, which is as it should be. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20
An example will make clear that what we are talking about is just the opposite to shyness, embarrassment and morbid introversion. A young man came for psychotherapy because, though he was intellectually very competent and seemed superficially to be very successful, his spontaneity was almost completely blocked. He could not love anyone and he got no real enjoyment from human companionship. These problems were accompanied by a good deal of anxiety and recurrent depressions. It had always been his habit to stand outside himself, looking at himself, never letting himself go, until the self-concern became exceedingly painful. In listening to music, he was so concerned with how well he was listening that he would not hear the music. Even in pleasures of the flesh, it was as though he were standing outside, watching himself and asking, “How am I doing?” As could be imagined, this put quite a crimp in his style. He was afraid, when he entered psychotherapy and discovered that he would have to become more aware of what was going on within himself, that he would become more self-conscious and therefore his problems would become worse. He was the only child of anxious parents who had very much overprotected him, never going out at night, for example, because of their hesitancy to leave him alone. Though the parents were ostensibly liberal and rational in all dealings with the son, he could never remember in all his childhood that he every once talked back to them. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20
The parents would brag about their son’s achievement in school to relatives, cutting clippings about his successes from the papers and taking pride in the fact that he was brighter than his cousins: but they rarely expressed real appreciation directly to him. Thus already as a child he was unable to develop a feeling of his own independent power and worth, and used as a substitute an overconcern for the praise which came, at least indirectly, from winning prizes in school. Add to this that we spent his early teens in Hitler Germany, where he was exposed continuously to propaganda about his supposed worthlessness as a Jewish person. Thus his standing off and continually looking at himself as an adult was like counting to cut clippers from the paper, judging and measuring himself, trying to prove to himself that the Nazis were not right, and trying to get genuine affirmation of himself as a person from his parents. This case is very much oversimplified, to be sure. We wish only to illustrate that this person’s morbid self-consciousness and his inability to be spontaneous and wholehearted were connected precisely with the lack of consciousness of himself, precisely the lack of the experience that he was the acting “I.” To be merely an observer of one’s self. The famous centipede is generally a renationalization used by those who do not wish to go through the difficult process of enlarging consciousness of themselves. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20
Furthermore, the centipede story is not an accurate fable. The less aware you are of how to drive a car, for example, or of the traffic conditions you are driving through, the more tense you are and the firmer hold you have to keep on yourself. However, on the other hand the more experienced you are as a driver and the more conscious you are of the traffic problems and what to do in emergencies, the more you can relax at the wheel with a sense of power. You have the awareness that it is you who are doing the driving, you are in control. Consciousness of self actually expands our control of our lives, and with that expanded power comes the capacity to let ourselves go. This truth behind the seeming paradox, that the more consciousness of one’s self one has, the more spontaneous and creative one can be at the same time. To be sure, the advice to forget the childish self, the infantile self, is good advice. However, it rarely does any good. It is true, furthermore, that one does in one sense forget one’s self in creative activity. When we consider the terms will power and free will they are dubious, to say the least, and perhaps no longer even helpful if they were available. Will power expressed the arrogant efforts of Victorian mortals to manipulate their surroundings and to rule nature with an iron hand, as well as to manipulate oneself, rule one’s own life in the same way as one would an object. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20
The kind of will that is used as an element of control was set over against wish and used as a faculty by which wish could be denied. Victorian mortals sought, as Ernest Schachtel has put it, to deny that he ever been a child, to repress his irrational tendencies and so-called infantile wishes as unacceptable to his image of himself as a grown-up and responsible man. Will power, then, was a way of avoiding awareness of bodily and urges of pleasures of the flesh and of hostile impulses which did not fit the picture of the controlled, well-managed self. I have not infrequently observed in patients that the emphasis on will power is a reaction formation against their own repressed passive desires, a way of fighting off their wishes to be taken care of; and the likelihood is that this mechanism had much to do with the form that will took in Victorianism. Will was used to deny wish. Speaking in clinical terms, this process results in a greater and greater emotional void, a progressive emptying of inner contents. This impoverishes imagination and intellectual experience as well; it stultifies and suffocates longings and yearnings as well as wishes. No one needs to remind us of the great stores of resentment, inhibition, hostility, self-rejection, and related clinical symptoms which can develop as a result of this repressive kind of will power. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20
A woman in her late twenties—since we shall refer back to her, we shall give her a name, Victoria Grayson—informed me at the beginning of her therapeutic treatment that her motto had always been, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.” This motto seemed to fit her executive job, which required a lot of routine as well as serious decision, and her respectable New England background in a typically upper middle-class family. She gave the impression at first of being a strong-willed person. The only trouble was that one of her most pronounced symptoms was compulsive, promiscuous pleasures of the flesh; she seemed incapable of saying no. Whatever the cause, this symptom—no doubt assisted by the fact that she was a pretty girl—was directly contradictory to her will power, as she could easily see. She would also wolf down food, occasionally eating everything like it was an eating competition, paying the price of a stomach ache and later struggling to diet to keep her figure. Her job revealed similarly driven patterns—she would work for fourteen hours at a stretch but never seem any farther ahead. It soon came out, with a good deal of painful weeping, that, despite her superficial social success, she was a profoundly lonely and isolated person. She talked of longings for her mother expressed in the half-fantasy, half-memory of sitting with her in the Sun when she was a little girl, and a recurrent dream of wanting to be encircled again by waves of the ocean. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20
Victoria dreamt that she went home and knocked on the door, but her mother, on opening the door, did not recognize her and closed the door in her face. The historical fact was that her mother had suffered a serious depression and had been hospitalized in mental institutions for a good deal of the several years after the girl’s birth. So what we see in our patient is a lonely, pathetic infant, overcome with longing for what she never had. It seemed clear that the great stress of will power was a frantic reaction formation, a desperate endeavor to compensate for the symptoms of her unfulfilled infantile needs, a strategy of living on despite these painful early longings. It is not surprising—such is the irony and balance of the complex processes of human consciousness—that her symptoms were of the compulsive, driven type. This is precisely will gone awry; will turned self-destructive, directed against the person herself. Life is saying to her—if we may put it figuratively, in terms of her motto—where there are such longings and unfulfilled needs, will is exactly not the way. We note, furthermore, that her problem was not mere defiance of her parents, as we normally see it in adolescent behavior. That would show the will still present and active, though negative, and a situation not too difficult to deal with. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20
Our patient’s problem was more serious—an emptiness, a vacuity, a longing to fill something which from infancy had always been empty. This kind of pattern can lead to critical problems of apathy if the will breaks down before the dependent longings have been brought to consciousness and to some degree integrated. The early trauma taught Victorian as an infant that she must renounce her wishes, for they carried a degree of despair which would have probably sent her into psychosis. Will power was the means by which she accomplished this. However, the neurosis then takes revenge exactly in the area in which the problem originated. Whatever theory of personality we used to understand or explain who we are, we need some understanding of how important our assumptions are. Each of us does have a personality theory, or our own individual philosophy of life. How we think of ourselves, other people, and life in general are the bases for our own personal or intrinsic (inner means, within, or essential) personality theories or self-concepts. “What do you want out of life?” If you have strong, beneficial feelings about yourself, you may answer that you want (and deserve) a good marriage or love relationship, a satisfying occupation, a feeling of freedom—whatever you think of as the highest good for you. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20
On the other hand, if you have a poorly developed, negative, or inferior self-concept, as Victoria had developed, you may expect very little for yourself. You may settle for second- or third-best, for instance, hoping that you can just get some sort of job or find someone who cares about you a little. You would not dare to hope you could choose a job or person you really love. As you already can see, parents have the initial and probably the strongest influence on the development of a child’s self-concept. Most psychologists think the first give years of life—when children are influenced almost exclusively by their families—are the most critical for the development of self-concept. If children are encouraged by their parents and helped to gain a feeling of self-worth, dignity, and respect, children will, generally speaking, grow up to be adults with beneficial self-concepts. Children whose parents call them stupid, no good, or delinquent—or act as if they were those thing (which produces the same effect)—may grow up to feel worthless. This effect can be overcome only through positive feedback from other people. Feedback refers to what other people say to you, how they act toward you (or ignore you)—all kinds of interaction that lets you know how they feel about you. Feedback can be either beneficial or negative. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20
When people are expected to behave in specific ways or are told that they are stupid or bright or ugly or lovable, they often begin to act in these ways. This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. These expectations may come from parents and other authority figures, but they can come from peers. In childhood, and especially in adolescence, peer pressure and peer evaluation become very important. It would be better to take words like stupid and dumb or mark and fairy out of the vocabulary you use with any child. In our culture, which places a premium on intelligence, a person who is called stupid often enough is very unlikely to take risks or do anything challenging. (“Why try? I’m cursed. I’m so dumb I can’t do it. I’m nobody.”) Often students who do not speak out in class fear that what they have to say may sound stupid, and the instructor and other students may laugh at or ridicule them. So these students sit, mute, in class and fearing the entire time the teacher will call on them. They are so scared that they are not even absorbing the enrichment material. We adults destroy most of the intellectual and creative capacity of children by the things we do to them or make them do. We destroy this capacity above all by making them afraid, afraid of not doing what other people want, of not pleasing, of making mistakes, of failing, of being wrong. Therefore, we our children have passions, we should encourage them. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20
On an episode of American Housewife, Katie Otto is not supportive of her son, Oliver Otto’s decision to go to dance school. And since Oliver is a minor, Katie will not sign his permission slip to allow him to enroll in his special school. Oliver starts acting our because he feels his mother is repressing his talent. However, when Katie goes to her son’s school to pick him up, she sees him doing ballet and how well he is at it and decided to let him go to the school of his dreams. In the past, parent-modeling was an even stronger influence than it is today—to the extent that a boy whose father was a doctor expected to go to the same medical school and perhaps even take over his father’s practice. Even though this is no longer so true, most people today receive strong parental messages about which jobs are acceptable and which are not. This can work in either of two ways. A young adult may select a job or profession from among those which are at least similar to his or her parents’ (a girl whose mother is a doctor may feel she also should enter some profession rather than be a sale or factory workers). Or, if a strong enough break has occurred between parents and young adult, it may be important to the child to find a job that is opposite in type from his or her parents’. Still many people are just happy that their children are working. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20
God does not always take us ahead in normal increments. There are time where God takes us little by little. We have to be faithful day in and day out, but when you experience a miraculous blessing, incredible power is released due to your faith. Obviously, of the meaning of faith is misunderstood, faith and reason exclude each other. If, however, faith is understood as the state of being ultimately concerned, no conflict exists. All spiritual elements of humans, in spite of their distinct character, are within each other. This is true also of faith and reason. Therefore, it is not enough to asset that the state of being ultimately concerned is in no conflict with the rational structure of the human mind. One also must show their actual relationship, namely, the way in which they lie within each other. In which sense, one must ask first, is the word reason used when confronted with faith? It is meant, as in most periods of Western culture, in the sense of the source of meaning, of structure, of norms and principles? In the first case, reason gives the tools for recognizing and controlling reality, and faith gives the direction in which this control may be exercised. One could call this kind of reason technical reason, providing for means but not for ends. Reason in this sense concerns the daily life of everybody and is the power which determines the technical civilization of out time. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20
In the second case, reason is identical with the humanity of mortals in contrast to all other beings. It is the basis of language, of freedom, of creativity. It is involved in the search for knowledge, the experience of art, the actualization of moral commands; it makes a centered personal life and a participation in community possible. If faith were the opposite of reason, it would tend to dehumanize mortals. This consequence has been drawn, theoretically and practically, in religious and political authoritarian systems. A faith which destroys reason abolishes itself and the humanity of mortals. For only a being who has the structure of reason is able to be ultimately concerned, to distinguish ultimate and preliminary concerns, to understand the unconditional commands of the ethical imperative, and to be aware of the presence of the holy. All this is valid only if the second meaning of reason is presupposed: reason as the meaningful structure of mind and reality; and not the first meaning: reason as a technical tool. Reason is the precondition of faith; faith is the act in which reason reaches ecstatically beyond itself. This is the opposite side of their being within each other. Mortal’s reason is finite; it moves within finite relations when dealing with the Universe and with mortals. All cultural activities in which mortals perceives one’s World and those in which one shapes one’s World have this character of finitude. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20
Therefore, cultural activities are not necessarily matters of infinite concern. However, reason is not bound to its own finitude. It is aware of it and, in so doing, rises above it. Mortals experiences a belonging to the infinite which, however, is neither a part of one’s self nor something in one’s power. It must grasp one, and if it does, it is a matter of infinite concern. Mortals are finite, and mortal’s reason lives in preliminary concerns; but mortals are also aware of one’s potential infinity, and this awareness appears as one’s ultimate concern, as faith. If reason is grasped by an ultimate concern, it is driven beyond itself; but it does not cease to be reason, finite reason. The ecstatic experience of an ultimate concern does not destroy the structure of reason. Ecstasy is fulfilled, not denied, rationality. Reason can be fulfilled only if it is driven beyond the limits of its finite, and experiences the presence of the ultimate, the holy. Without such an experience reason exhausts itself and its finite contents. Finally, it becomes filled with irrational or demonic contents and is destroyed by them. The road leads from reason fulfilled in faith through reason without faith to reason filled wit demonic-destructive faith. The second stage is only a point of transition, since there is no vacuum in the spiritual life, as there is none in nature. Reason is the presupposition of faith, and faith is the fulfillment of reason. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20
Faith as the state of ultimate concern is reason in ecstasy. There is no conflict between the nature of faith and the nature of reason; they are within each other. On this point theology will ask several questions. It will ask whether the nature of faith is not distorted under the conditions of human existence, for example, if demonic-destructive forces get hold of it—as indicated before. And theology will ask whether the nature of reason is distorted with mortal’s estrangement from one’s self. Finally, it will ask whether the unity of faith and reason and the true nature of both of them must not be re-established by what religion calls revelation. And—theology will continue—if this is the case, is reason in its distorted stage not obliged to subject itself to revelation and is not this subjection to the contents of revelation the true sense of the term faith? The answer to these questions, asked by theology, is the matter of a whole theology itself. It must be acknowledged that mortals are in a state of estrangement from their true nature. Thus the use of their reason and the character of their faith are not what they essentially are and, therefore, ought to be. This leads to actual conflicts between a distorted use of reason and an idolatrous faith. The solution we give with respect to the true nature of faith and the true nature of reason cannot be applied without this fundamental qualification to the actual life of faith and reason under the conditions of human existence. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20
The consequence of this qualification is that the estrangement of faith and of reason in themselves and in their mutual relationships must be overcome and their mutual relationship must be overcome and their true nature and relation must be established within the actual life. The experience in which this happens is a revelatory experience. The term revelation has been misused so much that it is difficult to use it at all, even more so than the term reason. Revelation is popularly understood as a divine information about divine matters, given to prophets and apostles and dictated by the divine Spirit to the writers of the Bible, or the Koran, or other sacred books. Acceptance of such divine informations, however absurd and irrational they may be, is then called faith. Every word of the present discussion contradicts this distortion of the meaning of revelation. Revelation is first of all the experience in which an ultimate concern grasps the human mind and creates a community in which this concern expresses itself in symbols of action, imagination and thought. Wherever such a revelatory experience occurs, both faith and reason are renewed. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20
Their internal and mutual conflicts are conquered, and estrangement is replaced by reconciliation. This is what revelation means, or should mean. It is an event in which the ultimate becomes manifest in an ultimate concern, shaking and transforming the given situation in religion and culture. In such an experience no conflict between faith and reason is possible; for it is man’s total structure as a relational being which is grasped and changed by the revelatory manifestation of an ultimate concern. However, revelation is revelation to mortals in their state of corrupted faith and corrupted rationality. And the corruption, although broken in its final power, is conquered but not removed. It enters the new revelatory experience as it has entered the old ones. It makes faith idolatrous, confusing the bearer and the manifestations of the ultimate with the ultimate itself. It deprives reason of its ecstatic power, of its tendency to transcend itself in the direction of the ultimate. In consequence of this dual distortion, it distorts the relation of faith and reason, reducing faith to a preliminary concern which interferes with the preliminary concern which interferes with the preliminary concerns of reason, and elevates reason to ultimacy in spite of its essential finitude. Out of this double corruption there arise new conflicts between faith and reason and with them the quest for a new and superior revelation. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20
The history of faith is a permanent fight with the corruption of faith, and the conflict with reason is one of its most conspicuous symptoms. The decisive battles in this fight are the great revelatory events, and the victorious battle would be a final revelation in which the distortion of faith and reason is definitely overcome. Christianity claims to be based on this revelation. Its claim is exposed to the continuous pragmatic test of history. Jesus Christ is the source of all healing, peace, and eternal progress. Many people have accepted the challenge and been blessed. With the gift of Christ’s Atonement, which includes the gifts of redemption and resurrection, we are able to repent, change, and progress eternally. Because of the power Christ gives us as we are obedient, we are able to become more than we ever could on our own. We may not understand faith completely, but each of us who has felt faith in Christ increase has also received a greater understanding of our divine identity and purpose, leading us to make choices that are consistent with that knowledge. “Never regret. If it is good, it is wonderful. If it is bad, it is experience. I wanted to learn more of love—that is built not on the shifting ands of violent passion but on the steady rock of deep and abiding affection. We are born, we suffer, we love, we die, but the waves continue to beat upon the rocks; the seed time and the harvest come and go, but the Earth remains,” reports Victoria Holt. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20
As far as scientists know, small babies have no conscious awareness of “I” or self. During infancy, babies spend most of their rime asleep. They wake when their body needs nourishment; after they are fed, they usually go back to sleep (probably remember what it was like in Heaven). Babies seem to be aware only of their own needs and discomforts and what people want from them, like a smile, but not aware of themselves as independent beings.
Your Vanity Shows Forth from Every Hole in You Coat–They are Blinded to Reality by the Fiction they Believe!
Do not back to a civil tone with me. Yes, I saw Meghan. I saw her in the little sailor dress and she sat next to me. Another example of the differences between the modes of having and being is the exercise of authority. The crucial point is expressed in the difference between having authority and being an authority. Almost all of us exercise authority at least at some stage of our lives. Those who bring up children must exercise authority—whether they want to or not—in order to protect their children from dangers and give them at least minimal advice on how to act in various situations. In a patriarchal society women, too, as objects of authority, for most men. Most members of a bureaucratic, hierarchically organized society like ours exercise authority, except the people on the lowest social level, who are only objects of authority. Our understand of authority in the two modes depends on our recognizing that authority is a broad term with two entirely different meanings: it can be either rational or irrational authority. Rational authority is based on competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person subjected to it. “Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan has great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the World,” reports 3 Nephi 6.15. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17
Among the most primitive societies, for instance, the hunters and food gatherers, authority is exercised by the person who is generally recognized as being competent for the task. What qualities this competence rests on depends much on the specific circumstances, although the impression would be that they would include experience, wisdom, generosity, skill, presence, courage. No permanent authority exists in many of these tribes, but an authority emerges in the case of need. Or there are different authorities for different occasions: warn, religious practice, adjustment of quarrels. When the qualities on which the authority rests disappear or weaken, the authority itself ends. A very similar form of authority may be observed in many primitive societies, in which competence is often established not by physical strength but by such qualities as experience and wisdom. In a very ingenious experiment with monkeys, it was discovered that if the dominant animal even momentarily losses the qualities than constitute its competence, its authority ends. Being-authority is grounded not only in the individual’s competence to fulfill certain social functions, but equally so in the very essence of a personality that has achieved a high degree of growth and integration. Such persons radiate authority and do not have to give orders, threaten, bribe. They are highly developed individuals who demonstrate by what they are—and not mainly by what they do or say—what human beings can be. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17
The great Masters of Living were such authorities, and to a lesser degree of perfection, such individuals may be found on all educational levels and in the most diverse cultures. (The problem of education hinges on this point. If parents were more developed themselves and rested in their own center, the opposition between authoritarian and laissez-faire education would hardly exist. Needing this being-authority, the child reacts to it with great eagerness; on the other hand, the child rebels against pressure or neglect or overfeeding by people who show by their own behavior that they themselves have not made the effort they expect from the growing child.) With the formation of societies based on a hierarchical order and much larger and more complex then those of the hunters and food gatherers, authority by competence yields to authority by social status. This does not mean that the existing authority is necessarily incompetent; it does mean that competence is not an essential element of authority. Whether we deal with monarchical authority—where the lottery of genes decides qualities of competence—or with an unscrupulous criminal who succeeds in becoming authority by murder or treachery, or, as frequently in modern democracy, with authorities elected on the basis of their photogenic physiognomy, if they are appointed, or the amount of money they can spend on their election, in all these cases there may be almost no relation between competence and authority. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17
However, there are even serious problems in the cases of authority established on the basis of some competence: a leader may have been competent in old field, incompetent in another—for instance, a statesperson may be competent in conducting war and incompetent in the situation of peace; or a leader who is honest and courageous at the beginning of his or her career loses these qualities by the seduction of power; or age or physical troubles may lead to a certain deterioration. Finally, one must consider that it is much easier for the members of a small tribe to judge the behavior of an authority than it is for millions of people in our system, who know their candidate only by the artificial image created by public relations specialists. Whatever the reasons for the loss of the competence-forming qualities, in most larger and hierarchically organized societies the process of alienation of authority occurs. The real or alleged initial competence is transferred to the uniform or to the title of the authority. If the authority wears the proper uniform or has the proper title, this external sign of competence replaces the real competence and its qualities. The king—to use this title as a symbol for this type of authority—can be stupid, vicious, evil, for instance, utterly incompetent to be an authority, yet he has authority. As long as he has the title, he is supposed to have the qualities of competence. Even of the emperor is undressed, everybody believes he wears beautiful clothes. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17
That people take uniforms and titles for the real qualities of competence is not something that happens quite of itself. Those who have these symbols of authority and those who benefit therefrom must dull their subject people’s realistic, for instance, critical, thinking and make them believe the fiction. Anybody who will think about it knows the machinations of propaganda, the methods by which critical judgment is destroyed, how the mind is lulled into submission by clichés, how people are made dumb because they become dependent and lose their capacity to trust their eyes and judgment. They are blinded to reality by the fiction they believe. However, here we must pause to answer two objections. Some readers may be thinking that this emphasis on the necessity and value of consciousness of self will make people too concerned about themselves. One objection would be that is leads one to be too introspective, and another that it makes for pride in one’s self. Persons with this latter objection might raise the questions, “Are we not told to think too highly of ourselves? And has it not been proclaimed that mortal’s pride in one’s self is the root of most evil in our time?” Let us consider the latter objection first. To be sure, one ought not to think too highly of one’s self, and a courageous humility is the mark of the realistic and mature person. However, thinking too highly of one’s self, in the sense of self-inflation and conceit, does not come from greater consciousness of one’s self or greater feelings of self-worth. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17
In fact, self-inflation and conceit comes from just the opposite of greater consciousness. Self-inflation and conceit are generally the external signs of inner emptiness and self-doubt; a show of pride is one of the most common covers for anxiety. Pride was a chief characteristic of the famous roaring 1920’s, but we know now that this period was one of widespread, suppressed anxiety. The person who feels weak becomes a bully, the inferior person the braggart; a flexing of muscles, much talk, cockiness, an endeavor to brazen it out, are the symptoms of covert anxiety in a person or a group. Tremendous pride was exhibited in fascism, as everyone knows who has seen the pictures of the strutting Mussolini, Hitler; but fascism is a development in people who are empty, anxious and despairing, and therefore seize on megalomaniac promises. To push this question deeper, many of the arguments in our day against pride in one’s self, and many of the homilies on alleged self-abnegation, have a motive quite other than humility or a courageous facing of one’s human situation. A great number of these arguments, for example, reveal a considerable contempt for the self. Aldous Huxley declares, “For all of us, the most intolerably dreary and deadening life is that which we live with ourselves.” Fortunately, it can be remarked immediately, this generalization is obviously untrue; it is empirically not a fact that the most dreary and deadening hour of Spinoza were those he lived with himself. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17
Consider Thoreau or Einstein or Jesus or many a human being who has no fame whatever, but who has ventured to become conscious of one’s self. In fact, I seriously doubt whether Huxley’s remark is true even of himself, or of Reinhold Niebuhr, or others who with so much self-confidence and assertiveness proclaim the evils of mortal’s asserting themselves. Indeed, it is very easy to get an audience these days if one preaches against conceit and pride in one’s self, for most people feel so empty and convinced of their lack of worth anyway that they readily agree that the one who is condemning them must be right. This leads us to the most important point of all in understanding the dynamics of much modern self-condemnation, namely that condemning ourselves is the quickest way to get a substitute sense of worth. People who have almost, but not quite, lost their feeling of worth generally have very strong needs to condemn themselves, for that is the mist ready way of drowning the better ache of feelings of worthlessness and humiliation. It is as though the person were saying to one’s self, “I must be important that I am so worth condemning,” or “Look how noble I am: I have such high ideals and I am so ashamed of myself that I fall short.” A psychoanalyst once pointedly remarked that when someone in psychoanalysis berates one’s self at great length for picayune sins, one feels like asking, “Who do you think you are?” The self-condemning person is very often trying to show how important he or she is that God is so concerned with punishing him or her. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17
Much self-condemnation, thus, is a cloak for arrogance. Those who think they overcome pride by condemn themselves could well ponder Spinoza’s remark, “One who despises one’s self is the nearest to a proud man.” In ancient Athens when a politician was trying to get the votes of the working class by appearing very humble in a tattered coat with big holes in it, Socrates unmasked his hypocrisy by claiming, “Your vanity shows forth from every hole in your coat.” The mechanism of much of this self-condemnation in our day can be observed in psychological depression. The child, for example, who feels one is not loved by one’s parents can always say, generally to one’s self, “If I were different, If I were not bad, they would love me.” By this means one avoids facing the full force and the terror of the realization that one is not loved. Thus, too, with adults: if they can condemn themselves they do not need really to feel the pain of their isolation or emptiness, and the fact that they are not loved then does not cast doubt upon their feelings of worth as persons. For they can always say, “If it were not for such and such a sin or bad habit, I would be loved. It our age of hollow people, the emphasis upon self-condemnation is like whipping a sick horse: it achieves a temporary life, but it hastens the eventual collapse of the dignity of the person. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17
The self-condemning substitute for self-worth provides the individual with a method of avoiding an open and honest confronting of one’s problems of isolation and worthlessness, and makes for a pseudo-humility rather than the honest humility of one who seeks to face one’s situation realistically and so what one can constructively. Furthermore, the self-condemning substitute provides the individual with a rationalization for one’s self-hate, and this reinforces the tendencies toward hating one’s self. And, inasmuch as one’s attitude toward other selves generally parallel one’s attitude toward one’s self, one’s covert tendency to other others is also rationalized and reinforced. The steps are not big from the feeling of worthlessness of one’s self to self-hatred to hatred for others. In circles where self-contempt is preached, it is of course never explained why a person should be so ill-mannered and inconsiderate as to force one’s company on other people if one finds it so dreary and deadening one’s self. And furthermore the multitude of contradictions are never adequately explained in a doctrine which advises that we should hate the one self, “I,” and love all others, with the obvious expectation that they will love us, hateful creatures that we are; or that the more we hate ourselves, the more we love God who made the mistake, in an off moment, of creating this contemptible creature “I.” #RandolphHarris 9 of 17
Fortunately, however, we no longer have to argue that self-love is not only necessary and good but that is also is a prerequisite for loving others. Selfishness and excessive self-concern really come from an inner self-hatred. Self-love is not only not the same as selfishness but is actually the opposite to it. That is to say, the person who inwardly feels worthless is the one who must build one’s self up by selfish aggrandizement, and the person who has a sound experience of one’s own worth, that is who loves one’s self, has the basis for acting generously toward one’s neighbor. Fortunately, it also become clear from a longer religious perspective that much contemporaneous self-condemning and self-contempt are a product of particular modern problems. So many individuals feel so insignificant in the age of information, as they did during industrial development. This disease of emptiness may arise from feeling alienated from the advancement of society, or feeling unwelcomed in a foreign land. If anyone, therefore, will not learn from Christianity to love one’ self in the right way, then neither can one love one’s neighbor. To love one’s self in the right way and to love one’s neighbor are absolutely analogous concepts, are at bottom one and the same. Hence the law is: “You shall love yourself as you love your neighbor when you love him or her as yourself.” #RandolphHarris 10 of 17
We cannot rest with the contradictions we have seen in psychology and psychotherapy. Nor can we leave will and decision to chance. We cannot work on the assumption that ultimately the patient somehow happens to make a choice or slides into a decision by ennui, default, or mutual fatigue with the therapist, or act from sensing that the therapist (now the benevolent parent) will approve of one if one does take such steps. I propose that we need to put decision and will back into the center of the picture—“The very stone which the builders rejected is the head of the corner.” Not in the sense of free will against determinism, nor in the sense of denying what Dr. Freud describes as unconscious experience. These deterministic, unconscious factors certainly operate, and those of us who do therapy cannot escape having this impressed upon us many times in an hour. The issues, rather, is not against the infinite number of deterministic forces operating on every person. We shall keep our perspective clear if we agree at the outset that there are certain values in determinism. One is that a belief in determinism allies one with a powerful movement. That fact that one is most free to act energetically with abandon by virtue of being allied to a determinism is one of the paradoxes of our problem. Another value is that the determinism releases you from most of the innumerable petty and not-so-petty issues that you must settle every day; these are settled beforehand. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17
A third value is that a belief in determinism overcomes your own self-consciousness: sure of yourself, you can charge ahead. For determinism in this sense is an enlarging of human experience by placing the issues on a deeper level. However, if we are true to our experience, we must find our freedom on the same deeper level. This paradox precludes our ever talking of complete determinism, which is a logical contradiction. For if it were true, there would be no need to demonstrate it. If someone does set out to demonstrate, as often used to occur in my college days, that one is completely determined, I would agree with one’s reasons and then add to one’s list a number of ways in which one is determined by unconscious dynamics which one may not be aware of and, indeed, is determined (possibly for the reason of one’s own emotional insecurity) to make the logical rebuttal that is one’s present argument is simply a result of one’s being completely determined, one is making an argument without consideration of whether it is true or false, and, therefore, that one and we have no criteria for deciding that it is true. This logical self-contradiction of complete determinism is, I believe, irrefutable. However, I would probably choose—remaining existential—rather to point out to my questioner that in the very raising of these questions, and by taking the energy to pursue them, one is exercising some significant element of freedom. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17
In therapy, for a better example, no matter how much the patient is the victim of forces of which one is unaware, one is orienting one’s self in some particular way to the data in the very revealing and exploring of these deterministic forces in one’s life, and is thus engaged in some choice no matter how seemingly insignificant; one is experiencing some freedom, no matter how subtle. This does not at all mean that we push the patient into decisions. Indeed, I am convinced that it is only by the clarification of the patient’s own powers of will and decision that the therapist can avoid inadvertently and subtly pushing the patient in one direction or another. My argument is that self-consciousness itself—the person’s potential awareness that the vast, complex, protean flow of experience in one’s experience, a fact that often takes one by surprise—unavoidably brings in the element of decision at every point. I have had the conviction for a number of years, a conviction which has only been deepened by my experience as a psychoanalyst, that something more complex and significant is going on in human experience in the realm of will and decision than we have yet taken int our studies. And I am convinced that we have omitted this realm to the impoverishment of both our science of psychology and our understanding of our relations with ourselves and others. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17
When we focus on God instead of on our circumstances, doubt, fear, anxiety, and negativity do not have a chance. When we magnify God instead of focusing on our difficulties, faith rises in our hearts. That will keep you fully persuaded that God will make a way, even though you do not see a way. And the beauty is that God will show up and do amazing things! In the experience of the holy, the ontological and the moral element are essentially untied, while in the life of faith they diverge and are driven to conflicts and mutual destruction. Nevertheless, the essential unity cannot be completely dissolved: there are always elements of the one type within the other, as previously indicated. In the sacramenta type o faith the ritual law is omnipresent, demanding purification, preparation, subjection to the liturgical rules, and ethical fitness. On the other hand, we have seen how many ritual elements are present in the religions of the law—the moral type of faith. This is true even of the humanist faith, where progressive and utopian elements can be found in the romantic-conservative type, while the progressive-utopian type is based on given traditions from which it criticizes the present situation and drives beyond it. The mutual participation of the types of faith in each other makes each of them complex, dynamic and self-transcending. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17
The history of faith, which is more embracing than the history of religion, is a movement of divergence and convergence of the different types of faith. This is true of the act of faith as well as the content of faith. The expressions of mortal’s ultimate concern, understood subjectively as well as objectively, are not a chaos of unlimited varieties. They are representations of basic attitudes which have developed in the history of faith and are consequences of the nature of faith. Therefore, it is possible to understand and describe their movements against and toward each other and perhaps to show a point at which their reunion is reached in principle. It is obvious that the attempt to do this is dependent on the ultimate concern of the person making the attempt. If he happens to be a Christian theologian of the Protestant type, he will see in Christianity—and especially Protestant Christianity—the aim toward which the dynamics of faith are driving. This cannot be avoided, because faith is a matter of personal concern. At the same time, he who makes the attempt must give objective reasons for his decisions. Objective means in this case: derived from the nature of faith which is the same in all types of faith—if the term faith is to be used at all. Roman Catholicism rightly has called itself a system which united the most divergent elements of mortal’s religious and culture life. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17
Its sources are the Old Testament, which itself combines the sacramental and the moral type, Hellenistic mystery religions, individual mysticism, classical Greek humanism, and the scientific methods of later antiquity. Above all, it is based directly on the New Testament, which in itself includes a variety of types and represents a union of ethical and mystical elements. A conspicuous example is Paul’s description of the Spirit. Faith, in the New Testament, is the state of being grasped by the divine Spirit. As Spirit it is the presence of the divine power in the human mind; as holy Spirit it is the Spirit of love, justice and truth. I would not hesitate to call this description the Spirit the answer to the question and the fulfillment of the dynamics which drive the history of faith. However, such an answer is not a place to rest upon. It must be given again and again on the basis of new experiences, and under changing conditions. Only if this is done does it remain an answer and a possible fulfillment. Neither Catholicism nor fundamentalism is aware of this necessity. Therefore, both have lost elements of the original union and have fallen under the predominance of one or the other side. This is the point where the Protestant protest has arisen before, during an after the Reformation of the sixteenth century. This is the point where the Protestant protest must always arise in the name of the ultimacy of the ultimate. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17
The general criticism of the Roman Church by all Protestant groups was the exclusion of the prophetic self-criticism by the authoritarian system of the Church and the growth of the sacramental elements of faith over the moral-personal ones. The first point made a change of the second within the Church impossible, and so a break was unavoidable. However, the break brought about a loss of Roman sacramentalism and the uniting authority based on them. In consequence of this loss, Protestantism became more and more a representative of the mortal type of ultimate concern. In this way it lost not only the large number of ritual traditions in the Catholic churches but also a full understanding of the presence of holy in sacramental and mystical experiences. The Pauline experience of the Spirit as the unity of all types of faith was largely lost in both Catholicism and Protestantism. It is the attempt of the present description of faith to point, in contemporary terminology, to the reality of Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the unity of the ecstatic and the personal, of the sacramental and the moral, of the mystical and the rational. Only if Christianity is able to regain in real experience this unity of the divergent types of faith can it express its claim to answer the questions and to fulfill the dynamics of the history of faith in past and future. However, how good is it to have a beautiful temple if it in is in the bowels of Hell? #RandolphHarris 17 of 17
God Permits Industrious Angels the Gleam of an Heroic Act that the Future Never Spoke
I felt her strength recede, and her eyes misted. A great glowing fire was quelled, and I had done it, and an ever present grief enfolded it. A protective surge rose in me and the wild fantasies reigned again inside of me as if no one else was present. The goal for every human being is to become a person. Every organism has one and only one central need in life, to fulfill its own potentialities. The acorn becomes an oak, the puppy become a dog and makes the fond and loyal relations with its human family which befit the dog; and all that is required of the oak tree and the and the dog. However, if the human being’s task in fulfilling one’s nature is much more difficult, for one must do it in self-consciousness. That is, human development is never automatic but must be to some extent chosen and affirmed by oneself. Among the works of mortals, which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and in beautifying, the first importance surely is mortals themselves. Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. We should also mention that there is a tendency of the inward forces which make mortals a living thing, namely that mortals do not grow automatically like a tree, but fulfills their potentialities only as one in his own consciousness plans and chooses. #RandolphHarris 1 of 17
Fortunately the long protracted period of infancy and childhood in human life—in contrast to the condition of the acorn, which is on its own as soon as it falls to the soil, or of the puppy which must fend for itself after a few weeks—prepares the child for this difficult task. One is able to acquire some knowledge and inner strength so that as one must begin to choose and decide, one has some capability for it. Mortals, furthermore, must make their choices as an individual, for individuality is one side of one’s consciousness of one’s self. We can see this point clearly when we realize that consciousness of one’s self is always a unique act—I can never know exactly how you see yourself and you never can know exactly how I relate to myself. This is the inner sanctum where each mortal must stand alone. This fact makes for much of the tragedy and inescapable isolation in human life, but it also indicates again that we must find the strength in ourselves to stand in our own inner sanctum as individuals. And this fact means that, since we are not automatically merged with our fellows, we must through our own affirmation learn to love each other. If any organism fails to fulfill its potentialities, it becomes sick, just as your legs would wither away if you never walked. However, the power of your legs is not all you would lose. The flowing of your blood, your heart action, your whole organism would be the weaker. And in the same way if mortals do not fulfill their potentialities as a person, one becomes to that extent constricted and ill. #RandolphHarris 2 of 17
This is the essence of neurosis—the person’s unused potentialities, blocked by hostile conditions in the environment (past or present) and by one’s own internalized conflicts, turn inward and cause morbidity. Neurosis does not deny the existence of reality, it merely tries to ignore it. Energy is Eternal Delight; one who desires but acts not, breeds pestilence. In contrast, joy is the affect which comes when we use our powers. Joy, rather than happiness, is the goal for life, for joy is the emotion which accompanies our fulfilling our natures as human beings. It is based on the experience of one’s identity as a being of worth and dignity, who is able to affirm one’s being, if need be, against all others beings and the whole inorganic World. This power in its ideal form is shown in the life of a Socrates, who was so confident in himself and his values that he could take his being condemned to death not as a defeat but as a greater fulfillment than compromising his beliefs. However, we do not wish to imply such joy is only for the heroic and the outstanding; it is as present qualitatively in anyone’s act, no matter how inconspicuous, which is done as an honest and responsible expression of one’s own powers. The way to love other people is to express what we feel—anger and love—without aiming to hurt feelings. Open but reverent communication is now to make love in our lives. “The Lord has poured out his Spirit and caused hearts to be filled with joy,” reports Mosiah 4.20. #RandolphHarris 3 of 17
If we assumed a complete indeterminism, for instance, that we could make ourselves over in bland freedom by any New Year’s whim or resolution, no one would need to bother to come for psychotherapy. Actually, we find that people’s problems are stubborn, recalcitrant, and troublesome—but we find they can change. And so we need to look further for what changes them. Academic psychologists tended also, no matter what the individual psychologist oneself believed about one’s own ethical actions, to accept the position that as psychologists we are concerned only with what is determined and could be understood in a deterministic framework. This limitation of perception inevitably tended to put blinders on our perception; we made our person over into the image of what we let ourselves see. Psychologists tended to repress the problem of power, particularly irrational power. We took literally Aristotle’s dictum that mortals are a rational being by assuming that they are only that, and that irrationality is merely a temporary aberration to be overcome by right education of the individual or, if the pathology is somewhat more severe, by re-education of one’s maladjusted emotions. There is, of course, a psychological concern with power, has generally been taken as merely a subhead to one’s beliefs in society inferiority and the struggle for security. #RandolphHarris 4 of 17
Dr. Freud’s assumptions about primitive cannibalism and the aggressive instinct have the element of power in them. However, this also tends to be a rationalize away in that it is used in referring only to severe pathology. The repression of power enable psychology more readily to discard will and hold to a theoretical determinism, since the critical element of the soul and effects of determinism did not then come out into the open. However, in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, where therapists deal with living, suffering people, the problem of the undermining of will and decision become increasingly critical. For the theory and process of psychoanalysis and most other forms of psychotherapy inevitably play into the passive tendencies of the patient. There are built-in tendencies in psychoanalysis itself that sap its vitality and tends to emasculate not only the reality with which psychoanalysis deals but the power and inclination of the patient to change. In the early days of psychoanalysis, when revelations of the unconscious have an obvious shock value, this problem does not come out into the open as much. And in any case with hysterical patients, who formed the bulk of those Dr. Freud worked with in his early formative years, there does not exist a special dynamic in what Dr. Freud could call repressed libido, pushing expression. #RandolphHarris 5 of 17
However, now, when most of our patients are compulsive of one for or another, and everybody knows about the Oedipus complex, and our patients talk about pleasures of the flesh with an apparent freedom which would have shocked Dr. Freud’s Victorian patients off the couch (and, indeed, talking about pleasures of the flesh is the easiest way of avoiding really making any decisions about love and passionate intimacy relatedness), the predicament resulting from the undermining of will and decision can no longer be avoided. The repetition compulsion, a problem that has always remained intractable and insoluble within the context of classical psychoanalysis, is in my judgment fundamentally related to this crisis of will. Other forms of psychotherapy do not escape the dilemma of psychoanalysis, namely that the process of psychotherapy itself has built-in tendencies which invite the patient to relinquish one’s position as the deciding agent. The very name “patient” proposes it. Not only do the automatic, supportive elements in therapy have this tendency, but so does the temptation, to which patient and therapist easily succumb, to search for everything else as responsible for one’s problems rather than one’s self. To be sure, psychotherapists of all stripes and schools realize that sooner or later the patient must make some decision, learn to take some responsibility for oneself; but the theory and the technique of most psychotherapy tends to be built on exactly the opposite premise. #RandolphHarris 6 of 17
The freedom to make choices experienced by a human being has nothing whatever to do with free will as a principle governing human behavior but is a subjective experience which is itself causally determined. Freedom may presumably be an illusion. Choice and responsibility are illusions caused by prior states but, in turn, causal of future acts. However, here we arrive at the radical inconsistency—as therapists, the analysts could not help recognizing that the patient’s act of choosing is of central importance. Analysis does not set out to make pathological reactions impossible, but to give the patient’s ego freedom to choose one way or the other. Toward the end of analysis the therapist may find oneself wishing that the patient were capable of more push, more determination, a greater willingness to make the best of it. Often this wish eventuates in remarks to the patient: People must help themselves; nothing worth while is achieved without effort; you have to try. Such interventions are seldom included in case reports, for it is assumed that they possess neither the dignity nor effectiveness of interpretation. Often an analyst feels uncomfortable about such appeals to volition, as though one were using something one did not believe in, and as though this would have been unnecessary had only one analyzed more skillfully. #RandolphHarris 7 of 17
Psychoanalysts then found themselves in the curious, anomalous position of believing that the patient must have an illusion of freedom in order to change, and they therefore must cultivate this illusion, or at least do obeisance to it. The paradox, for example, is as psychotherapy progress the experience of freedom encases, so that successfully analyzed people report experiencing more freedom in the conduct of their lives than they did prior to psychotherapy. If this freedom is illusory, the purpose of therapy, or at least the result of successful therapy, is to restore an illusion even though most therapists believe that successful therapy increases the accuracy with which the patient perceives oneself and one’s World. Some analysts, indeed, admit openly that they are engaged in the cultivation of an illusion, and undertake to rationalize this in their theory. Consider what this means. We are told that an illusion is most significant in effecting personality change; that truth is not is most significant in effecting personality change; that truth is not fundamentally (or is only theoretically) relevant to actions, but illusion is. Thus, we are to strive not for truth but for an illusion. We are to believe in definitions of the World by which we cannot live. Or, if we do try strictly to live by them, we shall slide back into passive impotence that leads to apathy and depression. #RandolphHarris 8 of 17
I do not need to labor the point that this resolution of the dilemma is untenable. Even we analysts could not live by such an illusion—for how is it possible (without considerable pathology) to commit one’s self if one knows in advance one is committing oneself to an illusion? Furthermore, if patients need to believe in illusions, the possibilities of illusions are, unlike truth, infinite—who is to decide which illusions are, unlike truth, infinite—who is to decide which illusion which works? If so, then our concept of truth has been wrong; for if the illusion genuinely works, it cannot be entirely illusion. Indeed, the statement that the illusions is most decisive for change is essentially an antirational (and thus, anti-scientific) one, for it implies that at the level of behavior the truth or falsehood of a concept is irrelevant. This cannot be accepted; if it seems to be true, there must be some truth in what we call illusion and some illusion in what we call truth. Another solution has been proposed from a different angle. Recognizing that freedom and will have to be given some place in the psychoanalytic structure of personality, the later ego analysts have developed the concept of the autonomy of the ego. The ego, then, is assigned the function of freedom and choice. However, the ego is, by definition, a part of the personality; and how can a part be free? #RandolphHarris 9 of 17
When we consider the autonomy of the unconscious, and the autonomy of the body, each of these would have a partial truth. However, would not each also be importantly wrong? Neither the ego nor the body nor the unconscious can be autonomous, but can only exist as parts of a totality. And it is in this totality that will and freedom must have their base. I am convinced that the compartmentalization of the personality into ego, superego, and id is an important part of the reason why the problem of will has remained insoluble within the orthodox psychoanalytic tradition. We know in our practice of psychoanalysis that lack of freedom is shown in all aspects of the patient’s organism. It is shown in one’s body (muscular inhibitions) and in what is called unconscious experience (repression) and in one’s social relationships (one is unaware of others to the extent one is unaware of oneself). We also know experientially that as this person gains freedom in psychotherapy, one becomes less inhibited in bodily movements, freer in one’s dreams, and more spontaneous in one’s unthought-out, involuntary relations with other people. This means that autonomy and freedom cannot be the domain of a special part of the organism, but must be a quality of the total self—the thinking—feeling—choosing—acting organism. Will and decision are inseparably linked with is as well as ego and supergo, if we are to use Dr. Freud’s terms. #RandolphHarris 10 of 17
Something of profound significance is going on—in spontaneity, feeling, symbolic meanings—in each decision one makes prior to anything which might be termed an ego function. A strong ego is not the cause of decisions but the result. Dos not the concept of autonomy of the ego have the same difficulties as the old one of free will, in positing some special part or organ of the personality as the seat of choice? If we strip the concept of its sophisticated clothes, it become something akin to the place where the soul is located. To be sure, ego psychoanalysis has the positive aspect of reflecting the pressing concerns of contemporary mortals with one’s problems of autonomy, self-direction, and choice. However, it is also caught in the contradictions with which these problems inescapably confront us. Psychoanalysis and psychology, in all their representations, reveal, with the inconsistency and contradiction which lie therein, the dilemma of will and decision that Western mortals today experiences. It is a sign Dr. Freud’s usual honesty that he frankly states that he is trying to give the patient freedom to choose even tough he knows this is directly contradictory to his theory. He did not quail before contradiction nor leap to too easy a solution. However, as the culture has evolved since Dr. Freud, it has become less and less possible to survive in this contradiction. #RandolphHarris 11 of 17
We must consider the fact that we have omitted a dimension of human experience which is important, indeed critical, to human will. Let us assume that I am an omnipotent physiologist with a complete knowledge of the physiology, chemistry, and molecular activities of your brain at any given moment. With this knowledge I can then predict precisely what you will do as a result of the operation of your brain’s mechanisms, since your behavior, including your conscious and verbal behavior, is completely correlated with your neural functioning. However, this only applies if I do not tell you my prediction. Suppose that I tell you what you will do as a result of my complete knowledge of your brain. In doing this I shall have changed the physiology of your brain by furnishing it with this information. This makes it possible for you then to behave in a way quite different from my prediction. If I were to try to allow beforehand for the effects of telling you my prediction, I would be doomed to an endless regression—logically chasing my own tail in an effort to allow for the effects of allowing for the effect of allowing for the effects, indefinitely. Human awareness and consciousness—that is, knowing—introduce unpredictable elements into our being. And mortals are the creature who obstreperously insists on knowing. The change of consciousness which this involves is both outside and inside, consisting of forces operating on the World and the attitude of the person who is attending to these forces. #RandolphHarris 12 of 17
We can note that one’s awareness would involve such things as becoming aware of forgotten and buried events in such things as becoming aware of forgotten and buried events in childhood and other aspects of the depth experiences which emerge in therapy. This is—to predict our later discussion—the problem of intentionality in contrast to mere intention. Intentionality, in human experience, is wat underlies will and decision. It is not only prior to will and decision but makes them possible. Why it has been neglected in Western history is clear enough. Ever since understanding has been separated from will, science has proceeded on the basis of this dichotomy, and we tried to assume that facts about human beings could be separated from conation. Particularly since Dr. Freud, this is no longer possible—even though Dr. Freud, without full justice to his own discoveries, clung to the old dichotomy in scientific theory. Intentionality does not rule out deterministic influence, but places the whole problem of determinism and freedom on a deeper plane. The moral types of faith are characterized by the idea of the law. God is the God who has given the law as a gift and as a command. He can be approached only by those who obey the law. There are, of course, laws in the sacramental and mystical types of faith, and no one can reach the ultimate without fulfilling these laws. However, there is an important difference between the laws in the two types of faith. #RandolphHarris 13 of 17
The law in the ontological types of faith demands subjection to ritual methods or ascetic practices. The law in the moral type demands moral obedience. The difference, certainly, is not absolute. For the ritual law includes moral conditions and the ethical laws includes ontological conditions. However, the difference is sufficient to make understandable the rise of the various great religions. They follow the one or the other type. One can distinguish the juristic, the conventional and the ethical in the mortal types of faith. The juristic type id most strongly developed in other countries; the ethical type is represented by Jewish prophets. The faith of a Christian is faith in revelation given by prophets in the Bible, and this revelation is the ultimate concern. The revelation preached by prophets are largely ritual, social, and spiritual laws. The ritual laws point to the sacramental stage out of which all religions and cultures have arisen. The social laws transcend the ritual elements and produce a holiness of what ought to be. And the spiritual laws teach us why it is important to keep our covenants with God. These laws permeate the whole life. Their source is a matter of ultimate concern, the prophet; their content is identical with God’s commands. The law is always felt as both a gift and a command. Under the protection of the law, life is possible and satisfying. This is true of the average person who believes in God. #RandolphHarris 14 of 17
When we love the spirit and letter of the law, the things of eternity can distill upon our souls like the dews from Heaven. With daily obedience and refreshing living water, we find answers, faith, and strength to meet everyday challenges and opportunities with gospel patience, perspective, and joy. This is possible through the covenant between God and the nation, and the ritual law in all its richness and abundance of sacramental activities. The law of justice is the way of reaching God. The divine law is of ultimate concern, as it is the central content of faith. As we keep the best of familiar patterns while seeking new and holier ways to love Go and help us and others prepare to meet him, it gives rules for a continuous actualization of the ultimate concern within the preliminary concerns of the daily life. The ultimate shall always be present and remembered even in the smallest activities of the ordinary life. On the other hand, all this is worth nothing if it is not united with obedience to the moral law, the law of justice, and righteousness. The final criterion for the relation of mortal to God is subjection to the law of justice. It is the greatest invitation from God and is full of love and possibility because Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. #RandolphHarris 15 of 17
We are fighting for freedom from sacramentally consecrated bondage and for justice for every human being. It is faith that allows this superior power of reason to unite with justice and truth. This revolutionary movement gives the World tremendous power, as this type of faith is a state of ultimate concern and total devotion to this concern. The connections in the case of being are neither mechanical nor purely logical, but alive. In this assurance by God’s grace we may be perfected, experience peace, and promise that we will continue to flow forward with faith and confidence in the Lord even when things do not go as we hope, expect, or perhaps deserve, through no fault of our own, even after we have done our best. Remembering in the mode of being implies brining to life something one saw or heard before. Life can be filled with faith, joy, happiness, hope, and love when we exercise the smallest amounts of real faith in Christ. This will allow people to respond spontaneously and productively; they forget about themselves, about the knowledge, the positions they have. Their pride does not stand in their way, and it is precisely for this reason that they can fully respond to other people’s and their ideas. They give birth to new ideas, because the are not holding onto anything, but faith in God, and this can produce and give. #RandolphHarris 16 of 17
While the having (material) persons rely on what they possess, the being persons rely on their faith in God and that fact that they are, that they are alive and that something new will be born if only they have the courage to let go and to respond. They come fully alive in the conversation, because they do not stifle themselves by anxious concern with what they have. Their own aliveness is infections and often helps the other person to transcend self-importance. Thus the conversation ceases to be an exchange of commodities (information, knowledge, status) and becomes a dialogue in which it does not matter any more who is right. The Lord helps us and blesses us and we learn to treasure our many precious gifts from God. God has enhanced our knowledge, culminated experience, rummaged our memories, enhanced our knowledge, and deepened our insight into human nature and we have gained knowledge of ourselves. We are inspired and come away with cultural property. When we are this deep in our faith, we are like a well-informed guide at a museum. We learn to hear so that we can distinguish when God speaks to our brains and hearts. “The Spirit of God, is also the spirit of freedom,” reports Alma 61.15. #RandolphHarris 17 of 17
Past the Houses, Past the Headlands, into Deep Eternity– Look Back on Time with Kindly Eyes!
A tyrant will always find a pretext for his or her tyranny. Europe, the youngest child of humanity, culturally speaking, developed such wealth and such weapons that it became the master of the rest of the World for several hundred years. However, again, in the middle of the twentieth century, a drastic change is occurring, a change as great as ever occurred in the past. The new techniques replace the use of the physical energy of animals and mortals by that of steam, oil and electricity; they create means of communication which transform the Earth into the size of one continent, and the human race into one society where the fate of one group is the fate of all; they create marvels of devices which permit the best of art, literature and music to be brought to every member of society; they create productive forces which will permit everybody to have a dignified material existence, and reduces work to such dimension that it will fill only a fraction of the day. Yet today, when mortals seem to have reached the beginning of a new, richer, happier human era, their existence and that of the generations to follow is more threatened then ever. How is this possible? “Our government teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every mortal to become a law unto oneself; it invites anarchy,” reports Justice Louis D. Brandeis. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18
Mortals had won their freedom from clerical and secular authorities, they stood alone with their reason and their conscience as one’s only judges, but they were afraid of the newly won freedom; mortals had achieved freedom to—to be oneself, to be productive, to be fully awake. Thus they tried to escape from freedom. One’s very achievement, the mastery over nature, opened up the avenues for one’s escape. “Most things worth doing in the World had been declared impossible before they were done,” reports Justice Louis D. Brandies. However, in building the new industrial machine, mortals become so absorbed in the new task that it became the paramount goal of one’s life. One’s energies, which once were devoted to the search for God and salvation, were now directed toward the domination of nature and ever-increasing material comfort. People ceased to use production as a means for a better life, but hypostatized it instead to an end in itself, and end to which life was subordinated. In this process of an ever-increasing division of labor, ever-increasing mechanization of work, and an ever-increasing size of social agglomerations, mortals themselves became part of the machines, rather than its master. People experiences themselves as a commodity, as an investment; their aim became to be a success, that is, to sell oneself as profitably as possible on the market. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18
The valued of a mortal became possessed in one’s stability, not in human qualities of love, reason, or in one’s artistic capacities. Happiness became identical with consumption of newer and better commodities, the drinking in of music, screen plays, fun, pleasures of the flesh, cranberry juice, and medications of various kinds. Not having a sense of self expect the one which conformity with the majority can give, one is insecure, anxious, depending on approval. One is alienated from oneself, worships the product of one’s own hands, the leaders of one’s own making, as if they were above him or her, rather than made by the individual. People are in a sense back where they were before the great human evolution began in the second millennium B.C. Society is incapable to love and to use their reason, to make decisions, in fact incapable to appreciate life and thus ready and even willing to destroy everything. “Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. People feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free people from the bondage of irrational fears,” reports Justice Louis D. Brandeis. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18
Modern society started out with the vision as its ideal the harmony between the individual and social needs, the end of the conflict between human nature and the social order. One believed one would arrive at this goal in two ways; by the increased productive techniques which permitted feeding everybody satisfactorily, and by a rational, objective picture of mortals and of their real needs. Putting it differently, the aim of the efforts of modern mortals is to create a sane society. More specifically, this means a society whose members have developed their reason to that point of objectivity which permits them to see themselves, others, nature, in their true reality, and not distorted by infantile omniscience or paranoid hate. It means a society, whose members have developed to a point of independence where they know the differences between good and evil, where they make their own choices, where they have convictions rather than opinions, faith rather than superstitions or nebulous hopes. It means a society whose members have developed the capacity to love their children, their neighbors, all mortal, themselves, all of nature; who can feel one with all, yet retain their sense of individuality and integrity; who transcend nature by creating, not by destroying. “The most important political office is that of the private citizen,” reports Justice Louis D. Brandeis #RandolphHarris 4 of 18
Will the majority be converted to sanity—or will it use the greatest discoveries of human reason for its own purposes of unreason and insanity? Will we be able to create a vision of the good, sane life, which will stir the life forces of those afraid of marching forward? This time, humankind is at one crossroad where the wrong step could be the last step. The United States of America and her allies are wealthier; their standard of living is higher, their interest in comfort and pleasure is greater than that of their rivals. The Western World is free to express ideas critical of the existing system. Hence, the Western World carries within itself the possibility for peaceful progressive transformation, and the life of the individual is free from the terror of imprisonment, torture or death. Indeed, life in the Western World has been, and is even now sometimes as rich and joyous as it has ever been anywhere in human history. However, we still need to acknowledge these blessings are part of our free Capitalistic system. Our system is based on industrialization, technology, and information, our goal is ever-increasing economic efficient and wealth. The system is ran by a managerial class, and by professional politicians. Our society is thoroughly materialistic in its outlook with an essence of Christian ideology. We are all organized in a centralized system, large factories and corporations, political mass parties. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18
Everybody is a cog in the machine, and has to function smoothly. This is achieved by a method of psychological conditioning, mass suggestion, monetary rewards. However, as Justice Louis D. Brandies and Samuel D. Warren wrote in one of the most famous articles in American History The Right to Privacy, published in December 1980 in the Harvard Law Review, which was later echoed in the Supreme Court case of Olmstead v. United States (1928), in which he argued that the creators of the United States Constitution, as evidence of their effort “to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and sensation conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most values by civilized mortals.” A statute of limitations is a law which forbids prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than a specified number of years ago. One of the main reasons why states have criminal statutes of limitation is to prevent delays in the filing of charges and to ensure that convictions are based on evidence (physical or eyewitness) that has not deteriorated with time. Another reason is so the government cannot act as a bounty hunter and track its citizens indefinitely. It is also illegal to does not keep a citizen under surveillance and try to entrap them indefinitely. In fact, the police can only keep someone under surveillance for three years, without court proceedings have been started, and that can only be extended an additional two years by the orders of a judge. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18
These laws are to protect citizens and to keep the system from trying to manufacture criminals and make sure that tax dollars are best used to protect our country. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk inside the insidious encroachment by people of zeal. If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectful,” reports Justice Louis D. Brandeis. Although our inhabitants are well fed, well clad, having their wishes satisfied, and not having wishes which cannot be satisfied; automatons, who follow without force, who are guided without leaders, who make machines which act like mortals and produce mortals who act like machines; mortals, whose reason deteriorates while their intelligence rises, thus creating the dangerous situation of equipping mortals with the greatest material power without the wisdom to use it. This alienation and automatization leads to an ever-increasing insanity. Life has no meaning, there is no joy, no faith, no reality. Everybody is happy—except that one does not feel, foes not reason, does not love. The danger of the past was that mortals became slaves. The danger of the future is that mortals may become robots. True enough, robots do not rebel. However, given mortal’s nature, robots cannot live and remain sane, they become Golems, they will destroy their World and themselves because they cannot stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18
Our danger are war and robotism. What is the alternative? To get out of the rut in which we are moving, and to take the next step in the birth and self-realization of humanity. The first condition is the abolishment of the war threat hanging over all of us now and paralyzing faith and initiative. We must take the responsibility for the life of all mortals, and develop on an international scale what all great countries have developed internally, a relative sharing of wealth and a new and more just division of economic resources. This must lead eventually to forms of international economic cooperation and planning, to forms of World government. In the economic sphere we need co-management of all who work in an enterprise, to permit their active and responsible participation. A cultural renaissance must also combine work education for the young, adult education and a new system of poplar art and secular ritual throughout the whole nation. Income must also be increased so that everybody has the material basis for a dignified life, even though we will still have economic differences and various social classes. Mortals must be restored to their supreme place in society, never a means, never a thing to be used by others or by oneself. Mortal’s used by mortal must end, and economy must become the servant for the development of mortals. Capital must serve labor, things must serve life. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18
No change must be brought about by force, it must be a simultaneous one in the economic, political and cultural sphere. Changes restricted to one sphere are destructive of every change. Primitive mortals were helpless before natural forces. They saw a large, bright object move across the sky. It has a profound effect upon their bodies. While it was there, they felt warm, and they could see. In its absence, the World became dark and cold. As time passed, those first human beings saw trees drop their leaves and die. Then, magically, the trees came back to life in brilliant colors and alluring smells. Finally, those trees produced an object that was good to eat. Then the trees appeared to die, only to return to give birth again and again. Try to imagine how awed early people must have been by these simple events. The first humans were becoming aware. However, they had no word-symbols to express that awareness in thought or speech. In most primitive cultures even today, people assume that they have little choice in their own destiny, because it is controlled by good and evil spirits of fate. Therefore, some modern mortals remain helpless before the social and economic forces created by oneself. Many worship the works of their own hands, bowing to the new idols, yet swearing by the name of the God who commanded them to destroy all idols. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18
Mortals can protect themselves from the consequences of their own madness only by creating a sane society which conforms with the needs of mortals, needs which are rooted in the very conditions of their existence. A society in which mortals relate to people lovingly, in which one is rotted in bonds of humanness and solidarity, rather than the ties of blood and soil; a society which gives people the possibility of transcending nature by creating rather than by conformity, in which a system of orientation and devotion exists without mortal’s needing to distort reality and who worship idols. Building such a society means taking it to the next level; it is the next step which means the end of humanoid history, the phase in which mortals had not become fully human. It does not mean the end of days, the completion, the state of perfect harmony in which no conflicts or problems confront mortals. On the contrary, it means mortal’s fate that one’s existence is beset by contradictions, which one has to solve without ever solving them. When one has overcome the primitive state of human sacrifice, be in it in the ritualistic form in the Aztecs, Hollywood, the fake news media, or in the secular form of way, when one has been able to regulate their relationship with nature reasonably instead of blindly, when things have truly become their servants rather than their idols, mortals will be confronted with the truly human conflicts and problems. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18
People will have to become adventuresome, courageous, imaginative, capable of suffering and of joy, but their powers will be in the service of life, and not in the service of death. If it comes to pass, the new phase of human history will be a new beginning, not and end. Mortals today are confronted with the most fundamental choice; not that between Capitalism or Communism, but the between robotism (of both the capitalistic and the communist variety), or Humanistic Capitalism. Most facts seem to indicate that one is choosing robotism, and that means, in the long run, insanity and destruction. However, all these facts are not strong enough to destroy faith in mortal’s reason, good will and sanity. As long as we can think of other alternatives, we are not lost; as long as we can consult together and plan together, we can hope. However, indeed, the shadows are lengthening; the voices of insanity are becoming louder. We are in reach of achieving a state of humanity which corresponds to the vision of our great teachers; yet we are in danger of the destruction of all civilization, or of robotization. A small tribe was told thousands of years ago: “I put before you life and death, blessing and curse—and you chose life.” This is our choice too. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18
However many blessings we expect from God, his infinite liberality will always exceed all our wishes and our thoughts. In the correlation between the subject and the object of faith, God can do exceedingly great things. There is no criterion by which faith can be judged from outside the correlation of faith. However, something else can happen: The faithful can ask oneself or be asked by someone else whether the medium through which one experiences ultimate concern expresses real ultimacy. This question is the dynamic force in the history of religion, revolutionizing the sacramental type of faith and driving faith beyond in different directions. As followers of Christ, we often suffer not because we are out of God’s will but because we are in it, not because we lack faith but because we have faith. We suffer not because we need to be filled with the Spirit but because we already are. Stronger faith does not mean less suffering, but more suffering means stronger faith. Far from calling our faith into question, our afflictions result in our becoming more and more like Christ himself. Nothing is sacred except in the correlation of faith. Even the saints are saints only because the source of all holiness is transparent through. The interest of mystical faith is not to reject the concrete, sacramental ways of faith, but to go beyond them. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18
Mystical faith is the end of a long way from the most concrete forms of faith to the point in which all concreteness disappears in the abyss of pure divinity. Mysticism is not irrational. Some of the greatest mystics in Europe and Asia were, at the same time, some of the great philosophers, outstanding in clarity, consistency, and rationality. However, they realized that the true content of faith in an ultimate concern can neither be identified with a piece of reality, as sacramental faith desire, nor be expressed in terms of a rational system. It is a matter of ecstatic experience, and one can only speak of the ultimate in a language which as the same times denies the possibility of speaking about it. This is the only way in which mystical faith can express itself. Moral conscience, the heritage of the Juaeo-Christian tradition, and intellectual conscience, the heritage of the Greek tradition, fused and brought about a flowering of human creation as mortals have hardly ever known it before. There is a place where the ultimate is present within the finite World, namely, the depth of the human soul. This depth is the point of contact between the finite and the and the infinite. In order to go into it, mortals must empty oneself of all the finite contents of one’s ordinary life; one must surrender all preliminary concerns for the sake of the ultimate concern. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18
In adversity we usually want God to do a removing job when he wants to do an improving job. One must go beyond the pieces of reality in which sacramental faith experiences the ultimate. The ultimate is beyond this division, and one who wants to reach the ultimate must overcome this division for oneself by mediation, contemplation, and ecstasy. Faith, within this movement of the soul, is in a state of oscillation between having and not having the content of ultimate concern. It moves in degrees of approximation, in relapses and sudden fulfillment. The mystical faith does not despise or reject the sacramental faith. It goes beyond it to that which is present in every act of sacramental faith, yet hidden under the concrete objects in which it is embodies. Theologians sometimes have contrasted faith and mystical experience. They say the distance between faith and the ultimate can never be bridged. Mysticism tries to merge the mind with the content of its unconditional concern, with the ground of being and meaning. However, this contrast has only limited validity. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18
The mystic is aware of the infinite distance between the infinite and the finite, and accepts a life of preliminary stages of union with the infinite, interrupted only rarely, and perhaps never, in this life by the final ecstasy. And the faithful can have faith only if one is grasped by the content of one’s ultimate concern. Like sacramentalism, mysticism is a type of faith; and there is a mystical as well as a sacramental element in every type of faith. This is true even of the humanist kind of the ontological type of faith. A consideration of this kind of faith is especially important, because humanism is often identified with unbelief and contrasted with faith. This is possible only if faith is defined as belief in the existence and actions of divine beings. However, if faith is understood as the state of being ultimately concerned about the ultimate, humanism implies faith. Humanism is the attitude which makes mortals the measure of one’s own spiritual life, in art and philosophy, in science and politics, in social relations and personal ethics. For humanism the divine is manifest in the human; the ultimate concern of mortal is mortal. All this, of course, refers to mortal in their essence: the true mortal, the mortal of the idea, not the actual mortal, nor the mortal in estrangement from one’s true nature. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18
If, in this sense, the humanist declares the one’s ultimate concern is mortals, one sees mortal as the ultimate in a piece of reality or as mystical faith finds in the depth of mortal the place of the infinite. For those who seek, allow, and live for it, the dawn of faith, sometimes gradually, will come or can return. The difference is that the sacramental and mystical types transcend the limits of humanity and try to reach the ultimate itself beyond mortal and one’s World, while the humanists remains within these limits. For this reason the humanist faith is called secular, in contrast to the two types of faith which are called religious. Secular means, belonging to the ordinary process of events, not going beside it or beyond it into a sanctuary. In Latin and some derived languages one speaks of profanity in the sense of being before the doors of the temple. Profane in this sense is the same as secular. Often people say that they are secular, that they live outside the doors of the temple, and consequently that they are without faith! However, if one asks them whether they are without an ultimate concern, without something which they take as unconditionally serious, they would strongly deny this. And in denying that they are without an ultimate concern, they affirm that they are in a state of faith. They represent the humanist type of faith which itself is full of varieties; the fact that they are secular does not exclude them from the community of faith. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18
Attempt to be creative, even if the results are modest. Creativity can engender a spirit of gratitude for life and for what the Lord has woven into your being. If you choose wisely, it does not have to absorb a lot of time. It is an almost infinite task to describe the manifold forms in which the humanist type of faith has expressed itself and is alive in large sections of the Western World and in the Asiatic cultures. If we apply to it the distinction we have applied to the religious types of faith, the distinction between the ontological and the mortal type, we can say that the ontological type of secular faith is romantic-conservative, the moral type is progressive-utopian. The word “romantic,” in this context, points to the experience of the infinite in the finite, as it is given in nature and history. The word “conservative” in connection with romantic emphasizes the experience of the presence of the ultimate in the existing forms of nature and history. If a mortal sees the holy in the flower as it grows, in the animal as it moves, in mortals as one represents a unique individuality, in a special nation, a special culture, a special social system, one is romantic-conservative. For one the given is holy and is the content of one’s ultimate concern. The analogy of this kind of faith to the sacramental faith is obvious. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18
The romantic-conservative type of humanist faith is secularized sacramental faith: the divine is given here and now. All cultural and political conservatism is derived from this type of secular faith. It is faith, but it hides the dimension of the ultimate which it presupposes. Its weakness and its danger is that it may become empty. History has shown this weakness and final emptiness of all merely secular cultures. It has turned them back again and again to the religious forms of faith from which they came. All things denote there is a God. When we desire and seek it, the light will come. Being patient and obedient to God’s commandment and being open to God’s grace and healing and covenants is a faith that is demonstrated, and which God can see. Although we cannot love ourselves enough to say ourselves, Heavenly Father loves us more and know us better than we love or know ourselves. We can trust the Lord and lean not unto our own understanding. “People long for an afterlife in which there is nothing to do but delight in Heaven’s pleasures,” reports Justice Louis D. Brandeis. Can God see your faith? Are you doing anything to demonstrate your trust? The action you take does not have to be something big. It could be just a small step that activates God’s favor. However, when you take time to honor God, he is moved by your faith. Your faith is opening the door for the extraordinary. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18
The Indestructible Will of Mortals to Achieve Humanity–I Went to Heaven!
Oh, if only I could give you some peace of mind. I wish I could. Please, please wait for her to call you, and do not think about her anymore. A final consequence and evidence of the loss of our conviction of the worth and dignity of the person is that we have lost the sense of the tragic significance of human life. For the sense of tragedy is simply the other side of one’s belief in the importance of the human individual. Tragedy implies a profound respect for the human being and a devotion to one’s rights and destiny—otherwise it just does not matter whether Orestes or Lear or you or I fall or stand in our struggles. Arthur Miller, in the preface to his play The Death of a Salesman, makes some telling comments on the lack of tragedy in our day. The tragic character, he writes, is one “who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing—his sense of personal dignity.” And “the tragic right is a condition of life, a condition in which the human personality is able to flower and realize itself.” These conditions obtained in the periods in Western history when great tragedy was written. One has only to look at fifth-century Greece, when Aeschylus and Sophocles wrote the mighty tragedies of Oedipus, Agamemnon and Orestes, or at Elizabethan England when Shakespeare gave us Lear and Hamlet and Macbeth. #RandolphHarris 1 of 16
However, in our age of emptiness, tragedies are relative and rare. Or if they are written, the tragic aspect is the very fact that human life is so empty, as in Eugene O’Neill’s drama, The Iceman Cometh. This play is set in a saloon, and its dramatis personae—alcoholics, comfort men and women, and, as the chief character, a mortal who in the course of the play goes psychotic—can dimly recall the periods in their lives when they did believe in something. It is this echo of human dignity in a great void of emptiness that gives this drama the power to elicit the emotions of pity and terror of classical tragedy. Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, which we have mentioned earlier, is itself one of the few real tragedies about the common people—neither alcoholics nor psychotics—who make up the social situation in this country out of which most of us have sprung. (In the movie version of this drama, Willie Loman, the salesman, is unfortunately made to look pathetic—those who saw only the movie may have to imagine Willie in a broader context to appreciate his real tragic import.) He was a man who took seriously the teachings of his society, that success should attend hard, energetic work, that economic progress is a reality and that if one has the right contacts achievements and salvation should follow. #RandolphHarris 2 of 16
It is easy enough from our later perspective to see through Willie’s illusions, and to poke fun at his unsound go-getter values. However, that is not the point. The one thing that matters is that Willie believed; he took seriously his own existence and what he had been taught he could rightly expect from life. “I don’t say he is a great man,” says his wide in describing Willie’s disintegration to their sons, “but he’s a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to him. So attention must be paid.” The tragic fact is not that Willie is a man of the grandeur of Lear or the inward richness of Hamlet; “he’s only a little boat looking for a harbor,” as his wife also says. However, it is the tragedy of a historical period—if one multiplies Willie by the hundreds of thousands of fathers and brothers who also believed what they were taught but found in the changing times that it did not work, one has enough to shake one with pity and fear as in the tragedies of old. “He never knew who he was,” and he was one who took seriously his right to know. #RandolphHarris 3 of 16
“The flaw, or crack in the tragic character,” Miller writes, “I really nothing—and need be nothing—but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are ‘flawless.’ Most of us are in that category.” Miller goes on to point out that the quality in a tragedy which shakes us “derives from the underlying fear of being displaced, the disaster inherent in being torn away from our chosen image of what and who we are in this World. Among us today this fear is as strong, and perhaps stronger, than it ever was.” Let no one assume we are advocating a pessimistic view we mourn the loss of the tragic sense. On the contrary, as Miller also notes, “Tragedy implies more optimism in its author than does comedy, and its final result ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker’s brightest opinion of the human animal.” For the tragic view indicates that we take seriously mortal’s freedom and one’s need to realize oneself; it demonstrates our belief in the indestructible will of mortals to achieve one’s humanity. #RandolphHarris 4 of 16
The knowledge of human nature and the insights into mortal’s unconscious conflicts which are disclosed in psychotherapy give new ground for believing in the tragic aspects of human life. The psychotherapist, privileged to be an intimate witness to some persons’ inner wrestling and their often grave and bitter struggles with themselves and with external forces which challenge their dignity, gains a new respect for these persons and a new realization of the potential dignity of the human being. Countless times a week, furthermore, one receives proof in one’s consulting work that when mortals at last accept the fact that they cannot successfully lie to themselves, and at last learn to take themselves seriously, they discover previously unknown and often remarkable recuperative powers within themselves. The picture of the roots of the malady of our time given in this essay adds up to a bleak diagnosis. However, it does not necessarily imply a bleak prognosis. For the beneficial side is that we have no choice but to move ahead. We are like people part way through psychoanalysis whose defenses and illusions are broken through, and their only choice is to push on to something better. #RandolphHarris 5 of 16
We—and by we I mean everyone, however old or young, who is aware of the historical situation in which we live—are not the lost generation of the 1920’s. The term lost, when applied to members of that period of adolescent rebellion following the first World War, meant that one was temporarily away from home, and could go back again whenever one became too frightened at being on one’s own. However, we are, rather, the generation which cannot turn back. We in the middle of the twentieth century are like pilots in the transatlantic flight who have passed the point of no return, who do not have fuel enough to go back but must push on regardless of storms or other dangers. What, then, is the task before us? The implications are clear in the above analysis: we must rediscover the sources of strength and integrity within ourselves. This, of course, goes hand in hand with the discovery and affirmation of values in ourselves and in our society which will serve as the core of unity. However, no values are effective, in a person or a society, except as there exists in the person the prior capacity to do the valuing, that is, the capacity actively to choose and affirm the values by which one lives. This the individual must do, and in this way one will help lay the groundwork for the new constructive society which will eventually come out of this disturbed times, as the Renaissance came out of the disintegration of the Middles Ages. #RandolphHarris 6 of 16
Those who are concerned with making the World more healthy had best start with themselves. We could go father and point out that finding the center of strength within ourselves is in the long run the best contribution we can make to our fellow mortals. It is said that when the fisher people in the sea around Norway see their boat heading for a maelstrom, one reaches ahead to try to throw an oar into the boiling whirlpool; if one can do so, the maelstrom quiets down, and one and one’s boat go safely though. Just so, one person with indigenous inner strength exercises a great calming effect on panic among people around him or her. This is what our society needs—not new ideas and inventions, important as these are, and not geniuses and supermen and superwomen, but persons who can be, that is, persons who have a center of strength within themselves. It is our task to find the sources of this inner strength. Students in the having mode of existence will listen to a lecture, hearing the words and understanding their logical structure and their meaning and, as best they can, will write down every word in their loose-leaf notebooks—so that, later on, they can memorize their notes and this pass an examination. However, the content does not become part of their own individual system of thought, enriching and widening it. #RandolphHarris 7 of 16
Instead, with the information being consumed, they transform the words they hear into fixed clusters of thought, or whole theories, which they store up. The students and the content of the lectures remain strangers to each other, expect that each student has become the owner of a collection of statements made by somebody else (who has either created them or taken them over from another source). Students in the having mode have but one aim: to hold onto what they learned, either by entrusting it firmly to their memories or by carefully guarding their notes. They do not have to produce or create something new. In fact, the having type of individual feel rather disturbed by new thoughts or ideas about a subject, because the new puts into question the fixed sum of information they have. Indeed, to one for whom having is the main form of relatedness to the World, ideas that cannot easily be pinned down (or penned down) are frightening—like everything else that grows and changes, and thus is not controllable. The process of learning has an entirely different quality for students in the being mode of relatedness to the World. To being with, they do not go to the course lectures, even to the first one in a course, as tabulae rasae. They have thought beforehand about the problems the lectures will be dealing with and have in mind certain questions and problems of their own. They have been occupied with the topic and it interests them. #RandolphHarris 8 of 16
When people are interest and eager to learn, instead of being passive receptacles of words and idea, they listen, they hear, and most important, they receive and they respond in an active, productive way. New questions, new ideas, new perspectives arise in their minds. Their listening is an alive process. They listen with interest, hear what the lecturer says, and spontaneously come to life in response to what they receive. They do not simply acquire knowledge that they can take home and memorize. Each student has been affected and has changed: each is different after the lecture than he or she was before it. Of course, this mode of learning can prevail only if the lectures offers stimulating material. Empty talk cannot be responded to in the being mode, and in such circumstances, students in the being mode find it best not to listen at all, but to concentrate on their own thought processes. To undertake this venture of becoming aware of ourselves, and to discover the sources of inner strength and security which are the rewards of such a venture, let us start at the beginning by asking, What is this person, this sense of selfhood we seek? #RandolphHarris 9 of 16
We want to experience ourselves as an identity who is separated from our parents and can stand against them if need be. This remarkable emergence is the birth of the human creature into a person. This consciousness of the self, this capacity to see one’s self as though from the outside, is the distinctive characteristic of mortals. Our consciousness of ourselves is the source of our highest qualities. It underlies our ability to distinguish between I and the World. It gives us the capacity to keep time, which is simply the ability to stand outside the present and to imagine oneself back in yesterday or ahead in the day after tomorrow. Thus human beings can learn from the past and plan for the future. And thus mortals are the historical mammal in that one can stand outside and look at one’s history; and thereby one can influence one’s own development as a person, and to a minor extent one can influence the march of history in one’s nation and society as a whole. The capacity for consciousness of self also underlies mortal’s ability to use symbols, which is a way of disengaging something from what it is, such as the two sounds which make up the word “table,” and agreeing that these sounds will stand for a whole class of things. Thus mortals can think in abstractions like “beauty,” “reason,” and “goodness.” #RandolphHarris 10 of 16
This capacity for consciousness of ourselves gives us the ability to see ourselves as others see us and to have empathy with others. It underlies our remarkable capacity to transport ourselves into someone else’s parlor where we will be in reality next week, and then in imagination to think and plan how we will act. And it enables us to imagine ourselves in someone else’s place, and to ask how we would feel and what we would do if we were this other person. No matter how poorly we use or fail to use or even abuse these capacities, they are the rudiments of our ability to begin to love our neighbor, to have ethical sensitivity, so see truth, to create beauty, to devote ourselves to ideals, and to die for them if need be. To fulfill these potentialities is to be a person. That is what is meant when it is stated in the Hebrew-Christian religious tradition tat mortals are created in the image of God. However, these gifts come only at a high price, the price of anxiety and inward crises. The birth of the self is so simple and easy matter. For the child now faces the frightful prospect of being out on one’s own, alone, and without the full protection of the decisions of one’s parents. It is no wonder that when one begins to feel oneself an identity in one’s own right, one may feel terribly powerless in comparison with the great and strong adults around one. #RandolphHarris 11 of 16
The healthy child, who is loved and supported but not coddled by one’s parents, will proceed in one’s development despite this anxiety and the crises that face him or her. And there may be no particular external signs of trauma or special rebelliousness. However, when one’s parents consciously or unconsciously exploit one from their own ends or pleasure, or hate or reject one, so that one cannot be sure of minimal support when one tries out one’s new independence, the child will cling to the parents and will use one’s capacity for independence only in the forms of negativity and stubbornness. If, when one first begins tentative to say “No,” one’s parents beat one down rather than love and encourage one, one thereafter will say “No” not as a form of true independent strength but as a mere rebellion. Of if, as in the majority of cases in the present day, the parents themselves are anxious and bewildered in the tumultuous seas of the changing times, unsure of themselves and beset by self-doubts, their anxiety will carry over and lead the child to feel that one lives in a World in which it is dangerous to venture into becoming one’s self. #RandolphHarris 12 of 16
This brief sketch is schematic, to be sure, and it is meant to give us as adults a kind of retrospective picture in the light of which we can better understand how one fails to achieve selfhood. Most of the data for these conflicts of childhood come from adults who are struggling, in dreams, memories or in present-day relations, to overcome what in their past lives originally blocked them in becoming fully born as persons. Almost every adult is, in greater or lesser degree, still struggling on the long journey to achieve selfhood on the basis of the patterns which were set in one’s early experiences in the family. Nor do we for a moment over look the fact that selfhood is always born in a social context. Genetically, Auden is quite right: for the ego is a dream till a neighbor’s need by name create it. Or, as we put it above, the self is always born and grows in interpersonal relationships. However, no ego moves on into responsible selfhood if it remains chiefly the reflection of the social context around it. It our particular World in which conformity is the great destroyer of selfhood—in our society in which fitting the pattern tends to be accepted as the norm, and being well liked is the alleged ticket to salvation—what needs to be emphasized is not only the admitted fact that we are to some extent created by each other but also our capacity to experience, and create, ourselves. #RandolphHarris 13 of 16
Humans first emerged from the animal World as a freak of nature. Having lost most of the instinctive equipment which regulates the animal’s activities, one was more helpless, less well equipped for the fight for survival, than most beings. Yet mortals had developed a capacity for thought, imagination, and self-awareness, which was the basis for transforming nature and oneself. For many thousands of generations mortals lived by food gathering and hunting. One was still tied to nature, and afraid of being cast out from her. One identified oneself with other terrestrial beings and worshipped these representatives of nature as one’s gods. After a long period of slow development, mortal began to cultivate the soil, to create a new social and religious order based on agriculture and animal husbandry. During this period one worshipped goddesses as the bearers of natural fertility, experiences oneself as the child dependent on the fertility of the Earth, on the life-giving productivity of mother. At a time some four thousand years ago, a decisive turn in mortal’s history took place. One took a new step in the long-drawn-out process of one’s emergence from nature. Mortals severed ties with nature and with Mother, and set oneself a new goal, that of being fully born, of being fully awake of being fully human; of being free. #RandolphHarris 14 of 16
Reason and conscience became the principles which were to guide one; one’s aim was society bound by the bonds of humanly love, justice and truth, a new and truly human home to take the place of the irretrievably lost home in nature. We have inherited a plentiful amount of physical wealth—but almost nothing of those values, and the moths and symbols from which they come, which are the basis for responsible choice. What did we do when we unchained this Earth from its Sun? There is a disorder of the will and not of the motor apparatus, and this indicates that the catatonic, in one’s pathological World, is caught in the same inner deadlock as we are in our World of reality. The catatonic’s problem hinges on values and will, and one’s immobility is one expression of the contradiction one experiences. It is now clear that we must take into account what the environment does to an organism not only before but after it responds. Behavior is shaped and maintained by its consequences. I believe that the sequence and timing of our actions over years can help us to see one united and compressive work and not just a series of independent and discrete initiatives. God has revealed a pattern of society progress for individuals and families through ordinances, teaching, programs, and activities. #RandolphHarris 15 of 16
I pray that we can recognize the Lord’s work as one great Worldwide work that is becoming ever more home centered. I know and testify that the Lord is revealing and will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. I promise that increased perspective, purpose, and power will be evident in our learning and living the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as we strive to gather together in one al things in Christ—even in him. All opportunities and blessings of eternal consequence originate in, are possible and have purpose because of, and endure through the Lord Jesus Christ. And in him we find the assurance of peace in this World, and eternal life in the World to some. The holy is first of all experiences as present. It I here and now, and this means it encounters us in a thing, in a person, in an event. Faith sees in a concrete piece of reality the ultimate ground and meaning of all reality. No piece of reality is excluded from the possibility of becoming a bearer of the holy; and almost every kind of reality has actually been considered as holy by acts of faith in groups and individuals. Faith in God produces awe, fascination, and adoration. The assertion that life has sacred character is meaningful for possessing faith. The purpose of God’s plan is to give his children the opportunity to choose eternal life. #RandolphHarris 16 of 16
Here a Star and there a Star–Someone Had to be at the Very Heart of this House to Receive them
They can do everything, actually. They can do the cooking and the cleaning, and they can meet and greet the drop-in guests. They can host the Easter Fest and Christmas Supper and every other imaginable event. Fact is, they can all do far more than they believe they can. And they all have plenty of money, money enough to walk away from this place and be comfortable wherever they go. That gives them a feeling of security, and an air of independence. However, they want to be right here. This is their home. However, they want for there to be a presence, a Cresleigh Rocklin Trails presence, and without that, they are insecure. People who have lost the sense of their identity as selves also tend to lose their sense of relatedness to nature. They lose not only their experience of organic connection with inanimate nature, such as trees and mountains, but they also lose some of their capacity to feel empathy for animate nature, that is animals. In psychotherapy, persons who feel empty are often sufficiently aware of what a vital response to nature might be to know what they are missing. They may remark, regretfully, that though others are moved by a sunset, they themselves are left relatively cold; and though others may find the ocean majestic and awesome, they themselves, standing on rocks at the seashore, do not feel much of anything; and while many people find the steeply pitched roofs, turrets and stained glass of a Victorian house charming and charismatic, they see just a building with some fins and glass. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19
The most important things are the hardest to say. How weirdly appropriate. Our relationship to nature tends to be destroyed not only by our emptiness, but also by our anxiety. A little girl coming home from school after a lecture on how to defend one’s self against the fake news media, asked her parents, “Mother, can’t we move someplace where there isn’t any news?” Fortunately this child’s terrifying but revealing question is an allegory more than an illustration, but it well symbolizes how anxiety makes us withdraw from nature. Modern mortals, so afraid of the fake news media they have constructed, must cower from the TV and hide in caves—must cower from the TV which is classically the symbol of vastness, imagination, entertainment. On a more everyday level, our point is simply that when a person feels oneself inwardly empty, as is the case with many modern people, one experiences nature around one also as empty, dried up, dead. The two experiences of empties are two sides of the same state of impoverished relation to life. We can see more clearly what it means to lose one’s feeling for nature if we glance back to note how the sense of relationship to nature flourished in the modern period, and then died down. One of the chief characteristics of the Renaissance in Europe was an upsurging of enthusiasm for nature in all its forms—whether in the form of animals, or of trees, or in the inanimate form of stars and colors in the sky. One can see this new feeling coming beautifully to life in the paintings of Giotto in the early Renaissance. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19
If, after looking at the stylized and stiff forms of medieval art, you suddenly come up the frescoes of Giotto, you will be surprised by the most charming cockatiels, lively dogs and windsome donkeys, all presented as vital parts of human experience. And you will likewise be surprised to see that Giotto, in contrast to the artists of the Middle Ages, painted castles and trees as natural forms delightful for their own beauty, not simply for their symbolic religious message; and that, also in contrast to medieval art, he shows human beings experiencing joy, grief, contentment as individual emotions. His paintings tell us more powerfully than words that wen a human being experiences himself as an identity who actively feels his relation to life as an individual, he also experiences as alive relations to animals and nature. However, by the nineteenth century the interest in nature had become increasingly technical; mortal’s concern now was chiefly to mature and manipulate nature. The World had become disenchanted. To be sure, the disenchantment process ad begun way back in the seventeenth century, when we were taught that the body and mind were to be separated, that the objective World of physical nature and the body (which could be measured and weighed) was radically different from the subjective World of mortal’s mind and inner experience. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19
The practical result of this dichotomy was that subjective, inner experience—the mind side of the dichotomy—tended to be put on the shelf, and modern mortals had a heyday pursuing, with great success, the mechanical, measurable aspects of experiences. So by the nineteenth century nature had largely become impersonal, as in science, or an object to be calculated for the purpose of making money, as the architecture charts rights angles for the purposes of commerce. Obviously, when we point out that the overemphasis on things which could be calculated and manipulated went hand and hand with the growth of industrialism and bourgeois commerce, we are implying no criticisms of machines and technical progress as such. We mean simply to point out the historical fact that in this development nature became separated from the individual’s subjective, emotional life. Near the beginning of the nineteenth William Wordsworth, among others, clearly saw this loss of the feeling for nature, and be saw the overemphasis on commercialism which was partly its cause and the emptiness which would be its result. He described what was occurring in his familiar sonnet: The world is too much with us; late and soon, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers: Little we see in Nature that is ours; we have given hearts away, a sordid boon! #RandolphHarris 4 of 19
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon, the winds that will be howling at all hours, and are up-gather’d now like sleeping flowers; for this, for everything, we are out of time; it moves us not. Great God! I’d rather be a Pagan suckled in a creed outworn; so might I, standing on this pleasant lea, have glimpses that would make me less forlorn; have sight of Proteus rising from the sea; or hear old Triston blow his weathered horn. It is not by poetic accident that Wordsworth yearns for such mythological creatures as Proteus and Triton. These figures are personifications of aspects of nature—Proteus, the god who keeps changing his shape and form, is a symbol for the sea which is eternally transforming its movement and its color. Triton is the god whose horn is the sea shell, and his music is the echoing hum one hears in the large shells on the shore. Proteus and Triton are examples of precisely what we have lost—namely the capacity to see ourselves and our moods in nature, to relate to nature as a broad and rich dimension of our own experience. The dichotomy we have learned has given modern mortals a philosophical basis for getting rid of the belief in witches, and this contributed considerably to the actual overcoming of witchcraft in the eighteenth century. Everyone would agree that this was a great gain. However, we likewise got rid of the fairies, elves, trolls, and all of the demicreatures of the woods and Earth. It is generally assumed that this, too, was a gain since it helped sweep mortal’s mind clean of superstition and magic. However, I believe this is an error. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19
Actually what we did in getting rid of the fairies and the elves and their ilk was to impoverish our lives; and impoverishment is not the lasting way to clear mortal’s minds of superstition. There is a sound truth in the old parable of the mortal who swept the evil spirits with one; and the second state of the mortal was worse than the first. For it is the empty and vacant people who size on the new and more destructive forms of our latter-day superstitions, such as beliefs in the totalitarian mythologies, engrams, miracles like the day the Sun stood still, and so on. Our World has become disenchanted; and it leaves us not only out of tune with nature but with ourselves as well. As human beings we have our roots in nature, not simply because of the fact that the chemistry of our bodies is of essentially the same elements as the air or dirt on the grass. In a multitude of other ways we participate in nature—the rhythm of the change of seasons or of night and day, for example, is reflected in the rhythm of our bodies, of hunger and fulfillment, of sleep and wakefulness, of pleasures of the flesh and gratification, and in countless other ways. Proteus can be a personification of the changes in the sea because he symbolizes what we and the sea share—changing moods, variety, capriciousness, and adaptability. In this sense, when we relate to nature we are but putting our roots back into their native soil. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19
However, in other respect mortals are very different from the rest of nature. He possesses consciousness of oneself; one’s senses of personal identity distinguishes one from the rest of the living or nonliving things. And nature cares not fig for a mortal’s personal identity. That crucial point in our relatedness to nature brings into the center of the picture the basic theme of this book, mortal’s need for awareness of oneself. One must be able to affirm one’s person despite the impersonality of nature, and to fill the silences of nature with one’s own inner aliveness. It takes a strong self—that is, a strong sense of personal identity—to relate fully to nature without being swallowed up. For really to feel the silence and the inorganic character of nature carries a considerable threat. If one stands on a rocky promontory, for example, and looks at the sea in its tremendous rising and falling of swells, and if one is fully and realistically aware that the sea never has a tear for others’ woes nor cares what any other things, that one’s life could be swallowed up with scarcely an infinitesimal difference being made to the tremendous, ongoing, chemical movements of creation, one is threatened. Or if one gives oneself to the feeling of the distance of the far mountain peaks, permits oneself to empathize with their heights and depths, and if one is aware at the same moment that the mountain never was the friend of one, nor promised what it could not give, and that one could be dashed to pieces on the stone floor at the foot of the peak without one’s extinction as a person making the slightest differences to the walls of granite, one is afraid. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19
This is the profound threat of nothingness or nonbeing, which one experiences when one fully confronts one’s relation with inorganic being. And to remind one’s self, dust thou art, to dust returnest, is hollow comfort indeed. Such experiences in relating to nature have too much anxiety for most people. They flee from the threat by shutting off their imagination, by turning their thoughts to the practical and humdrum details of what to have for lunch. Or they protect themselves from the full terror of the treat of nonbeing by making the sea a person who would not hurt them, or by taking refuge in some belief in individual Providence and telling themselves, one shall give one’s angels charge concerning thee…least at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. However, to feel from one’s anxiety, or to rationalize one’s way out of it, only makes one weaker in the long run. It requires, we have said, a strong sense of self and a good deal of courage to relate to nature creatively. However, to affirm one’s own identity over against the inorganic being of nature in turn produces greater strength of self. At this point, however, we are getting ahead of our story—how such strength is developed belongs to later discussion. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19
We wish here to emphasize that the loss of the sense of one’s own self is detrimental to our souls and society. Little we see in Nature that is ours, as a description of many modern people, is a mark of the weakened and improvised person. Mortals, in order to feel at home in the World, must grasp it not only with one’s cognitive abilities, but with all of one’s sense, one’s eyes, one’s ears, and with all of one’s body. One must act out with one’s body what one thinks out with one’s brain. Body and mind cannot be separated in this, or in any other aspect. If mortal grasps the World and thus unites oneself with it by thought, one creates philosophy, theology, myth and sciences. If mortal expresses one’s grasp of the World by one’s sense, one creates art and ritual, one creates song, dance, drama, painting, sculpture. Using the word “art,” we are influences by its usage in the modern sense, as a separate area of life. We have, on the one hand, the artist, a specialized profession—and on the other hand, the admirer and consumer of art. However, this separation is a modern phenomenon. Not that there were not “artists” in all great civilizations. The creation of the great Egyptian, Greek, or Italian sculptures was the work of extraordinarily gifted artists who specialized in their art; so were the creators of Greek drama or of music since the seventeenth century. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19
However, what about a Gothic cathedral, a Catholic ritual, an Indian rain dance, a Japanese flower arrangement, a folk dance, community singing? Are they art? Popular art? We have no word for it, because art in a wide and general sense, as a part of everybody’s life, has lost its place in our World. What word can we use then? In the discussion of alienation I used the term “ritual.” The difficulty here is, of course, that carries a religious meaning, which puts it again in a special and separate sphere. For lack of a better word, I shall use “collective art,” meaning the same as ritual; it means to respond to the World with our senses in a meaningful, skilled, productive, active, shared way. In this description the shared is important, and differentiates the concept of collective art from that of art in the modern sense. The latter is individualistic, both in its production, and in its consumption. Collective art, is shared; it permits mortals to feel one with others in a meaningful, rich, productive way. It is not an individual leisure time occupation, added to life, it is an integral part of life. It corresponds to a basic human need, and if this need is not fulfilled, mortals remain as insecure and anxious as if the need for a meaningful thought picture of the World were unrealized. In order to grow out of the receptive into the productive orientation, one must relate oneself to the World artistically and not only philosophically or scientifically. If a culture does not offer such a realization, the average person does not develop beyond one’s receptive or marketing orientation. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19
Where are we? Religious rituals have little importance any more, except for the Catholics. Secular rituals hardly exist. Aside from the attempts to imitate rituals in lodges, fraternities, sororities, and so on, we have a few patriotic and sport rituals, appealing only to a most limited extent to the needs of the total personality. We are a culture of consumers. We “drink in” the movies, the crime reports, the cranberry juice, the fun. There is no active productive participation, no common unifying experience, no meaningful acting out of significant answers to life. What do we expect from our young generation? What are they to do when they have no opportunity for meaningful, shared artistic activities? What else are they to do but to escape into drinking, movie-daydreaming, crime, neurosis, and insanity? What help is it to have almost no illiteracy, and the most widespread higher education which has existed at any time—if we have no collective expression of our total personalities, no common art and ritual? Undoubtedly a relatively primitive village in which there are still real feasts, common artistic shared expressions, and no literacy at all—is more advanced culturally and more healthy mentally than our educated, newspaper-reading, radio-listening, internet-consuming culture. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19
No sane society can be built upon the mixture of purely intellectual knowledge and almost complete absence of shared artistic experience, college plus football, crime stories, plus Fourth of July celebrations, with Mothers’ and Fathers’ day and Christmas Supper thrown in for good measure. In considering how we can build a sane society, we must recognize that the need for the creation of collective art and ritual on a non-clerical basis is at least as important as literacy and higher education. The transformation of an atomistic into a communitarian society depends on creating again the opportunity for people to sing together, walk together, dance together, admire together—together, and not be members of a lonely crowd. A number of attempts have been made to revive collective art and ritual. The Religion of Reason with its new feast days and rituals, was the form created by the French Revolution. National feelings created some new rituals, but they never gained the importance which the lost religious ritual once has. Cultural rituals are encouraged in our communities, but the significance is never greater than that of the patriotic ritual. Collective art and rituals are found in the youth movement, which flourished in years before the immigration debacle. However, many community movements remain rather esoteric and are drowned in the rising flood of nationalism and political debates. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19
On the whole, our modern ritual is impoverished and does not fulfill mortal’s need for collective art and ritual, even in the remotest sense, either as to quality or its quantitive significance in life. What are we to do? Can we invent rituals? Can one artificially create collective art? Of course not! However, once one recognizes the need for them, once one begins to cultivate them, probiotics and prebiotics will grow, and gifted people will come forth who will add new forms to old ones, and new talents will appear which would have gone unnoticed without such new orientation. Collective art will begin with children’s games in kindergarten, be continued in school, then in later life. We shall have common dances, choirs, plays, music, bands, not entirely replacing modern sport, but subordinating it to the role of one of the many nonprofit and nonpurpose activities. Here again, as in industrial and political organizations, the decisive factor is decentralization; concrete face-to-face groups, active responsible participation. In the factory, in the school, in the small political discussion groups, in the village, various forms of common artistic activities can be created; they can be stimulated as much as is necessary by the help and suggestion from central artistic bodies, but not fed by them. At the same time, modern radio, television, and internet techniques give marvelous possibilities to bring the best music and literature to large audiences. Needless to say it cannot be left to business to provide for these opportunities, but that they must rank with our educational facilities which do not make a profit for anybody. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19
It might be argued that the idea of a large-scale revival of ritual and collective art is romantic; that it suits an age of handicraft, and not an age of machine production. If this objection were true, we might as well resign ourselves to the fact that our way of life would destroy itself soon, because of its lack of balance, and sanity. However, actually, the objection is not any more compelling than the objections made to possibility of railroads and heavier-than-air flying machines. There is only one valid point in this objection. The way we are, atomized, alienated, without any genuine sense of community, we shall not be able to create new forms of collective art and ritual. However, this is just what I have been emphasizing all along. One cannot separate the change in our industrial and political organization from that of the structure of our educational and cultural life. No serious attempt for change and reconstruction will succeed if it is not undertaken in all those spheres simultaneously. Can one speak of a spiritual transformation of society without mentioning religion? Undoubtedly, the teachings of the great monotheistic religions stress the humanistic aims which are the same as those which underlie the productive orientation. The aims of Christianity and Judaism are those of the dignity of mortals as an aim and an end in oneself, of humanly love, of reason and of the supremacy of spiritual over material values. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19
These ethical aims are related to certain concepts of God in which the believers of the various religions differ among themselves, and which are unacceptable to millions of others. However, it is an error of the nonbelievers to focus on attacking the idea of God; their real aim ought to be to challenge religionist to take their religion, and especially the concept of God, seriously; that would mean to practice the spirit of humanly love, truth and justice, hence to become the most radical critics of present-day society. On the other hand, even from a strictly monotheistic standpoint, the discussions about God mean to use God’s name in vain. However, while we cannot say what God is, we can state what God is not. It is not time to cease to argue about God, and instead to unite in the unmasking of contemporary forms of idolatry? Today it is not Baal and Astarte but the deification of the state and of power in authoritarian countries and the deification of the machines and of success in our own culture; it is the all-pervading alienation which threatens the spiritual qualities of mortals. Whether we are religionists or not, whether we believe in the necessity for a new religion or in the continuation of the Juaeo-Chrisitian tradition, inasmuch as we are concerned with the essence and not with the shell, with the experience and not with the word, with mortals and not with the institution, we can unite in firm negation of idolatry and find perhaps more of a common faith in this negation than in any affirmative statements about God. Certainly we shall find more of humility and of brotherly love. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19
This statement remains true even if one believes, as I do, that the theistic concepts are bound to disappear in the future development of humanity. In fact, for those who see in the monotheistic religions only one of the stations in the evolution of the human race, it is not too far-fetched to believe that a new religion will develop within the next few hundred years, a religion which corresponds to the development of the human race; the most important feature of such a religion would be its universalistic character, corresponding to the unification of humankind which is taking place in this epoch; it would embrace the humanistic teachings common to all great religions of the East and of the West; its doctrines would not contradict the rational insight of humankind today, and its emphasis would be on the practice of life, rather than on doctrinal beliefs. Such a religious would create new rituals and artistic forms of expression, conducive to the spirit of reverence toward life and the solidarity of mortals. Religion can, of course, not be invented. It will come into existence with the appearance of a new great teacher, just as they have appeared in previous centuries wen the time was ripe. In the meaning, those who believe in God should express their faith by living it; those who do not believe, by living the precepts of love and justice and—waiting. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19
Faith as the state of being ultimately concerned lives in many forms, subjectively and objectively. Every religious and cultural group and, to a certain degree, every individual is the bearer of a special experience and content of faith. The subjective state of the faithful changes in correlation to the change of the symbols in faith. Faith is a construction of thought. There are no pure types in any realm of life. However, one can distinguish two main elements in every experience of the holy. One element is the presence of the holy ere and now. It consecrates the place and the reality of its appearance. It grasps the mine with terrifying and fascinating power. It breaks into ordinary reality, shakes it and drives it beyond itself in an ecstatic way. It establishes rules according to which it can be approached. The holy must be present and felt as present in order to be experienced at all. At the same time, the holy is the judgment over everything that is. It demands personal and social holiness in the sense of justice and love. Our ultimate concern represents what we essentially are and—therefore—ought to be. It stands as the law of our being, against us and for us. Holiness cannot be experienced without its power to command what we should be. If we call the first element in the experience of the holy the holiness of being, the second element in the experience of the holy could be called the holiness of what ought to be. In an abbreviated way one could call the first form of faith its ontological type, and the second form its moral type. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19
The dynamics of faith within and between the religions are largely determined by these two types, their interdependence and their conflicts. Their influence reaches into the most intimate cells of personal faith as well as into the movement of the great historical religions. They are omnipresent in ever act of faith. However, one of them is always predominate; for mortals are finite, and one can never unite all elements of truth in complete balance. On the other hand, one cannot rest on the awareness of one’s finitude, because faith is concerned with the ultimate and its adequate expression. Mortal’s faith is inadequate if one’s hole existence is determined by something that is less than ultimate. Therefore, one must always try to break through the limits of one’s mortality and reach what never can be reached, the ultimate itself. Out of this tension the problem of fait and tolerance arises. A tolerance bound to relativism, to an attitude in which noting ultimate is asked for, is negative and without content. It is doomed to swing toward its own opposite, an intolerant absolutism. Faith must unite the tolerance based on its relativity with certainty based on the ultimacy of its concern. In all types of faith this problem is alive, but especially in the Protestant form of Christianity. From the power of self-criticism and from the courage to face one’s own relativity come the greatness and danger of the Protestant faith. Here more than anywhere else the dynamics of faith become manifest and conscious: the infinite tension between the absolute of its claim and the relativity of its life. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19
Heavenly Father guides us and gives us the experiences we need based on our strengths, weaknesses, and choices so that everything we do will be blessed. We can trust and rely upon the Father. I am blessed that I was introduced to religion at a young age, because in times of hardship, I would not know where to turn and do not dread to think what my life would be like if I did not know God. Being taught about God is certainly a blessing and my faith in him has grown over the years. Sometimes because of challenges in life and the intensity and duration of somethings I may have to endure, I wonder if my prayers are working and sometimes stop praying, but I know that God is reading my thoughts and knows what I need. I will get back to my praying when my soul is ready to, and I encourage others never to stop. Because God has an eternal perspective, Heavenly Father can see things we cannot. His joy, work, and glory are to bring pass our immortality and exaltation. Everything God does it for our benefit. God wants our eternal happiness more than we do. And God would not require us to experience a moment more of difficulty than is absolutely needed for our benefit or for that of those w love. As a result, God focuses on helping us to progress, not on judging and condemning us. As spirit children of God, each of us has the potential to become like the Heavenly Father. “And it is by faith that my fathers have obtained the promise that these things should come,” reports Ether 12.22. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19
The Sun Just Touched the Morning—The Morning, Happy thing, Supposed the He Had Come to Dwell, and Life Would be All Spring!
I followed him into the front hallway and then up the broad staircase. How curious it was, to be his guest, to be walking on this wool carpet as if I were a mortal. Sleeping under the roof that was not mine. Next I would be doing in a Cresleigh Rocklin Trails. This could get out of hand. Please let it get out of hand. As a laid there, I pondered our loss of language for personal communication. It became clear to me, along with the loss of the sense of self has gone a loss of our language for communicating deeply personal meanings to each other. This is one important side of the loneliness now experienced by people in the Western World. Take the word “love” for example, a word which obviously should be most important in conveying personal feelings. When you use it, the person you are talking to may think you mean Hollywood love, or the sentimental emotion of the popular songs, “I love my baby, my baby loves me,” or religious charity, or friendliness, or sexual impulse, or whatnot. The same is true about almost any other important word in the nontechnical areas—truth, integrity, courage, spirit, freedom, and even the word self. Most people have private connotations for such words which may be quite different from their neighbor’s meaning, and hence some people even try to avoid using such words. #RandolphHarris 1 of 13
We have an excellent vocabulary for technical subjects; almost every person can name the parts of a BMW M5 engine clearly and definitely. However, when it comes to meaningful interpersonal relations, our language is lost: we stumble, and are practically as isolated as native people who are left in tribe and it is considered a breach of law to contact them. Our dried voices, when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass or birds’ feet over shattered glass in our dry cellar. This loss of the effectiveness of language, it may seem strange to point out, is a symptom of a disrupted historical period. When you explore the rise and fall of historical eras, you will note how the language is powerful and compelling at certain times, like the Greek language of the fifth century B.C. in which Aeschylus and Sophocles wrote their classics, or like Elizabethan English of Shakespeare and the King James translation of the Bible. At other periods the language is weak, vague and uncompelling, such as when Greek culture was being disrupted and dispersed in the Hellenistic period. I believe it could be shown in researches—which obviously cannot be gone into here—that when a culture is in its historical phase of growing toward unity, its language reflects the unity and power; whereas when a culture is in the process of change, dispersal and disintegration, the language likewise loses its power. #RandolphHarris 2 of 13
“When I was eighteen, Germany was eighteen,” said Goethe, referring not only to the fact that ideals of his nation were then moving toward unity and power, but that the language, which was his vehicle of power as a writer, was also in that stage. In our day the study of semantics is of considerable value, to be sure, and is to be commended. However, the disturbing question is why we have to talk so much about what words mean that, once we have learned each other’s language, we have little time or energy left for communicating. There are other forms of personal communication than words: art and music, for example. Although repetition often implies monotony, because we are doing the same thing over and over again, it is not necessarily boring. The sterile World of suburban life depicted in Frank Gohlke’s photograph Housing Development South of Fort Worth, Texas is, precisely, the image of such monotony, as the eye travels down a street where the house after house is the same. Nevertheless, when the same or like elements—shapes, colors, or a regular pattern of any kind—are repeated over and over again in a composition, a certain visual rhythm will result. The suburbs are an effort to capture the beauty and consistency in everyday life, by producing a unified community where people feel safe and at peace. It is a representation of the American Dream and a neat form of art. #RandolphHarris 3 of 13
Music as a form of personal communication is not always appreciated, but many people have been captivated when they see the beauty of the craft. It is stuff people want. It touches the spot. For example, the singer Aaliyah, her music wanted publishing, it contains essence. People pay money for it. She went on to compose many tunes including We Need a Resolution and What If, which were ground breaking tunes that communicated information about relationship, political and personal, and it allowed people do discover that Rhythm and Blues had much more appear than some originally thought. Not only was she singing about a lover who had left her, but her ballads talked about the experience of people who are just not communicating in politics and how if Republicans did some of the things Democrats did, it would not be tolerated. Some could say these two particular songs foreshadowed and reflect how many feel about the current government shutdown. As the “Princess of Rhythm and Blues,” Aaliyah recorded extensively in the 1990s and early 2000s. Her creativity was exceptional and inspired many musicians who developed and performed their music based on her style and image. #RandolphHarris 4 of 13
Clearly, painting, photographs, architecture and music are just some of the sensitive spokespersons in the society, as well as to other societies and other historical periods. However, we find in some modern art and modern music a language which does not communicate. If most people, even intelligent ones, look at modern art without knowing the esoteric key, they can understand practically nothing. They are greeted by every kind of style—impressionism, expressionism, cubism, Harlemism abstractionism, representationalism, nonobjective painting, until Mondrian gives his message only in squares and rectangles, and Jackson Pollock, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum, spatters paint almost accidental forms on large broads and entitles the work simply the date on which it was completed. I of course imply no criticism of these artists, both of whom happen to give me pleasure. However, does it not imply something very significant about our society that talented artists can communicate only in such limited language? If you visit the Art Students League in New York, NY USA—which has perhaps the largest group of outstanding American artists as teachers and the most representative body of students—you will be surprised to find the classes in practically every studio painting in a distinctly different style, and you will have to shift emotional gears every twenty steps. #RandolphHarris 5 of 13
In the Renaissance a common mortal could look at the paintings of Raphael or Leonardo da Vinci or Michelangelo and feel that the picture was telling one something which one could understand about life in general and one’s own inner life in particular. However, if an untutored mortal walked through the galleries on 57th Street in New York City today and saw, let us say, exhibits by Picasso, Dali and Marin, one might well agree that something important was being communicated but one would no doubt aver that only God and the artist knew what it was. For one’s own part one would probably be bewilder, and possibly somewhat irritated. A person is to be known by one’s own style, that is, by the unique pattern which gives underlying unity and distinctiveness to one’s activities. The same is partly true about a culture. However, when we ask what is the style of our day, we find that there is no style which can be called modern. The one thing these many modern different movements in art have in common, beginning with the great work of Cezanne and Van Gogh, is that they all are trying desperately to break through the hypocrisy and sentimentality of nineteenth-century art. Consciously or unconsciously, the seek to speak in their painting from some solid reality in the self experiencing the World. However, beyond this desperate search for honesty, which is much like that of Freud and Ibsen in their respective fields, there is only a potpourri of styles. #RandolphHarris 6 of 13
Making all necessary qualifications for the fact the time has not yet done its sifting for the modern period as it has, say, for the Renaissance, it is still true tat this potpourri is a revealing picture of the disunity of our times. The pictures that are discordant and empty, as are so many in modern art, are thus honest portrayals of the condition of our time. It is as though every genuine artist were frantically trying different languages to see which one would communicate the music of form and color to one’s fellow beings, but there is no common language. We find a giant like Picasso shifting in his own lifetime from style to style, partly as a reflection of the shifting character of the last four decades in Western society, and partly like a mortal dialing a ship’s radio on the ocean, trying to find the wave length on which one can talk to one’s follow mortals. However, the artists, and the rest of us too, remain spiritually isolated and at sea, and so we cover up our loneliness by chattering with other people about the things we do have language for—the World series, business affairs, the latest news reports. Our deeper emotional experiences are pushed further away, and we tend, thus, to become emptier and lonelier. The attitude inherent in consumerism is that of swallowing the whole World. The consumer is the eternal suckling crying for the bottle. This is obvious in pathological phenomena, such as alcoholism and drug addiction. #RandolphHarris 7 of 13
We apparently single out alcoholism and drug addiction because their effects interfere with the addicted person’s social obligations. Compulsive smoking is not thus censured because, while not less of an addiction, it does not interfere with the smokers’ social functions, but possibly only with their life spans. Further attention is given to the many forms of everyday consumerism later on. I might only remark here that as far as leisure time is concerned, automobiles, television, travel, and pleasures of the flesh are the main objects of present-day consumerism, and while we speak of them as leisure-time activities, we would do better to call them leisure-time passivities. To sum up, to consume is one form of having, and perhaps the most important one for today’s affluent industrial societies. Consuming has ambiguous qualities: It relieves anxiety, because what one has cannot be taken away; but it also requires one to consume ever more, because previous consumption soon loses its satisfactory character. Modern consumers may identify themselves by the formula: I am = what I have and what I consume. Because the society we live in is devoted to acquiring property and making a profit, we rarely see any evidence of the being mode of existence and most people see the having mode as natural mode of existence, even the only acceptable way of life. All of which makes it especially difficult for people to comprehend the nature of the being mode, and even to understand that having is only one possible orientation. #RandolphHarris 8 of 13
Nevertheless, these two concepts, being and having, are rooted in human experience. Neither one should be, or can be, examined in an abstract, purely cerebral way; both are reflected in our daily life and must be dealt with concretely. The following simple examples of how having and being are demonstrated in everyday life may help people to understand these two alternative modes of existence. No social or political arrangement can do more than further or hinder the realization of certain values and ideals. The ideas of the Judaeo-Christian tradition cannot possibly become realities in a materialistic civilization whose structure is centered around production, consumption and success on the market. On the other hand, no society could fulfill the goal of brotherliness, justice and individualism unless its ideas are capable of filling the hearts of mortals with a new spirit. We do not need new ideals or new spiritual goals. The great teachers of the human race have postulated the norms for sane living. To be sure, they have spoken in different languages, have emphasized different aspects and have had different views on certain subjects. However, altogether, these differences were small; the fact that the great religions and ethical systems have so often fought against each other, and emphasized their mutual differences rather than their basic similarities, was due to the influence of those who built churches, hierarchies, political organization upon the simple foundations of truth laid down by the mortals of the spirit. #RandolphHarris 9 of 13
Since the human race made the decisive turn away from rootedness in nature and animal existence, to find a new home in conscience and brotherly solidarity, since it conceived first the idea of the unity of the human race and its destiny to become fully born—the ideas and ideals have been the same. In every center of culture, and largely without any mutual influence, the same insights were discovered, the same ideals were preached. We, today, who have easy access to all these ideas, who are still the immediate heirs to the great humanistic teachings, we are not in need of new knowledge of how to live sanely—but in bitter need of taking seriously what we believe, what we preach and teach. The revolution of our hearts does not require new wisdom—but new seriousness and dedication. The task of impressing on people the guiding ideals and norms of our civilization is, first of all, that of education. However, how woefully inadequate is our educational system for this task. Its aim is primarily to give the individual the knowledge one needs in order to function in an industrialized civilization in the age of information, and to form one’s character into the mold which is needed: ambitious and competitive, yet cooperative within certain limits; respectful of authority, yet desirably independent, as some report cards have it; friendly, yet not deeply attached to anybody or anything. #RandolphHarris 10 of 13
Our high schools and colleges continue with the task of providing their students with the knowledge they must have to fulfill their practical tasks in life, and with the character traits wanted on the personality market. Very little, indeed, do they succeed in imbuing them with the faculty of critical thought, or with character traits which correspond to the professed ideas of our civilization. Surely there is no need to elaborate on this point, and to repeat a criticism which has been made so competently by Robert Hutchins and others. There is only one point I want to emphasize where: the necessity of doing away with the harmful separation between theoretical and practical knowledge. This very separation is part of the alienation of work and thought. It tends to separate theory from practice, and to make it more difficult, rather than easier, for the individual to participate meaningfully in the work one is doing. If work is to become an activity based on one’s knowledge and on the understanding of what one is doing, then indeed there must be a drastic change in our method of education, in the sense that from the very beginning theoretical instruction and practical work should be secondary to theoretical instruction; for people beyond school age, it should be the reverse; but at no age of development would the two sphere be separated from each other. #RandolphHarris 11 of 13
No youngster should graduate from school unless one has learned some kind of handicraft in a satisfactory and meaningful manner; no primary education would be considered finished before the student has a grasp of the fundamental technical process of our industry. Certainly high school ought to combine practical work of a handicraft and of modern industrial techniques with theoretical instruction. The fact that we aim primarily at the usefulness of our citizens for the purposes of the social machine, and not at their human development is apparent in the fact that we consider education necessary only up to the age of fourteen, eighteen, or at most, the early twenties. Why should society feel responsible only for the education of children, and not for the education of all adults of every age? Actually, as Alvin Johnson has pointed out so convincingly, the age between six and eighteen is not by far as suitable for leaning as is generally assumed. It is, of course, the best age to learn the three R’s, and languages, but undoubtedly the understanding of history, philosophy, religion, literature, psychology, etcetera, is limited at this early age, and in fact, even around twenty, at which age these subjects are taught in college, is not ideal. In many instances to really understand the problems in these fields, a person must have had a great deal more experience in living than one has had at college age. #RandolphHarris 12 of 13
For many people the age of thirty or forty is much more appropriate for learning—in the sense of understanding rather than of memorizing—than school or collage age, and in many instances the general interest is also greater at the later age than at the stormy period of youth. It is around this age also at which a person should be free to change one’s occupation completely, and hence to have a chance to study again, the same chance which today we permit only to youngsters. A sane society must provide possibilities for adult education, must as it provides today for the schooling of children. This principle find expression today in the increasing number of adult-education courses, but all these private arrangements encompass only a small segment of the population, and the principle needs to be applied to the population as a whole. Schooling, be it transmission of knowledge or formation of character, it only one part, and perhaps not the most important part of education; using education here in its literal and most fundamental sense of e-ducere = to being out, that which is within mortals. Even if mortals have knowledge, even if one performs one’s work well, if one is decent, honest, and has no worries with regard to one’s material needs—one is not and cannot be satisfied. “I am mindful of you always in my prayers, continually praying unto God the Father in the name of his Holy Child, Jesus, that he, through his infinite goodness and grace, will keep you through the endurance of faith on his name to the end,” reports Moroni 8.3. #RandolphHarris 13 of 13
Dare You See the Soul and When His Golden Walk is Done How Excellent the Heaven of Our Old Neighbor, God!
Within my heart I feed a human flame that it may never completely go out, and it is the heat of this flame which distracts me now and renders me so powerless in your presence. The Lord uses symbols to teach eternal truths in the temple. God’s ways are ancient and rich with symbolism. We can learn much by pondering the reality for which each symbol stands. A gospel symbol can be an object, event, action, or teaching that represents a spiritual truth. The bread and water of the sacrament, for example, represent the body and blood od Jesus Christ. Symbolism as a mode of teaching is as ancient as Adam. “Behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the Heavens above, and things which are on the Earth,” Moses 6.63. Symbols are the universal tongue. Symbols bring color and strength to language, while deepening and enriching our understanding. Symbols enable us to give conceptual forms to ideas and emotions that may otherwise defy the power of words. They take us beyond words and grant us eloquence in the expression of feelings. Symbolic language conceals certain doctrinal truths from the wicked and thereby protects sacred things from possible ridicule. At the same time, symbols reveal truth to the spiritual alert. Symbols are the language in which all gospel covenants and all ordinances of salvation have been revealed. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19
The symbols of faith do not appear in isolation. They appear in united stories of the gods, which is the meaning of the Greek word mythos—myth. The gods are individualized figures, analogous to human personalities, sexually differentiated, descending from each other, related to each other in love and struggle, producing World and mortal, acting in time and space. They participate in human greatness and misery, in creative and destructive works. They give mortals cultural and religious traditions, and defend these sacred rites. They help and threaten the human race, especially some families, tribes, or nations. They appear in epiphanies and incarnations, establish sacred places, rites and persons, and this create a cult. However, they themselves are under the command and threat of a fate which is beyond everything that is. This is mythology as developed most impressively in ancient Greece. However, many of these characteristics can be found in every mythology. Usually the mythological gods are not equals. There is a hierarchy, at the top of which is a ruling god, as in Greece; or a trinity of them, as in India; or a duality of them, as in Persia. There are savior-gods who mediate between the highest gods and mortals, sometimes sharing the suffering and death of mortals in spite of their essential immortality. This is the World of the myth, great and strange, ultimate concern symbolized in divine figures and actions. Myths are symbols of faith combined in stores about divine-human encounters. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19
Myths are always present in every act of faith, because the language of faith is the symbol. They are also attacked, criticized and transcended in each of the great religions of humankind. The reason for this criticism is the very nature of the myth. It uses material from our ordinary experience. It puts the stories of the gods into the framework of time and space although it belongs to the nature of the ultimate to be beyond time and space. Above all, it divides the divine into several figures, removing ultimacy from each of them without removing their claim to ultimacy. This inescapably leads to conflicts of ultimate claims, able to destroy life, society, and consciousness. The criticisms of the myth first rejects the division of the divine and goes beyond it to one God, although in different ways according to the different types of religion. Even one God is an object of mythological language, and if spoken about is drawn into the framework of time and space. Even one loses one’s ultimacy if made to be the content of concrete concern. Consequently, the criticism of the myth does not end with the rejection of the polytheistic mythology. Monotheism also falls under the criticism of the myth. It needs, as one says today, “demythologization.” #RandolphHarris 3 of 19
The word demythologization has been used in connection with the elaboration of the mythical elements in stories and symbols of the Bible, both of the Old and the New Testaments—stories like those of the Paradise, of the fall of Adam, of the great Flood, of the Exodus from Egypt, of the virgin birth of the Messiah, of one’s expected return as the judge of the Universe. In short, all the stores in which divine-human interactions are told are considered as mythological in character, and objects of demythologization. What does this negative and artificial term mean? It must be accepted and supported if it points to the necessity of recognizing a symbol as a symbol and a myth as a myth. It must be attacked and rejected if it means the removal of symbols and myths altogether. Such an attempt is another step in the criticism of the myth. It is an attempt which never can be successful, because symbol and myths are forms of the human consciousness which are always present. One can replace one myth by another, but one cannot remove the myth from mortal’s spiritual life. For the myth is the combination of symbols of our ultimate concern. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19
A myth which is understood as a myth, but not removed or replaced, can be called a broken myth. Christianity denies by its nature any unbroken myth, because its presupposition is the first commandment: the affirmation of the ultimate as supreme and the rejection of any kind of idolatry. All mythological elements in the Bible, and doctrine and liturgy should be recognized as mythological, but they should be maintained in their symbolic form and not be replaced by scientific substitutes. For there is no substitute for the use of symbols and myths: they are the language of faith. The radical criticism of the myth is due to the fact that the primitive mythological consciousness resists the attempt to interpret the myth of myth. It is afraid of every act of demythologization. It believes that the broken myth is deprived of its truth and of its convincing power. Those who live in an unbroken mythological World feel safe and certain. They resist, often fanatically, any attempt to introduce an element of uncertainty by breaking the myth, namely, by making conscious its symbolic character. Such resistance is supported by authoritarian systems, religious or political, in order to give security to the people under their control and unchallenged power to those who exercise control. The resistance against demythologization expresses itself in literalism. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19
The symbols and myths are understood in their immediate meaning. The material, taken from nature and history, is used in its proper sense. The character of the symbol to point beyond itself to something else is disregarded. Creation is taken as a magic act which happened once upon a time. The fall of Adam is localized on a special geographical point and attribute to a human individual. The virgin birth of the Messiah is understood in biological terms, resurrection and ascension as physical events, the second coming of the Christ as a telluric, or cosmic, catastrophe. The presupposition of such literalism is that God is a being, acting in time and space, dwelling in a special place, affecting the course of events and being affected by them like any other being in the Universe. Literalism deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty. It draws him down to the level of that which is not ultimate, the finite and conditional. In the last analysis it is not rational criticism of the myth which is decisive but the inner religious criticism. Faith, if it takes its symbols literally, becomes idolatrous! It calls something ultimate which is less than ultimate. Faith, conscious of the symbolic character of its symbols, gives God the honor which is due him. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19
One should distinguish two stages of literalism, the natural and the reactive. The natural stage of literalism is that in which the mythical and the literal are indistinguishable. The primitive period of individuals and groups consists in the inability to separate the creations of symbolic imagination from the facts which can be verified through observation and experiment. This stage has a full right of its own and should not be disturbed, either in individuals or in groups, up to the moment when mortal’s questioning mind breaks the natural acceptance of the mythological visions as literal. If, however, this moment as come, two ways are possible. The one is to replace the unbroken by the broken myth. It is the objectively demanded way, although it is impossible for many people who prefer the repression of their questions to the uncertainty which appears with the breaking of the myth. They are forced into the second stage of literalism, the conscious one, which is aware of the questions but represses them, half consciously, half unconsciously. The tool of repressions is usually an acknowledge authority with sacred qualities like the Church or the Bible, to which one owes unconditional surrender. This stage is still justifiable, if the questioning power is weak and can easily be answered. It is unjustifiable if a mature mind is broken in its personal center by political or psychological methods, split in one’s unity, and hurt in one’s integrity. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19
The enemy of a critical theology is not natural literalism but conscious literalism with repression of and aggression toward autonomous thought. Symbols of faith cannot be replaced by other symbols, such as artistic ones, and they cannot be removed by scientific criticism. They have a genuine standing in the human mind, just as science and art have. Their symbolic character is their truth and their power. Nothing less than symbols and myths can express our ultimate concern. One more question arises, namely, whether myths are able to express every kind of ultimate concern. For example, Christian theologians argue that the word myth should be reserved for natural myths in which repetitive natural processes, such as the seasons, are understood in their ultimate meaning. They believe that if the World is seen as a historical process with beginning, end and center as in Christianity and Judaism, the term myth should not be used. This would radically reduce the realm in which the term would be applicable. Myth could not be understood as the language of our ultimate concern, but only as a discarded idiom of this language. Yet history proves that there are not only natural myths but also historical myths. If the Earth is seen as the battleground of two divine powers, as in ancient Persia, this is an historical myth. If the God of creation selects and guides a nation through history toward an end which transcends all history, this is an historical myth. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19
If the Christ—a transcendent, divine being—appears in the fullness of time, lives, dies and is resurrected, this is an historical myth. However, Christianity speaks the mythological language like every other religion. It is a broken myth, but it is a myth; otherwise Christianity would not be an expression of ultimate concern. God made from out of chaos and we have made chaos out of form, and it is a rare human being who is not, in some secret place in his or her heart, scared to death that we shall not be able to turn chaos into form again before it is too late. However, our anxiety can be easily enough hushed up by all the excitement and glamor of standing on the brink of a new age, a Garden of Eden in which there never will be any snakes. We are bombarded with advertising which tells us that a new World is possessed at the end of every plane ticket and every endowment policy. We are promised every hour on the hour (in the commercial spot) our daily blessing, told of the tremendous power available in the harnessing of our computers, in the techniques of mass communication, in the new electronic age which will re-form our brain waves and make us see and hear in new ways, and in cybernetics, in the guaranteed income, in art for everyone, in new and ever-more amazing forms of automatic education. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19
There are now chemical techniques which remake personality and expand the mind and releases the tremendous potential that was once hoped for from psychoanalysis but now—thanks to an accidental discovery—can be achieved much more effortlessly and quickly in medication. We have developed plastic organs which replace worn-out hearts and kidneys, and now know how to prevent nerve fatigue so that one can live on almost indefinitely, and so on ad infinitum. And it is not surprising that the listener is confused at times as to whether he or she is the anointed one, the recipient of all the blessings from these genii—or just a dumb fall-guy or fall-girl? And of course he or she is both. In almost all of these promises of great power and freedom, a passive role is expected of the citizen who is to be recipient. Not only in the medium of advertising, but in matter of education, health, and medication, things are done to and for us by the new inventions; our role, however subtly put, is to submit, accept the blessing, and be thankful. This is obvious in the area of atomic power and in the vast space explorations which may unite new planets to ours: you and I as individual persons have nothing whatever to do with the achievements except pay our taxes through anonymous, labyrinthine channels and watch the space fights on TV. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19
However, democracy cannot work in an alienated society, and the way our democracy is organized contributes to the general process of alienation, which is why President Trump has shut the government down. If democracy means that the individual expresses his or her conviction and asserts one’s will, the premise is that one has a conviction, and that one has a will. The facts, however, are that the modern, alienated individual has opinions and prejudices but no convictions, has likes and dislikes, but no will. One’s opinions and prejudices, likes and dislikes, are manipulated in the same way as one’s taste is, by powerful propaganda machines—which might not be effective were one not already conditioned to such influences by advertising and by one’s whole alienated way of life. The average voter is poorly informed too. While many read their newspaper and watch the over air TV news, the whole World is so alienated from one that noting makes real sense or carries real meaning. People read and hear that billions of dollars being spent, of millions of people being exterminated; figures, abstractions, which are in no way interpreted in a concrete, meaningful picture of the World. The science fiction one reads is little different from the science news. Everything is unreal, unlimited, impersonal. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19
Facts are elements on which one’s life and that of one’s children depends. It is indeed a sign of resilience and basic sanity of the average human being, that in spire of these conditions, political choices today are not entirely irrational, but that to some extent sober judgement finds expression in the process of voting. In addition to all this, one must not forget that the very idea of majority vote lends itself to the process of abstractification and alienation. Originally, majority rule was an alternative to minority rule, the rule by the kind or feudal lords. It did not mean that the majority was right; it meant that it is better for the majority to be wrong than for a minority to impose its will on the majority. However, in our age of conformity the democratic method has more and more assumed the meaning that a majority decision is necessarily right, and morally superior to that of the minority, and hence has the moral right to impose its will on the minority. Just as a nationally advertised product claims, “Ten million Americans cannot be wrong,” so the majority decision is taken as an argument for its rightness. This is obviously an error; in fact, historically speaking, all right ideas in politics as well as in philosophy, religion or science, were originally the idea of minorities. If one had decided the value of an idea on the basis of numbers, we would still be dwelling in caves. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19
The voter simply expresses preferences between two candidates competing for one’s vote. One is confronted with various political machines, with a political bureaucracy which is torn between good will for the best for the country, and the professional interest of keeping in office, or getting back into it. This political bureaucracy, needing votes is, of course, forced to pay attention to the will of the voter to some extent. Any signs of great dissatisfaction force the political parties to change their course of action will induce them to continue it. In this respect even the non-democratic authoritarian regime is to some extent dependent on the popular will, except that by its coercive methods it can afford for a much longer time to pursue an unpopular course. However, aside from the restricting or furthering influence which the electorate has on the decisions of the political bureaucracy, and which is more an indirect than a direct influence, there is little the individual citizen can do to participate in the decision making. Once one has cast one’s vote, one has abdicated one’s political will to one’s representative, whom exercises it according to the mixture of responsibility and professional interest which is characteristic of one, and the individual citizen can do little except vote at the next election, which gives one a chance to continue one’s representative in office or to throw the rascals out. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19
The voting process in the great democracies has more and more the character of a plebiscite, in which the voter cannot do much more than register agreement or disagreement with powerful political machines, to one of which one surrenders one’s political will. The progress of the democratic process is one of the enlargement of franchise, which has by now led to the general acceptance of unrestricted universal suffrage. However, even the fullest franchise is not enough. The further progress of the democratic system must take a new step. In the first place, it must be recognized that true decision cannot be made in an atmosphere of mass voting, but only in the relatively small groups corresponding perhaps to the old Town Meeting, and comprising not more than let us say five hundred people. In such small groups the issues at stake can be discussed thoroughly, each member can express one’s ideas, can listen to, and discuss reasonably other arguments. People have personal contact with each other, which makes it more difficult for demagogic and irrational influences to work on their minds. Secondly, the individual citizen must be in the possession of vital facts which enable one to make a reasonable decision. Thirdly, whatever one, as a member of such a small and face-to-face group decides, must have a direct influence on the decision making exercised by a centrally elected parliamentary executive. If this were not so, the citizen would remain as politically unaware as some are today. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19
The question arises whether such a system of combining a centralized form of democracy, as it exists today, with a high degree of decentralization is possible; whether we can reintroduce the principle of the Town Meeting into modern industrialized society. I do not see any insoluble difficulty in this. One possibility is to organize the whole population into small groups of say five hundred people, according to local residence, or place of work, and as far as possible these groups should have a certain diversification in their social composition. These groups would meet regularly, let us say once a month, and choose their officials and committees, which would have to change every year. Their program would be the discussion of the main political issues, both of local and of national concern. According to the principle mentioned above, any such discussion, if it is to be reasonable, will require a certain amount of factual information. How can this be given? It seems perfectly feasible that a cultural agency, which is politically independent, can exercise the function of preparing and publishing factual data to be used as material in these discussions. This is only what we do in our school system, where our children are given information which is relatively objective and free from the influence of fluctuating government. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19
One could imagine arrangements, for instance, by which personalities from the fields of art, sciences, religion, business, politics, whose outstanding achievements and moral integrity are beyond doubt, could be chosen to form a non-political cultural agency. They would differ in their political views, but it can be assumed that they could agree reasonably on what is to be considered objective information about facts. In the case of disagreement, different sets of facts could be presented to the citizens, explaining the basis for the difference. After the small face-to-face groups have received information and have discussed matters, they will vote; with the help of the technical devices we have today, it would be very easy to register the over-all result of these votes in a short time, and the problem would be how decisions arrived at in this way could be channeled into the level of the central government and made effective in the field of decision making. There is no reason why forms for this process could not be found. In the parliamentary tradition we have usually two parliamentary houses, both participating in the decision making, but elected according to different principles. The decision of the face-to-face groups would constitute the true House of Commons, which would share power with the house of universally elected representatives and a universally elected executive. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19
In this way, decision making would constantly flow, not only from above to below, but from below to above, and it would be based on an active and responsible thinking of the individual citizen. Through the discussion and voting in small face-to-face groups, a good deal of the irrational and abstract character of decision making would disappear, and political problems would become in reality a concern for the citizen. The process of alienation in which the individual citizen surrenders one’s political will by the ritual of voting to powers beyond one would be reversed, and each individual would take back into oneself one’s role as a participant in the life of the community. We need to channel the Victorianism that “I am the captain of my soul,” that nothing can occur unless I forced it to happen with my own efforts and muscles—a voluntaristic affirmation which, indeed, shrink because of our experience in modern times, which suffocates our feelings. We have to allow ourselves to be turned on to the greater reality, that means to open up to the spontaneity of letting ourselves be stimulated, be grasped, be receptive. However, it is no accident that it is also the phrase we use when we “turn on” our electricity, our motor cars, our TVs. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19
The contradiction in modern society is clear: we moved from the Victorian will power and rigid self-control that produced the prosperous industrial civilization and rules and regulations against which the many of the millennials and politicians are now revolting against in the age of information, to a freedom that may not be a new expansion of consciousness at all but a making ourselves over into the image of the machines in a more powerful and subtle forms. Are you making your decisions based solely on what you hear, on popular opinion, out of fear? Have you even taken the time to figure out what you want in terms of life and politics? For example, Leo, with his golden hair and beautiful gray eyes, is the age of two. He has been watching the toddler’s soap opera Paw Patrol for months and since seeing the show, he started marching around the house demanding, “I want a coconut, I want a coconut, I want a coconut.” So, his parents fly their beautiful baby to Hawaii so he could have his first coconut. When Leo got to Hawaii, he actually picked a petite banana over the coconut. Leo thought he wanted a coconut because the character on the show made it seem so appealing. Being able to think things through is the remedy for a stifling nonpersonal civilization of machines, news, and TV shows. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19
It is just amazing that our curious predicament is that the same processes which makes modern mortals so powerful—the magnificent development of new sources of energy and other kinds of technical energy—are the very processes which render us powerless. Even though this is the age of social media, where we can choose what information we want to receive, many people are still be indoctrinated by the television, and this can render our wills to be undermined. We are told by many people the will is an illusion anyway, but that is not true. There are other mediums to get programming, but one of the all time favorite, and most powerful is that television. The dilemma is sharpened, furthermore, by the fact that just when we feel most powerless in the face of the juggernaut of impersonal power of society that surrounds of and molds us, we turn on the TV to get power. We want to find out What Would Dolly Do? or how AJ Cook saved a life on Criminal Minds or what is Paw Patrol enticing its audience to desire this week or what accent pieces did Todd Talbot and Jillian Harris on Love it or List it Vancouver select to go with the renovated Victorian and did they keep the wall or add more windows to give the house that ethereal feeling? We are called on to take responsibility for much vaster and more portentous choices. And considering the matter of increased leisure, choices will be necessary for the growing masses of people who will be working only four or six hours of the day. We have the gift of freedom, yes; but the dilemma placed on the individual is tremendous indeed. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19
To Venture in the Highest Sense is Precisely to Become Conscious of One’s Self
Why give up an opportunity to see her again? There was not any harm in just seeing her. The more we come to terms with our soul tendencies, the more we find ourselves conceiving and living by a universal structure of reality. A friend of mine with whim I was having lunch seemed depressed. The lunch was not far along when he told me that he was preoccupied over some event of the weekend. His three children, aged twelve to twenty-three, had devoted several pithy hours to pointing out how he had been, if not responsible for, at least a prime contributor to, their problems. The upshot of their attack was that he had not made enough clear decisions in his relation to them, had not take a firm enough stand or set a strong enough structure. However, it is important that his children felt comfortable enough to communicate their issues with him, because some adult children stay respectful to their parents out of necessity and you never may know how they feel about the things you did and know you are responsible for doing that caused extreme hardship in their lives, when you know it is your fault, regardless of if you are in denial or not. Nonetheless, my friend, a sensitive, imaginative man who was a considerable success in his own life and work, had been brought up by strict inner-directed parents. However, he had known that he could never raise his children on that Victorian will-power pattern. #RandolphHarris 1 of 13
At the same time, my friend and his wife had also never been devotees of the popular over permissiveness which filled the vacuum when Victorianism was routed. What struck me with poignancy as he talked was my awareness that almost every parent these days seems to express in some form the same pain and perplexity that infused his question, “How does a parent make decisions about his children? How should a father asset his will?” This crisis of will affects the neurotic and normal alike—the patient on the couch as well as the psychiatrist or psychologist in the chair listening to him. The man I referred to was not in treatment for neurosis; yet he was experiencing the same contradiction in will and decision that is an inescapable expression of the psychological upheaval of the transitional age in which we live. The inherited basis of our capacity for will and decision has been irrevocably destroyed. And, ironically if not tragically, it is exactly in this portentous age, when power has grown so tremendously and decisions are so necessary and so fateful, that we find ourselves lacking any new basis for will. That Victorian will power is a faculty by which people make resolutions and then direct their lives down the rational and moral road that the culture dictates. #RandolphHarris 2 of 13
However, most of what motives us and our behaviors—whether in bringing up children or participating in pleasures of the flesh or running a business—are determined by unconscious urges, anxieties, fears, and the endless host of bodily drives and instinctual forces. The deeply rooted belief in psychic freedom and choice is quite unscientific and must be given ground before the claims of a determinism which governs mental life. Loss of individual will and responsibility is due to the fact the people no longer reflect on what is emerging from the depths of their soul or culture, and then they reflect and interpret and mold what they find without pondering why. In effect, this is a mutilation of one’s own consciousness, and it forfeits the chance to pus through the crisis to a new place of consciousness and integration. And in the process, one’s image of oneself will never be the same again; our only choice is to retreat before this destruction of our vaunted will power or to push on to the integration of consciousness on new levels. I do not wish or choose to do the former; but we have not yet achieved the latter; and our crisis of will is that we are now paralyzed between the two. #RandolphHarris 3 of 13
The dilemma arising from the undermining of will has become a thorny problem. Among the sophisticated use of the term will power has become perhaps the most unambiguous badge of naivete. It has become unfashionable to try, by one’s unassisted efforts, to force one’s way our of a condition of neurotic misery; for the stronger the will the more likely it is to be labeled a counter-phobic maneuver. The unconscious is heir to the prestige of will. As one’s fate formerly was determined by will, now it is determined by the repressed mental life. Knowledgeable moderns put their backs to the couch and in so doing may fail to put their shoulders to the wheel. As will has been devalued, so had courage; for courage can exist only in the service of will, and can hardly be valued higher than that which it serves. In our understanding of human nature we have gained determinism, lost determination. The tendency to see ourselves as the spawns of determinism has spread, in late decades, to include contemporary mortal’s conviction that one is the helpless object of scientific forces in the form of atomic power. The helplessness is, of course, vividly represented by the nuclear bomb, about which the typical citizen feels powerless to do anything. Many intellectuals saw this coming and asked in their own terms whether modern mortals are obsolete. #RandolphHarris 4 of 13
However, the important development in our present decade is that this is the common awareness of all who even watch TV or go to the movies, the modern era has destroyed mortal’s faith in one’s ability to influence what happens to him or her. Indeed, the central core of modern mortal’s neurosis, it may be fairly said, is the undermining of one’s experience of oneself as responsible, the sapping of one’s will and ability to make decisions. The lack of will is much more than merely an ethical problem: the modern individual so often has the conviction that even if one did exert one’s will—or whatever illusion passes for it—one’s actions would not do any good anyway. It is this inner experience of impotence, this contradiction in will, which constitutes our critical problem. Our ultimate concern must be expressed symbolically, because emblematic language alone is able to express our supreme concern. Symbols have one characteristic in common with signs; they point beyond themselves to something else. The red sign at the street corner points to the order to stop the movement of cars at certain intervals. A red light and the stopping of cars have essentially no relation to each other, but conventionally they are untied as long as the convention lasts. The same is true of letters and numbers and partly even words. They point beyond themselves to sounds and meanings. They are given this special function by convention within a nation or by international conventions, as mathematical signs. #RandolphHarris 5 of 13
Sometimes such signs are called symbols; but this is unfortunate because it makes the distinction between signs and symbols more difficult. Decisive is the fact that signs do not participate in the reality of that to which they point, while symbols do. Therefore, signs can be replaced for reasons of expediency or convention, while symbols cannot. This leads to the symbol: It participates in that to which it points: the flag participates in the power and dignity of the nation for which it stands. Therefore, it cannot be replaced except after an historic catastrophe that changes the reality of the nation which it symbolizes. An attack on the flag is felt as an attack on the majesty of the group in which it is acknowledged. Such an attack is considered blasphemy. Another characteristic of a symbol is that it opens up levels of reality which otherwise are closed for us. All arts create symbols for a level of reality which cannot be reached in any other way. A picture and a poem reveal elements of reality which cannot be approached scientifically. In the creative work of art we encounter reality in a dimension which is closed for us without such works. The symbol’s characteristic not only opens up dimensions and elements of reality which otherwise would remain unapproachable but also unlocks dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond to the dimensions and elements of reality. #RandolphHarris 6 of 13
We never know we go—when we are going. We jest and shut the door; fate following behind us bolts it, and we accost no more. A great play gives us not only a new vision of the human scene, but it opens up hidden depths of our own being. Thus we are able to receive what the play reveals to us in reality. There are within us dimensions of which we cannot become aware except through symbols, as melodies and rhythms in music. Symbols cannot be produced intentionally—this is further characteristic. They grow out of individual or collective unconscious and cannot function without being accepted by the unconscious dimension of our being. Symbols which we have an especially social function, as political and religious symbols, are created or at least accepted by the collective unconscious of the group in which they appear. Additionally, a consequence of the fact that symbols cannot be invited, like living beings, they grow and die. They grow when the situation is ripe for them, and they die when the situation changes. The symbol of the king grew in a special period of history, and it died in most parts of the World in our period. Symbols do not grow because people are longing for them, and they do not die because of scientific or practical criticism. The die because they can no longer produce response in the group where they originally found expression. #RandolphHarris 7 of 13
These are the main characteristics of every symbol. Genuine symbols are created in several sphere of mortal’s cultural creativity. The built environment reflects the natural World and the conception of the people who inhabit it of their place within the natural scheme of things. A building’s form might echo the World around it, or might contrast with it—but, in each case, the choices builders make reveal their attitudes toward the World around them. The architecture of the vast majority of early civilizations was designed to imitate natural forms. The significance of the pyramids of Egypt is the subject of much debate, but their form may well derive from the image of the god Ra, who in ancient Egypt was symbolized by the rays of the Sun descending to Earth. A test in one pyramids reads: “I have trodden these rays as ramps under my feet.” I believe that inscription is in one of the Pyramids of Mycerinus (circa 2470 BCE). As one approached the mammoth pyramids, covered in limestone to reflect the light of the Sun, the eye was carried skyward to Ra, the Sun itself, who was in the desert the central fact of life. Human’s ultimate concern must be expressed symbolically! One may ask: Why can it not be expressed directly and properly? If money, success or the nation is someone’s ultimate concern, can this not be said in a direct way without symbolic language? It is not only those cases in which the content of the ultimate concern is called “God” that we are in the realm of symbols? #RandolphHarris 8 of 13
The answer is that everything which is a matter of unconditional concern is made into a god. If the nation is someone’s ultimate concern, the name of the nation becomes a sacred name and the nation receives divine qualities which far surpass the reality of being and functioning of the nation. The nation then stands for and symbolizes the true ultimate, but in an idolatrous way. Success as ultimate concern is not the natural desires of actualizing potentialities, but is readiness to sacrifice all other values of life for the sake of a position of power and social predominance. The anxiety about not being a success is an idolatrous form of the anxiety about divine condemnation. Success is grace; lack of success, ultimate judgment. In this way concepts designating ordinary realities become idolatrous symbols of ultimate concern. The reason for this transformation of concepts into symbols is the character of ultimacy and the nature of faith. That which is the true ultimate transcends the realm of finite reality infinitely. Therefore, no finite reality can express it directly and properly. Religiously speaking, God transcends one’s own name. This is why the use of one’s name easily becomes an abuse or a blasphemy. Whatever we say about that which concerns us ultimately, whether or not we call it God, has a symbolic meaning. It points beyond itself while participating in that to which it points. In no other way can faith express itself adequately. #RandolphHarris 9 of 13
The language of faith is the language of symbols. If faith were what we have shown that it is not, such an assertion could not be made. However, faith, understood as the state of being ultimately concerned, has no language other than symbols. When saying this I always expect the question: Only a symbol? One who asks this question shows that one has not understood the difference between signs and symbols nor the power of symbolic language, which surpasses in quality and strength the power of any nonsymbolic language. One should never say “only a symbol,” but one should say, “not less than a symbol.” With this in mind we can now describe the different kinds of symbols of faith. The fundamental symbol of our ultimate concern is God. In the 1432 portrait of God by Jan van Eyck, God is celebrated in a materialism that is the proper right of benevolent kings. Behind God’s head, across the top of the throne, are Latin words that, translated into English, read: “This is God, all power in his divine majesty; of all the best, by the gentleness of his goodness; the most liberal giver, because of his infinite generosity.” God’s mercy and love are indicated by the pelicans embroidered on the tapestry behind him, which is Christian tradition symbolize self-sacrificing love, since pelicans were believed to wound themselves in order to feed their young with their own blood if other food was unavailable. #RandolphHarris 10 of 13
A symbol of God is always present in any act of faith, even if the act of faith includes the denial of God. Where there is ultimate concern, God can be denied only in the name of God. One God can deny the other one. Ultimate concern cannot deny its own character as supreme. Therefore, it affirms what is meant by the word “God.” Atheism, consequently, can only mean the attempt to remove any ultimate concern—to remain unconcerned about the meaning of one’s existence. Indifference toward the ultimate question is the only imaginable form of atheism. Whether it is possible is a problem which must remain unsolved at this point. In any case, one who denies God as a matter of ultimate concern affirms God, because one affirms ultimacy in one’s concern. God is the fundamental symbol for what concerns us ultimately. Again it would be completely wrong to ask: So God is nothing but a symbol? Because the next question has to be: A symbol for what? And then the answer would be: For God! God is a symbol for God. This means that in the notion of God we must distinguish two elements: the element of ultimacy, which is a matter of immediate experience and not symbolic in itself, and the element of concreteness, which is taken from our ordinary experience and symbolically applied to God. #RandolphHarris 11 of 13
The mortal whose ultimate concern is a sacred tree has both the ultimacy of concern and the concreteness of the tree which symbolizes one’s relation to the ultimate. The person who adores Apollo is ultimately concerned, but not in an abstract way. One’s ultimate concern is symbolized in the divine figure of Apollo. The mortal who glorifies Jahweh, the God of the Old Testament, has both an ultimate concern and a concrete image of what concerns one ultimately. This is the meaning of the seemingly cryptic statement that God is the symbol of God. In this qualified sense God is the fundamental and universal content of faith. It is obvious that such an understanding of the meaning of God makes the discussion about the existence or non-existence of God meaningless. It is meaningless to question the ultimacy of a supreme concern. This element in the idea of God is in itself certain. The symbolic expression of this element varies endlessly through the whole history of humankind. Here again it would be meaningless to ask whether one or another of the figures in which an ultimate concern is symbolized does exist. If existence refers to something which can be found within the whole of reality, no divine being exists. The question is not this, but: which of the innumerable symbols of faith is most adequate to the meaning of faith? #RandolphHarris 12 of 13
In other words, which symbol of ultimacy expresses the ultimacy without idolatrous elements? This is the problem, and not the so-called existence of God—which is in itself an impossible combination of words. God as the ultimate in mortal’s ultimate concern is more certain than any other certainty, even that of oneself. God as symbolized in a divine figure is a matter of daring faith, of courage and risk. God is the basic symbol of faith, but not the only one. All the qualities we attribute to him, power, love, justice, are taken from finite experiences and applied symbolically to that which is beyond finitude and infinite. If faith calls God “almighty,” it uses the human experience of power in order to symbolize the content of its infinite concern, but it does not describe a highest being who can do as one pleases. So it is with all the other qualities and with all the actions, past, present, and future, which mortals attribute to God. They are symbols taken from our daily experiences, and not information about what God did one upon a time or will do at sometime in the future. Faith is not the belief in such stories, but it is the acceptance of symbols that express our ultimate concern in terms of divine actions. Another group of symbols of faith are manifestations of the divine in things and events, in persons and communities, in words and documents. This whole realm of sacred objects is a treasure of symbols. Holy things are not holy in themselves, but they point beyond themselves to the source of all holiness, that which is of ultimate concern. #RandolphHarris 13 of 13