What struck me first about my impressions that nature and Indians weren't perfect was: how did I get that view in the first place? Why had I been culturally conditioned to see myself, and all my Western (modern) fellows as flawed, while viewing nature and Indians so ideally? On the latter, Indians, I went into considerable depth in my PhD thesis. To briefly summarize, I found that we are conditioned to believe that Indians (and others whom we see as primitive) are one with nature, and as such, in perfect harmony with it. Nature and natural man do not make mistakes. We do, because we are separated from our natural state by layers of civilization - and so are flawed. Why? Because we rely on our reasoning and not with our natural intuition. As I think of all the blogs I have written, I still believe that we (moderns) lack sufficient intuitive powers - and it is because of this that I recommend peaceful silence on a regular basis.
But this will not make us any more perfect than the squirrel who misses the limb in his leap. We will function more smoothly, but not perfectly. In the end, as Plato knew, this world might be a shadow of perfection but not perfection itself. Perfection doesn't die, doesn't get sick, doesn't misjudge. However, there is some truth to the idea that nature is closer to perfection than civilized man; for although the squirrel may slip, his species fits in neatly with the overall scheme of nature - that is, by in large, nature is self-regulating, and massive changes usually only occur with major geological or meteorological shifts (another sign that nature at large is not perfect - it changes on a grand scale, sometimes destructively). Humans, on the other hand, have a reasoning mind that allows us to rise above - or sink below - the intuitive. Reason is necessary for our species, but its overuse has proven to be destructive. As far as we know, before about ten thousand years ago, all human societies functioned within the natural scheme - that is, we understood our place in the world. In that we might well say that at least some groups that are more primitive in technology and lifestyle than us are closer to nature and therefore more intuitive and less destructive.
However, reason is reason, and sooner or later it was going to jump the boundaries of natural cycles. In hindsight, this was inevitable, just as anything in nature is going to slip, get sick, or, on a geological scale, be altered radically. Our problems stemming from too great a reliance on the rational were bound to come about - the mechanism was built - in. And so I go back to a question raised earlier - will we, by simply doing what we were made to do, cause our own destruction? Or will the intuitive be returned to restore a balance? Chinese philosophy says YES - as do just about all theological philosophies and mythologies. With the Chinese, the balance of yin and yang is inevitable - but perhaps not before chaos. With Christians, it is the apocalypse that must come before the second coming. With the old Norse, it was the Ice Giants. I suppose the question we have to ask ourselves now is, how far down do we have to go? Like alcoholics, must we hit rock bottom to change?
I leave with a quote by Pedro Arrupe, head of the Jesuit order in the late 20th century: "An optimist is a person who has the conviction that God knows, can do, and will do what is best for mankind." I suppose it is a weakness of faith on my part - perhaps due to too great an emphasis on the rational and experiential - but I am not so sure about that. The Traditionalist Frithjof Schuon took it for granted that we must hit the bottom before things are to get better. But, as I see it as inevitable that the rational would come to dominate the human and his world, is this not a mark of God's cruelty? That IT would make a being whose suffering was as foretold as the obsolescence of a PC? I am missing something here, I know, and perhaps am going in circles - for instance, I realize once again that adhering to spiritual principles would help us avoid the pitfalls of rational thought by hindering the overwhelming pride that the rational ego takes from temporal power (and this is a choice - with free will). Perhaps what we are discovering is not a circle but a spiral, where we go round and round but get someplace. But I'm not sure if I have enough faith to be an optimist. FK
But this will not make us any more perfect than the squirrel who misses the limb in his leap. We will function more smoothly, but not perfectly. In the end, as Plato knew, this world might be a shadow of perfection but not perfection itself. Perfection doesn't die, doesn't get sick, doesn't misjudge. However, there is some truth to the idea that nature is closer to perfection than civilized man; for although the squirrel may slip, his species fits in neatly with the overall scheme of nature - that is, by in large, nature is self-regulating, and massive changes usually only occur with major geological or meteorological shifts (another sign that nature at large is not perfect - it changes on a grand scale, sometimes destructively). Humans, on the other hand, have a reasoning mind that allows us to rise above - or sink below - the intuitive. Reason is necessary for our species, but its overuse has proven to be destructive. As far as we know, before about ten thousand years ago, all human societies functioned within the natural scheme - that is, we understood our place in the world. In that we might well say that at least some groups that are more primitive in technology and lifestyle than us are closer to nature and therefore more intuitive and less destructive.
However, reason is reason, and sooner or later it was going to jump the boundaries of natural cycles. In hindsight, this was inevitable, just as anything in nature is going to slip, get sick, or, on a geological scale, be altered radically. Our problems stemming from too great a reliance on the rational were bound to come about - the mechanism was built - in. And so I go back to a question raised earlier - will we, by simply doing what we were made to do, cause our own destruction? Or will the intuitive be returned to restore a balance? Chinese philosophy says YES - as do just about all theological philosophies and mythologies. With the Chinese, the balance of yin and yang is inevitable - but perhaps not before chaos. With Christians, it is the apocalypse that must come before the second coming. With the old Norse, it was the Ice Giants. I suppose the question we have to ask ourselves now is, how far down do we have to go? Like alcoholics, must we hit rock bottom to change?
I leave with a quote by Pedro Arrupe, head of the Jesuit order in the late 20th century: "An optimist is a person who has the conviction that God knows, can do, and will do what is best for mankind." I suppose it is a weakness of faith on my part - perhaps due to too great an emphasis on the rational and experiential - but I am not so sure about that. The Traditionalist Frithjof Schuon took it for granted that we must hit the bottom before things are to get better. But, as I see it as inevitable that the rational would come to dominate the human and his world, is this not a mark of God's cruelty? That IT would make a being whose suffering was as foretold as the obsolescence of a PC? I am missing something here, I know, and perhaps am going in circles - for instance, I realize once again that adhering to spiritual principles would help us avoid the pitfalls of rational thought by hindering the overwhelming pride that the rational ego takes from temporal power (and this is a choice - with free will). Perhaps what we are discovering is not a circle but a spiral, where we go round and round but get someplace. But I'm not sure if I have enough faith to be an optimist. FK
RSS Feed