The last essay, "Shooting Star," has reminded me of one of the great weaknesses in social theory; that is, it does not include our "natural" - in a spiritual sense - inclinations. From Wilhelm and Baynes "I Ching" - hexagram 25: Innocence (The Unexpected):
"Man has received from heaven a nature innately good, to guide him in all his movements. By devotion to this divine spirit within himself, he attains an unsullied innocence that leads him to do right with instinctive sureness and without ulterior thought of reward and personal advantage. However," (it is added), "not everything instinctive is nature in this higher sense of the word, but only that which is right and in accord with the will of heaven."
The last part had to be put in, and is something to discuss for its own sake, but for now, I wish to concentrate on the first part. Note that "Man" has received his nature from heaven - that is, from a spiritual realm. But in the social sciences, the argument forever goes back and forth like a ping pong ball between "nature or nurture," that is, between whether one's behavior is decided by DNA, ones upbringing, or a combination of the two. Moderates on the issue choose the latter, which should suffice to satisfy, but it does not. Twins, for instance, raised by the same parents in the same house often diverge greatly in both attitudes and deeds, which has caused the moderates to torture the issue to death to no satisfaction. Anecdotally, I had identical twin neighbors when growing up, and one, from early on, was extremely effeminate, while the other was an all-out macho sportsman, right from stage one. The former, after much pain, found that he was a homosexual. The latter joined the marines, married, and continued as he was before.
What is missing, in my opinion, is the spiritual factor. Unfortunately, it cannot be measured by current models, and so is absolutely ignored in the sciences; but, once again, because the models cannot pick something up does not mean that that "something" does not exist. Rather, it means that there is something incomplete about the models. The evidence for this third factor in determining our nature is overwhelming on the individual level. Nearly every parent understands that a child is born to a certain disposition - and they often wonder how brothers, say, can be so different. "They were born that way," is how we put it, giving no clue as to the causal factors - but I stand by the I Ching in my belief that there is a spiritual third leg to our being and our destiny.
The problem for adults is, how can we find this spiritual destiny after so many years of "nature and nurture" working on us? The ancients, the religious, and the New Agers have always been concerned with this. Dream work, astrology, prayer, use of the Tarot or I Ching, meditation, hypnosis - all of these and more have been used to "find ourselves." But in the "Shooting Star" I look for this other avenue - our earliest, pre or borderline-linguistic memories. These are most likely to be unaffected by other factors. They are difficult to find or work with, because they have little or no anchor in language, but it can be done. I think that in these, or at least in one or a few of them, we might find our spiritually intended destiny, that which is "in accord with the will of heaven." It will have the right feel to it - it should fit like a shoe. And what it will say will not be "become a dentist," but something else, in the language of this pre-human world: care for others, or for plants; explore new regions, meet new people; follow a path of numbers or logic or things to a truth you can feel but do not yet know.
And so, I think we all have our "shooting star." It is out there in the woods, that is, in the world not made by Man. For some it is so clear that it follows them from birth like a puppy. For the rest of us, we have to search, and perhaps for many of us, it is the search that is our destiny - where we find that our particular search has been our destiny all along, if we had only known it. FK
"Man has received from heaven a nature innately good, to guide him in all his movements. By devotion to this divine spirit within himself, he attains an unsullied innocence that leads him to do right with instinctive sureness and without ulterior thought of reward and personal advantage. However," (it is added), "not everything instinctive is nature in this higher sense of the word, but only that which is right and in accord with the will of heaven."
The last part had to be put in, and is something to discuss for its own sake, but for now, I wish to concentrate on the first part. Note that "Man" has received his nature from heaven - that is, from a spiritual realm. But in the social sciences, the argument forever goes back and forth like a ping pong ball between "nature or nurture," that is, between whether one's behavior is decided by DNA, ones upbringing, or a combination of the two. Moderates on the issue choose the latter, which should suffice to satisfy, but it does not. Twins, for instance, raised by the same parents in the same house often diverge greatly in both attitudes and deeds, which has caused the moderates to torture the issue to death to no satisfaction. Anecdotally, I had identical twin neighbors when growing up, and one, from early on, was extremely effeminate, while the other was an all-out macho sportsman, right from stage one. The former, after much pain, found that he was a homosexual. The latter joined the marines, married, and continued as he was before.
What is missing, in my opinion, is the spiritual factor. Unfortunately, it cannot be measured by current models, and so is absolutely ignored in the sciences; but, once again, because the models cannot pick something up does not mean that that "something" does not exist. Rather, it means that there is something incomplete about the models. The evidence for this third factor in determining our nature is overwhelming on the individual level. Nearly every parent understands that a child is born to a certain disposition - and they often wonder how brothers, say, can be so different. "They were born that way," is how we put it, giving no clue as to the causal factors - but I stand by the I Ching in my belief that there is a spiritual third leg to our being and our destiny.
The problem for adults is, how can we find this spiritual destiny after so many years of "nature and nurture" working on us? The ancients, the religious, and the New Agers have always been concerned with this. Dream work, astrology, prayer, use of the Tarot or I Ching, meditation, hypnosis - all of these and more have been used to "find ourselves." But in the "Shooting Star" I look for this other avenue - our earliest, pre or borderline-linguistic memories. These are most likely to be unaffected by other factors. They are difficult to find or work with, because they have little or no anchor in language, but it can be done. I think that in these, or at least in one or a few of them, we might find our spiritually intended destiny, that which is "in accord with the will of heaven." It will have the right feel to it - it should fit like a shoe. And what it will say will not be "become a dentist," but something else, in the language of this pre-human world: care for others, or for plants; explore new regions, meet new people; follow a path of numbers or logic or things to a truth you can feel but do not yet know.
And so, I think we all have our "shooting star." It is out there in the woods, that is, in the world not made by Man. For some it is so clear that it follows them from birth like a puppy. For the rest of us, we have to search, and perhaps for many of us, it is the search that is our destiny - where we find that our particular search has been our destiny all along, if we had only known it. FK
RSS Feed