May the Force be with you! Life, creation, consciousness – a “force beyond anything that we can comprehend”!! Consciousness as Dynamic Force and Evolutionary Drive – vs a Static Fixed Reality
Philo of Alexandria provides an excellent insight into the limits of consciousness. He states “The mind which is in each of us is able to comprehend all other things, but has not the capability of understanding itself. For as the eye sees all other things, but cannot see itself, so also the mind perceives the nature of other things but cannot understand itself.” ~ It stands to reason that human consciousness can only understand and analyze itself via a “frame of reference’ – or mindset – from within human consciousness – and several scholars have observed that the only way to evaluate human consciousness is by using a mirror – in one sense or another. Karl Mannheim, (1893 – 1947), a founding father of sociology stated that “we must realize once and for all that the meanings which make up our world are simply an historically determined and continuously developing structure in which man develops, and are in no sense absolute” (Mullins).
Human consciousness has developed and ‘evolved’ through various stages in human history – For instance from the stone age to the iron age to modern industrial civilization. It would appear readily apparent that an influential factor in understanding human society and culture would be “Consciousness as a Dynamic Force”! Durkheim on Religion and Moral Community in Modernity* Lise Ann Tole, Boston University As Lisa Tole observes, “By continually creating and recreating itself, society has given birth to new collective ideals that express its altered awareness and changing aspirations. New ideals are created at those historic moments in the process by which old ideals “transfigure the realities to which they relate” (Durkheim 1953, p. 96). This whole process-the constant formation and reformation of value ideals and the concomitant transfiguration of the real by the ideal underlies social change and has given birth to the great civilizations of the world. I would add that “transfigure the realities to which they relate” echoes Mannheim.
Social consciousness can be difficult to understand. If ever there was a social-political movement that centered on thoughts and ideas, the Enlightenment would be it. The Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, which began in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries were an intellectual and philosophical force created by social-political-religious ideas that dominated the world of ideas in Europe and generated major changes in the culture of Western Civilization. Furthermore, social Consciousness would be especially relevant in context of cross-cultural understanding such as Filipino values like Bayanihan, Kapwa, loob, or in light of Dharma (divine-social order) in Indian philosophy-religion, as well as the Confucian ideal of self as others.
Materialist Delusion, “All Spirituality is intangible and beyond the senses” – 2018 Critique endorsed by 4 scholars including Dr. Harold Koenig & Dr. Paul Wong
The “materialist view that quantification equates to science and is objective is false. In fact, Iain McGilChrist observes that it is the opposite and that the materialist “rigid adherence to arbitrary quantification” “limits and restricts” possible analyses. Half of human consciousness isn’t strictly quantifiable: art, music, dreams, creativity, imagination, , as well as symbolism which is complex and outside the scope of strict quantification – not to mention “death”. Rene Guenon is a bit more focused in stating that the materialist ideology is the “denial of everything that is of a supra-individual order” (p.90) Guenon’s assessment appears to be historically correct. E Halas, R. May, as well as Mustafa Emirbayer (to an extent) indicate symbolism, historically was sidelined and marginalized. Furthermore, D Hay, K Gergen, and V. Enriquez emphasize that the western “Rational Individualism” norm, which is definitely of an “individual order”, has morphed into a form of extreme individualism. That is because “social consciousness” is a “supra-individual” concept. In Wikipedia, there are only three references to social consciousness – the most salient being to Karl Marx the creator of Marxism and Communism. Besides Mannheim, Guenon, and McGilChrist, there are a number of other critics of materialism including Talcott Parson, Rupert Sheldrake, Jeremiah Reyes, and Arran Gare
First I should add that there is a major point made by Saslow – that there is a difference between spiritual processes and religiosity processes – and that spiritual processes are more closely connected with prosocial values such as compassion. Many scholars who are anti-religious lump spirituality in with religiosity and throw spirituality away – when it appears readily apparent that spirituality is closely correlated with prosocial values such as compassion and community.Guenon states materialism specifically “denies” spirituality because spiritual “authority is “supra-individual in nature, The “materialist model” of spirituality is “All spirituality is unreal” – based on the materialist maxim that spirituality is “intangible and beyond the senses” as explained by William R. Miller and Carl E. Thoresen. First, that is a fallacy – the Definist Fallacy to be exact. For instance, take the concept of “Death”. Death, of course is “intangible and beyond the senses, Yet, following the materialist argument Death becomes a figment of your imagination – which is absurd of course. Furthermore, there are a number of “tangible” types of spirituality such as compassion, grieving, musical spirituality, art and so on. A derivative of the materialist maxim is the concept of the “supernatural” – which by definition is outside the scope of science and thus lacks any real-world context-evidence which is necessary for a valid scientific theory – according to Kant, McGilChrist, Muzafer Sherif) – which makes the “supernatural” an artificial abstraction which is scientifically and academically worthless. My argument is that in light of the “selective attention” process which is acknowledged as a critical process in the human mind – the “supernatural re-directs and mis-directs attention from functional spirituality to an empty and meaningless artificial abstraction – for believer and nonbeliever alike.
Long ago Aristotle described the scientific process as a 4 step process: 1. Gather the facts 2. Categorize the evidence into types 3. Analyze the evidence 4. Draw conclusions. It is a bit mindboggling that the mistake materialists made was so simple and fundamental. Materialists failed to distinguish between “tangible” and “intangible” – labeling all spirituality as “intangible” and “supernatural”. There are a number of very “tangible” types of spirituality! 1. Spirituality of Compassion (Sprecher, S, B Fehr 2005; Saslow, Laura Rose 2011) 2. Musical Spirituality: 3. Spiritual Healing in Grieving 4. Children’s Spirituality 5. Artistic Spirituality 6. Poets and Prophecy 7. Dream Weaving/Creative Transcendence 8. divinity in nature – earth as a living force 9. Spirituality and Autism 10. pro-social norms.
Another major methodology flaw is that materialists failed to distinguish between the “divine” and the supernatural. There is a world of difference between “divine” and “supernatural”. For instance, Celtic Spirituality and Celtic Catholicism holds “A deep reverence for nature is a central conviction in Celtic Spirituality. Creation is revelation. God’s presence permeates all of creation. Every single piece of it. Celtic Spirituality holds that the Divine is incarnate in all of creation.” In the context of beliefs, “divinity” would also be a “tangible” type of spirituality. While God is beyond words and comprehension according to St Augustine, St Gregory of Nyssa, and many other Christian-spiritual leaders, the belief in the divine in nature can be approached similar to studies of compassion. The materialist threat is that – to a large degree, it has effectively disconnected spirituality from humanity. In the end spirituality is about people – not the supernatural.
Historically there is a connection and correlation between spiritual beliefs and social-moral order – which supports Emile Durkheim’s view of religion as the foundation of morality – that religious experiences generate shared values and beliefs that bind society together. The essay, “Myths as Symbolic Maps of Social-Moral Order” highlights the historical connection between myths and social moral order and highlights the distinction between heroic myths and myth as as social-moral order.