The Words of the Dey Family
|
|
The Words of the Dey Family |
Looking over Williams's thesis led to a few thoughts which you can find below. In general I found it erudite, courageous, particularly in its broad scope – almost a theory of everything and in its scholarship. I enjoyed most of it in fact, and like most good stuff it stimulated what's left of my aging brain and opened me to exploring other avenues. It also strengthened some of my own views not simply in terms of a critical approach but by finding in the work some details which I find very helpful in my own approach to likeminded things. Finally I see work like this as framework for development – personally I often wonder how to bring in an oriental approach for example to balance my Euro-USA ethnocentricities, but enough, here it is:
Quote – "Thus despite Heraclitus' championing of Becoming as opposed to Being, he was not able to find place in his scheme for an open-ended future, for irreversibility or for the arrow of time. Although change was of the essence, that change was governed by an iron law. His doctrine of laws governing change was preserved, but the idea that all is in a state of flux was lost until the development of contemporary physics."
Contemporary exponents of Heraclitus (He was obscure and there are only fragments now extant) point to his philosophy of an unchanging domain, his Logos, and extract his concerns regarding virtues and for some discover a psychology of 'character and calling.' Hillman was so disposed and his work suggests all we need is in the seed at birth – the original and interconnected mind and personality. Given the right circumstances we grow naturally, discover ourselves and our genius (our innate, unique and creative qualities) and participate with humanity and natural law to the advantage of all.
Otherwise – 'flux' was not lost until contemporary physics i.e. What about Democritus and the atomists? … Also mentioned was Mencius, who like Pelagius believed positively in human nature. (They may have intuited the original mind but…….) Mencius was contested by the Neo-Confucians who had a better grasp of the realities of the human condition – see the Cheng brothers and their work on the philosophy of Li Chi. Attempting to define Li Chi, Tian Li meant Principle-Heart and became the ultimate ground for existence here – Chi. In man the cultivation of Heart-Mind became the task of the prudent and virtuous person. Perhaps a theory of original nature and connected bodies.
Psychology-the short section mentioned: it is defined here by Pavlov- Skinner / Behaviorism … Why not use Jung, Erikson, Piaget, Fromm, Maslow, Bion, Bowlby, Rose and the post Freudians (Klein, Winnicot, Kohut, etc.) who developed concepts concerning ego strengths and creativity who I believe are much more influential and central to the unfolding enigma of the original values of human nature and indeed to a definition of psychology. I understand you are using this in the context of determinism etc. but many of these others mentioned, point to spontaneous order, the structure of the self, apprehension of symbols and archetypes via phantasie, and synchronicity. They would be intrinsically valuable in your concluding section for example.
I was present in a leaders meeting with Sun Myung Moon in New York where he spoke about synchronicity using the Korean term for it. When he stated there was no western word for the concept and asked "isn't that true?" the leaders all shouted in blindly obedient and ignorant agreement that this was so. The word synchronicity (from synchronic / Greek for 1. In company and 2. chronos) is a Jungian term where both pre-date Sun Myung Moon. The event illustrated here points to the blind obedience/ignorance of Unification Church in its 'Modus Operandi.' It also negates, to some extent, the work of CG JUNG and others who actually lie close to Unification Church thinking and who could help unravel the massive dysfunctionality within the movement.
Jung participated in German Classical Aesthetics / Weimar Classicism, Which involved Kant, Hegel, and Schiller who all talked about apprehending universal principles (ethics / virtues via growth and education) and who are described in EDP as Abel-Type philosophers who lay a foundation for the coming of the Second Advent. Goethe should be included here also. Like Whitehead and others who also talk about protoconsciousness and participation in a moral field of consciousness (Li) these men are hugely important to the concept that we participate in field consciousness via protoconsciousness as mentioned in Unification Church Thought. It is in apprehending ideas which are pre-existent in field consciousness that we find constant virtuous parameters, not truly fixed as it were but elements to be discovered and implemented by creativity and freedom. In this way the, so called, unchanging element compexifies with the development on the ground of working principles, a spiral of complexification which affects both eternal and situational concerns without distorting the core of virtues (cosmic law – the way of heaven which again is already described as such by Neo-Confucianism) implicated in this living systemic relational field; a paradox for our times which has barely been touched upon let alone examined!
Jung even put God on the couch for analysis asking, in his interpretation of 'Job,' if God himself/herself contained unconscious components. If we accept the idea of the Principle as broadly relational, the full consciousness of God is dependent on his/her relationship with mankind and like parents, God can only develop in the parental level as the child grows and the parent responds and experiences. Is God, therefore, unconscious on certain levels (meaning undeveloped or uncreated) – then I think so. The birth of the child is only the beginning of a journey the parent undertakes. All this leads to another question concerning the 'Fall.' Did the actions of the Archangel relate to the undeveloped or unconscious elements found within God and now lie as a shadow (the psychological term for internal and universal dysfunction) within the character of the creator? Again, if we look to psychodynamics/physics based on the fact that energy can never be destroyed only changed, we would have to look deeper and assume the only thing to be done with dysfunctionality is to acknowledge/accept it and begin to transform it i.e. the model for universal salvation and, indeed, the liberation of God also. There is no other way.
Quote: "Unificationism, as a Christian philosophy based on oriental instead of Greek philosophical categories, is able to provide an ontological basis for the notion of spontaneous order. Because the immanence of God in Unificationism is emphasized the spontaneous order has direction and purpose. It is not random, nor merely directed by laws. There is thus meaning to the order which we discern all around us. This order is an explicate expression of the implicate order within the Original Image."
Unificationism as a Christian philosophy … Not on your life! I usually use terms for Judaism, the Rabbinical tradition, and Christianity as peripheral as opposed to central, but in Divine Principle / EDP, I find that they are described as Satanic as soon as they fail in their dispensational responsibilities. Is the Principle then Satanic? I find it described as the completed testament in some places and a synthesis of religion and science in others. The descriptors are challenging personally, leading me to move to terms like Principle or Deep Ecology, if one goes deep enough. Deep Ecology deals with the interdependent element of the Principle as described again in EDP. Interdependence, mutual prosperity and universally shared values seem to be embraced here. Simply put Divine Principle is a new animal which needs a different label if you like. The later parts of Divine Principle explain the course of Christianity but the core value of the Principle is it's 'Chapter One' which at root is simply Nature – reality … Its not religion. It's just what is, give or take a version or two! It lies beyond the traditional definition of religion. The original image, the connected body, and what lies in the realm of field consciousness is an internal adventure not a Republic, neither a Church nor a faith nor a theology; it's a process – a personal journey.