“As opposed to”? Whose self isn’t fractured and fragmented? Is somebody claiming that theirs isn’t?
I’m not sure how you see that you are taking anything out of the realm of psychologism, since where has Felix applied psychological conceptions to the interpretation of historical events or logical thought? Rather he spoke about the experience of existence having further dimensions than most people apply to their lives. There are numerous people who fall into one of those categories, and several who are blissfully ignorant of anything that could make them anxious, not having had to take on responsibility as yet. I find that it is then that people have to decide where they stand and how able they are to cope. It is then that you find that the self-assured retain to a certain degree their ignorance wilfully, avoiding moral complexity, regardless of where they stand and what doctrines they hold to (I am certain that they all have some doctrine they uphold). These people have often had an early advantage of identifying with other self-assured people and being welcomed by those people as one of their own.
Others are daunted by the task before them, become anxious and often indecisive, feigning perhaps membership to a group, but still insecure, having never had the advantage of belonging fully or finding acceptance. They have also not found a doctrine that could sustain them over a longer period, finding themselves in doubt of the self-assured, seeking to become streetwise in their coping with day-to-day life, developing hands-on skills and remaining pragmatic in their attitude. They survive with their anxiety, but there are many dark days and nights.
The alienated are those who I see their selves “fractured and fragmented”, seeing how society is guided by forces they have no influence on and finding no point of refuge except in their own company. This is often a state between adolescence and adulthood that can be overcome - and is by most. It is also a place where people who become victims of society find themselves, returned as it were back at the beginning of adult life, all experience wiped out and questioned. There are increasingly more people finding themselves at this point in their lives, whether they belonged to the self-assured or the anxious previously.
I am sure that the forces that be in our commercial societies are oblivious to the fate of the last group, being often made up of the first group, who are often singularly focused, and disregard collateral damage outright. They see themselves confirmed by their apparent success, measured as it is only on abstract figures and statistics, and they see the alienation of the last group as self-inflicted. I see this as a daily experience in our society, not as psychologism, or pure theory.
Rather than colliding with the world of human social, political and economic interaction, I see that many “assessments of the secular and the transcendental” provide a realistic picture of the reality in which we find ourselves. So realistic that many traditions have existed over thousands of years. The difference that has come about in our time is the solely materialistic orientation, which disregards aspects of experience that have non-materialistic explanations. We are suggested by an overbearing media, that this has no stock and that it is illusory, but the fact remains that many of us are illusory about our perception of reality, often assuming that the senses are presenting us with a true picture of reality, not taking into account the role that our brain has in sorting the sensory input.
People have been explaining to others over millennia that our perception is illusory, and modern science, if it be heard, confirms this. What I do see is the collision of materialistic interpretations of allegorical texts, as well as taking literally descriptions of experiences that are difficult to contain without metaphorical references. The transcendent experiences of people throughout history have come into disrepute despite the fact that many have a questionable grasp of reality, wrapped up as we are in our concrete jungles and artificial experience of life. The stability of our immediate environment often encourages us to believe that we have a grasp of what life is, but a night under the stars away from our towns opens up a new dimension of experience.
The loss of the experience of transcendence in secular life is the subject of this topic and this is chiefly down to the artificial environment we have created for ourselves in which life is so very complex, but leads people to either ignore the complexity, or shrink away from it, and few are those who cope well enough to guide others. The secret of survival in such a situation is humility and compassion, introspection and the building of community.
An excellent post Bob. And Iambiguous made some good points too. He’s right that no amount of possible transcendent experience in this life will free a person from existential conflict. Jesus, who according to the Gospels described his own transcendent experience in terms of the judaistic theology of his time, got caught in the middle of social political religious conflict between the Romans and the Jews in the first century Middle East. It got him killed. Threading the moral needle of life is the trickiest of businesses.
But that was 1500 years before the emergence of Western secular society. Now theism is one option among many. Most are Christians in the US. But they live in the context of a secular society. And they are significantly divided amongst themselves.
Yeah, the moral and political and spiritual objectivists who divide up the world between “one of us” [the rational and ethical] and “one of them” [the irrational and unethical] certainly strike me as eschewing a fractured and fragmented self in regard to the question, “how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?”
They don’t strike you that way?
Some from a secular perspective, others from a frame of mind considerably more transcending.
Only we still need a context in order for me to argue more substantively what I mean by that.
Now, about all the other points I made above that you simply ignored…
Again.
Oh yeah you can view every phenomena within your cognitive grasp as a conflicting good. And you have to make choices about them without ultimate certainty.
Your favorite issue is abortion. The so-called prolife side looks at it as a total evil. The pro choice side looks at choice as a total good. Stepping back and looking at it from an ever so slightly meta point of view, fetuses and a woman’s right to her body are both competing goods.
Many of the same people who would deny women the right to choose whether or not she continues her pregnancy, won’t wear a mask or get vaccinated because it violates their right to choose.
It’s probably not a very savory metaphor to include in this context, but as one of my professors used to say, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
In my case it’s kind of a peripheral issue. I’ve never been pregnant and I never will be. My influence on the judiciary and the political process are seriously limited.
I think that this system should give women the resources they need to make an informed choice on a case-by-case basis since they are the people who are closest to the actual existential dilemma. Ever closer than those old folks in the SCOTUS.
First off, as I noted to felix, my reaction to the OP revolves around my own particular philosophical interest in these crucial relationships. In other words, “Secular Existence & Transcendence” as that relates to exploring this question…
“…how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?”
…given a particular set of circumstances.
And if Bob is not interested in going there, that’s fine. He can go to where he prefers to take the OP instead.
Thus…
Here it depends on how you construe the meaning of psychologism.
Psychologism:
noun PHILOSOPHY
a tendency to interpret events or arguments in subjective terms, or to exaggerate the relevance of psychological factors.
Now, in regard to “Secular Existence & Transcendence”, what particular events are the arguments relating to? Given my own interest in this distinction, we need a particular set of circumstances in which to explore the extent to which our personal value judgments are aimed more at sustaining a comforting and consoling psychological frame of mind [anchored to either a secular or sacred font] or are instead rooted philosophically in the manner in which I construe the “self” at the existential intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Instead, given my own set of assumptions, you don’t do there. You stay up in the “general description” clouds:
Given what situation? One ripped from the headlines for example. Actual anxiety and self-assurance and ignorance and doctrines relating the moral complexity of what specific moral conflagration that most here will be familiar with?
Instead, your points remained anchored firmly to intellectual contraption skyhooks:
Choose a conflicting good that is of particular interest to you. Note the relationship between the distinction you make regarding your assessment of a secular and a transcending frame of mind by noting specifically how you yourself feel or do not feel alienated in your interactions with others. Interactions that revolve around the question, “…how ought one to live in a world bursting at the seams with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change?”
Then I will describe the manner in which my own fractured and fragmented “I” is alienated in regard to discussions and debates pertaining to conflicting goods like abortion, or gun control, or human sexuality, or the role of government. Why philosophically I have, of late, been unable to “overcome” it.
Instead [as per usual in my view]:
Again, this begs for a context. What particular traditions revolving around which particular moral, political and spiritual prejudices such that in regard to traditions that are in conflict you make an argument whereby you draw the line [relating to this conflict] between materialist and non-materialist components of these conflicted interactions.
And how do you factor in capitalism [political economy] in creating and then sustaining the rampant crass materialism – mindless consumption – that pervades the culture.
But, no, you can’t help yourself in my view:
Back up into the general description clouds…
My point though is that “transcendence” in the minds of the moral, political and spiritual objectivists among us can lead to a dangerous group-think that sometimes revolves around the secular, and sometimes the ecclesiastic.
And few things are more artificial [and shallow] to me than the “one of us” versus “one of them” mentality of those who approach value judgments a mile wide and an inch deep.
I don’t expect self transcendence( SD) to result in pat answers to moral questions. But SD may enable a person to look at a moral conflict from a fresh perspective on a conflict between conflicting goods.
Anyway Iambiguous, I’m willing to go along with your agenda and see where it takes us. I’ve already started to address your pet issues of homosexuality and abortion above. I doubt that you will see my approach to the matters as adequate. I welcome your criticisms.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Though, again, abortion is not just a “pet” issue of mine.
It is a moral conflagration that literally revolves around life and death. And it is almost always “in the news”. Here in America of late because of the SC ruling on the Texas effort to enlist citizens in the task of enforcing what many construe to be a draconian abortion policy. A law that bans abortions when some women don’t even realize that they are pregnant.
But most importantly because, re the OP on this thread – ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382 – it was the issue that started the ball rolling for me in the general direction of a “fractured and fragmented” “I”.
Given in turn the transformation from a transcending frame of mind to a considerably more secular perspective.
Interesting topic. Analytically unsolveable, practically dissuasive. because there is a flaw, an inherent flaw in putting alienation and anxiety at par, in a forum that specifically distinguishes psychologism from analytical signifiers.
These leveling differences propagate the need to bring them together, at least within realistic. off the hook ideoms, with the very transperent need for a workable series of transcending methods.
Not that god has to be invented out of the same dust from a worn out ground, but out of the human need to grow some way of generalizing the socially adaptive human family , out of the original narrowly defined tribal family unit.
Maybe, that or truly we will continue to travel the worn out road that previously determined and defined us.
No implication need to be garnered her which makes this one dimensional world godless, hence no religious/civil split gas to be prescribed as a cure all.
The faith based idea of an absolute sum of metaphor, before it’s existential growth , is understandibly outrageous, however this regression can be appreciated , when looked at as a result of political , critical levels of determinate power applied to 19 th century social development.
The 20 th century exhibited so much of this, that the criticality actually reversed the ground, to kind of a hanging metaphor, and the point became meaningless, because the triangular point suddenle appeared to support the entire structure.
No one saw it coming, but they should have, and the assasination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, should not have been taken out of context.
The end of the Romanov rule should have been an indication of what may come ahead, and historic significance should not have been deemed irrelevant.
That history repeats it’s self should not have been ignored, as falling out of an oft repeated pattern, a mere philosophic plaything of worried salons.
Meaning went out with the baby with the bathwater of obsessions with cleanliness, whereas prior to that cleanliness was germ that divided a war , of European conflict, some claiming that cleanliness had the very seeds that contaminated it’s very body politic.
There is a hidden paradoxical rat here, festering the the wound that should enigmatically here.
Some dare call it fallacious.
My intention in the OP was to include exploration of secular this-worldly sources of transcendence on this thread.
I’m not sure what to make of your comments. Personal religion is one option in a secular society.
But Transcendence may not be limited to the religious. People may self- transcend at a rock concert or a football game when they become involved in a spirit that is greater than themselves. That may be what motivates them to be involved in those events.
They can more easily watch the game or listen to music at home. But the enthusiasm is not the same as when you’re in a crowd who’s there for a common purpose.
My point…
The ground upon which ‘transcendence’ is interpreted is that yes, transcendence may mean one thing in a secular society, where capitalism, and liberal capitalism has reduced meaning to that option.
So that may ultimately be the only option left, and most people are left hanging ti interpretation to that frame of reference.
But then religion tweeks it’s divisive head, and parables like " they do not know what they are doing" continue to sustain that Spector which haunted, and still haunts most of Europe.
And who verbalized that proposition?
And in come positive nods, Wittgenstein’s at the helm, ar once simulating the progressive ideas , while probably feeling insecure about setting the whole structural logical structure on it’s fragile point.
It is novel and makes sense, to people reacting violently to horrors festering at arms length.
But not to be diversive, it is the very body politic which proclaims the ominous Spector facing us, can not differentiate on transcendental logic from that of that logic which does lead to alienation.
The fans at rick concerts were the new-leftists who did nit have to live through the horrors if the 20 th century, so they see festering wounds yes, but not as symptoms, but as curable diseases.
The ‘Cure’ of the eighties was a revisionary rock group, just as enthusiastically received as 'War.'was.
Transcendence must come from a higher level, even a proto-religious level. The ambiguity all feel, is understandable, and there is only so far that meaning can be grasped on a grass roots level.
Say, you want to belong to a cultish divided society, for the life of you, but that transpiring meaning has left you divided and alienated.
What are the odds, that angst can be handled without some agent that comes closest to a god-like representation?
Some can not be expressed without parables and aphorisms.
Meno–
Again, I was unable to follow that. If you would be so kind, please pick one short thought or proposition out of all that and I’ll see if I can understand what you mean.
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Ok.
The self assured mode of experiencing transcendence , and how William James interpreted it are two modes of truing to interpret transcendence.
The point being is, if we take James’ starting point, then it will incorporate not modes , including secular existence.
However, if we take the other, the self assured one, only such self assurance can gain a foothold, excluding a higher power, if any.
Higher power is controversial because it entails everything from leveling a disarrayed leveling field, that results from inordinately wide gaps between induced and unfounded ideas to. Total presumption of Proven fate. Such ideas remain in stasis insofar as the relate and predicate toward a meaningful whole .
That is what I presumed is a given.
I was mistaken, I hope this makes more sense
It seems to me that you take every topic to your own area of discussion and set other people the task of changing their direction without being prepared to do the same. This is what people on ILP have been telling you for some time. Instead of taking the OP for what it is and following that direction, giving your perspective, you try to change direction. At least I am replying to the OP.
As a consequence, you come across as someone who judges everybody else by the degree in which they are prepared to go in your direction and become condescending in your comments.
I don’t see how felix “exaggerated the relevance of psychological factors”, instead, as I said, he gave examples of his observations, which (across the pond) I make as well.
Exactly, not given the opening statement, but only your own set of assumptions.
Considering that these are observable in many circumstances, I’m not sure what you expect. Felix responded positively to what I posted, which seems to me to say we’re on the same page. Your comments seem to expect something else, a concretisation based on a particular situation perhaps? This would reduce the statement to that circumstance, which is not what I was saying.
There you go again, making demands of others which have to be fulfilled before you will condescend to take part in the discussion, all within your own recurring theme of course.
I feel for you. Having a fragmented “I” isn’t the type of experience we want to be stuck in, and the subjects you mention can be very fragmenting, and the arguments on both sides need a context. Felix has already spoken on that, and my wife and I having lost a child at birth, in that circumstance the subject of abortion seems to make mockery of the tragedy we felt. However, am I allowed to frame the decision of a woman I don’t know to have an abortion in my circumstance? I don’t think so. This could be seen as a very simple expression of going beyond myself in reaction to that woman. The goal here I think is the reduction of suffering, which couldn’t be achieved in our case, but an abortion may be seen as that – either for a child or for a mother in a difficult situation. What I would say to a woman who is considering an abortion is that she should consider whether she is mocking parents who go through a miscarriage by taking the decision too lightly.
The same could be said of gun control to a certain degree, however that problem is very complex and the task of policing a society in which guns are so prevalent becomes even more complicated, with the chance of mistakes being made (which they are) increasing exponentially. The number of gun-related deaths in America in comparison to other countries is an obvious indication of that. Having patrolled streets in Northern Ireland as the crisis was on and having gone through a rigid training in which riot situations get out of hand, I am aware of the feelings that police officers in an emergency have, not knowing whether a gunman will suddenly shoot at you. The combination of guns and cities is daunting for people who are potential targets – which is why they make mistakes. But someone living outside of town has a different situation – so it is a different decision.
Sexuality and Government are both subjects that are so general that I can’t address them adequately. But what of the above situations for spiritual people? Does meditation and prayer help? Yes, there has been adequate research done to confirm that. Does it make a difference to people around spiritual people? Yes, at least in our case it did, and we were told it did. But does it help us avoid such situations? No. Does it reduce anxiety and pain? No. Even though I learnt to meditate in a MBSR course, stress reduction doesn’t mean stress prevention in every situation. It means learning to cope with it better. Also, depression, insofar as it is cause by a reduction of serotonin, is something that I have learnt to cope with, but like in any somatic illness, I can’t control my serotonin levels.
I had to translate this into German to see if it was me, but this question (?) isn’t very coherent in any language. I cannot overlook the fact that our modern critiques of religion are often basically critiques of power structures. I myself am critical of organised religion for the same reason. Abuse of power in any organisation is intolerable, especially where trust is supposed to be the basis of the relationship. But it is automatically assumed that the power structures in the parishes were such that abuse of power was automatically part of it. On the contrary, it was very often the abuse by the noble families, who often organised a position as bishop for their second sons, that made the situation difficult for parish priests and monasteries, which were affected by the competition amongst the noble families.
Having driven through this volcanic island, looking at how people scraped a living off this difficult land, under duress from Pirates and Adventurers from Europe (the main town was set up by the ancestors of L’oreal Heiress Liliane Bettencourt 1408) the church was a source of solace for them, and they rebuilt the church often after raiding pirates destroyed it. This is the story in other conflicts as well, and it wasn’t down to force being used. We forget that our modern-day attitudes are far removed from these people living a tough life, and we can’t assume that they had the same concepts as people today, because God can’t be conceptualised. If anything, that seems to be the lesson we’ve learnt, even if it hasn’t seeped through to everybody.
The other is that the materialist worldview is one perspective and there are others. We don’t have to accept a doctrine that tells us that consciousness comes from matter, namely the brain, but can conversely theorise that matter comes from consciousness, which isn’t as strange as we may think it is. To argue the point you’d have to turn to people very much more capable than I, for example Bernado Kastrup. I am just very impressed with what I have heard. The standpoint that many atheists take is based on a materialist/mechanistic worldview. The church made the mistake of also trying to ratify a materialistic world view after the enlightenment and it didn’t (and still doesn’t) make sense.
There are many mindsets that one could imagine, but are you referring to a specific case or are you generalising?
I’m still not sure we’re connecting. I was referring to the loss of the experience of transcendence in secular life which has resulted to two different moods the self-assured and the alienated. The self-assured would be comfortable with secular life as it is without transcendence. The alienated would find the contemporary spiritual situation one of anxiety and meaninglessness. Of course most of us are usually somewhere in between.
“…this threat of disunity and meaningless was implicit in the original move to a purely secular time, to a life lived unconnected with higher times, and against the background of a cosmic time which at least as far as human affairs are concerned can be described as ‘homogeneous and empty’.”
Charles Taylor, “A Secular Age”, page 719.
Okay, I will await your post pertaining to this then:
So now your agenda is waiting for me to set the agenda?
Felix,
An interesting conjecturr. weather a politically espoused motive may have inadvertantly been conflated with the usual deterministic mix of this secular time, which may have arisen in politically dangerous times?
maybe ‘dangerous’ is too strong - heavy a word.
Or how dId such meaninglessness move implicitly?