Meister Eckhart

[Thomas]

Hi RR —

Yes but some of those things are very realistic indeed.

But at this level, what is 'real'?

Eckhart never laid out a systematic metaphysic, so I shall refer to Eriugena, which I think the Meister would agree with:

The Four Divisions of Nature
1: that which creates and is not created
(God as perceived by cataphatic theology);
2: that which creates and is created
(the Primary Causes or Ideas);
3: that which is created and does not create
(Temporal Effects, created things);
4: that which is neither created nor creates
(God as perceived by apophatic theology).

The Five Modes of Being and Non-Being:
Eriugna championed the dialectic method and lists "five ways of interpreting" the manner in which things may be said to be or not to be.

1: things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to be, whereas anything which, "through the excellence of its nature" transcends our faculties are said not to be. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to be. He is "nothingness through excellence".

2: The "orders and differences of created natures", whereby, if one level of nature is said to be, those orders above or below it are said not to be.
(Eriugena resolves traditional Neoplatonic hierarchy of being into a dialectic of affirmation and negation. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.)

3: The being of actual things with the 'non-being' of potential or possible things still contained, in Eriugena's memorable phrase, 'in the most secret folds of nature'. This mode contrasts things which have come into effect with those things which are still contained in their causes. According to this mode, actual things, which are the effects of the causes, have being, whereas those things which are still virtual in the Primary Causes are said not to be.

4: A roughly Platonic criterion for being: those things contemplated by the intellect alone may be considered to be, whereas things caught up in generation and corruption, eg. matter, place and time, do not 'truly' exist. The assumption is that things graspable by intellect alone belong to a realm above the material, corporeal world and hence are timeless.

5: This mode is essentially theological, the soul that participates in the higher life is said to be, whereas the soul who's intent and activities are directed towards the lower are said not to be.

Eriugena's complex and original metaphysic treats being and non-being as correlative categories: a thing may be said to be under one mode and not to be under another.

Dionysius, Eriugena, Eckhart ... call God 'nothing', meaning that God transcends all created being.

Matter, on the other hand, is also called 'nothing' but it is 'nothing through privation'. Thus the substrate of creation is the 'prima materia' which equates to prakriti in the Asiatic traditions, is is 'substance' that has yet to receive its essential form ...

Created things are called "nothing" because they do not contain in themselves their principles of subsistence (Eriugena is here repeating St. Augustine's view that the creature, considered apart from God, is mere nothing).

... phew! ...

But these differences are difficult to compare quantitatively. For example, what is the diffence between man and a molecule of argon ?

The difference is qualitative ... everything is created, except God.

Ok, back to the soul. How can the soul be uncreated ? Does that mean there is some question of its existence ?

When it exists in the Mind of the Deity, before its own existence. It exists because wills it to exist, and God wills 'inchangingly' and eternally ... so in one sense you and I have and always will exist, in the mind of God, but only actually exist, in time pand space, here and now.

Doesn't idealism always overstep the bounds of reason ?

Probably, but that does not make it untrue or unreal ... 'reason' is a human determination, not an absolute.

Anthropological vs. theological / metaphysical, I like the contrast. I say the anthro trumps, mainly because it is more scientific.

I say it's trumped by 'spiritual anthropology'!

Incidently, please provide a specific citation with your reference...

Zounds! Hoist on my own petard! I think its Sermon 48 in Walshe ... I'll have to check.

What is meant by "the still Waste"?

An analogy of the idea of 'nothingness' ...

This quote makes sense, especially since we have some serious doubt about the existance of the soul.

Well you do ... Eckhart doesn't, nor does Eriugena, and nor do I.

Do you mean "detachment" in a positive sense ?

In the ascetical sense.

How can anything exist before time and space ?

In the Divine.

Thomas I think you are being unrealistic, however, I think your ideas are very creative and I enjoy reading them immensely.

Well, if you think about it, Time and Space are properties of the Big Bang, so 'before' the Big Bang, there was no space, no time ... and yet we are supposed to believe that the Cosmos exploded into existence out of nothing, for no reason, and without cause ... I find that notion quite unrealistic, but I do enjoy reading scientific theories too!

Thomas

 

[earl]

Thomas, musings on the "unborn" aspect of soul-or "God" for that matter-puts me in mind of Buddhism again as it's replete with references related to discovering the unborn and uncreated. Here's a brief blurb from the Buddha himself on the matter:
Netscape Search take care, earl

 

[Thomas]

Hey, thanks Earl!

Thomas

 

[shawn]

So many "things" to unlearn.
Then we can see as it is.
But such a vision is impossible to communicate to others as we need language to do so and that is a thing of symbols.
A thing made of many things.
Therein is the rub.
In this realm of material/substance/things one cannot be free from the constraints which they impose.
Only if you transcend this realm will you ever be truly free of them.
So....embrace them, appreciate them, handle, taste, touch, etc.
After your allotted time has expired you will for certain be again free from their influence.
You don't need to rush that, as it is inevitable.
But it is good to get a perspective on these matters and touch the untouchable.
Everyone should have a transcendent, mystical experience which defies words at least once in their lives.

 

[Radical_Reformer]

Eckhart has certainly been called pantheistic before. It was likely a point of contention in his heresy trial.

Heresy trial , I like him more already !

I'm not sure what he would say (I haven't read his defence against the accusations yet), but I think he would see no need to distinguish between monothieism or pantheism as both describe unity.

Right, but they are a different sort of unity. Panentheism offers a more realistic view than either of the other two.

The thing is, God is only everything when an individual person recognizes God's presence in individual moments. It is a matter of subjectivity, as Thomas has pointed out.

Not really, I see it as a mix of objectivity and subjectivity. Materialism, as represented by pantheism is the opposite of subjectivity. Hard facts and figures. This is what makes the universe unwind like a clock. No touchy feely stuff. But as humans are are made up of touchy feely things.

Radical reformer, you mention liking pantheism as you want to get beyond the material. I see my only freedom as the choice between recognizing a subjective spiritual reality or recognizing an accepted reality of worldly ways that guide us to go with the flow of the status quo and do onto others as others did onto us.

Sancho, please review the differences between pantheism and panentheism. However, I agree that freedom is an important issue. This brings us into the more complex world of quantum mechanics and sub-atomic and universal scale phenomenon. On the scale of everyday life our choices are fairly limited. Can a photon choose to be a wave or a particle ?

This is an obvious dualism, which I'd rather avoid, but the dualism disappears as soon as unity is arrived at subjectively.

These dualisms mainly appear at scales which are not to important for everyday life.

My perhaps peculiar understanding of the worldly/spiritual divide is influenced by atheist thinkers such as Louis Althusser and Judith Butler who describe a world where there is no soul (no pre-discoursive agency), all of our thoughts, habits, hopes, and convictions are determined by ideology, gender acts, power, or whatever else they choose to call it.

It is hard to argue with this logic, but I have to say that a idealogical atheist just doesn't have enough of the heart for my likes.

This is what I refer to as worldly ways. Choosing spiritual reality is not about escaping that worldly reality where everyone is out for their own though unwittingly serving the interests of those with the most power, it is about negating that reality --seeing it as illusory.

I am with you on this one, Sancho.

Choosing spiritual reality involves recognizing a spiritual presence that makes everything a necessary illusion, a momentary creation made just for the soul experiencing it.

It sounds good, but how do you put it into action ?

Experiencing spiritual reality could be as varried as people are. It is subjective afterall. For me it is mostly about discovering individual laws governing individual moments.

That sounds somewhat fleeting.

 

[Thomas]

Hi RR —

Heresy trial , I like him more already !

Don't get too carried away ... Eckhart was a reformer putting a stop to certain 'wayward' practices in some German religious houses, so certainly would have been a bad guy by that rule!

In a papal ruling 28 articles from Eckhart’s teaching were condemned, as was his character in its Preface. It does not formally declare Eckhart a heretic, he was never personally condemned (as the then pope, John XXIII, was!).

The current view is that Eckhart is profoundly speculative, but orthodox, and he has no case to answer.

There is no doubt that one can deduce monist, pantheist or panentheist leanings from his writings taken in isolation ... thus one can point out correspondences between Christian apophatism and Zen ... but the two are radically different, and Eckhart was catholic throughout.

Part of Eckhart's 'appeal' is that he was condemned, and that his writings can be interpreted so widely. Eriugena was condemned for exactly the same reason before him (a cause to whom I hope to add my name), and Nicholas of Cusa put the same ideas forward, after ... but these two were far more precise and technical in their application, and require more attention of the reader.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

On the question of Eckhart's orthodoxy, I think the following quotes rule out any notion of monism, pantheism, panentheism, etc.

It is a fair trade and an equal exchange: to the extent that you depart from things, thus far, no more and no less, God enters into you with all that is his, as far as you have stripped yourself of yourself in all things. It is here that you should begin, whatever the cost, for it is here that you will find true peace, and nowhere else. (Talks of Instruction)

The soul in which this birth is to take place must keep absolutely pure and must live in noble fashion, quite collected, and turned entirely inward: not running out through the five senses into the multiplicity of creatures, but all inturned and collected and in the purest part: there is His place; He disdains anything else. [Sermon 1, Walshe]

The soul is scattered abroad among her powers, and dissipated in the action of each. Thus her ability to work inwardly is enfeebled, for a scattered power is imperfect. [Sermon 2, Walshe]

Do not imagine that your reason can grow to the knowledge of God. [Sermon 4, Walshe]

To be receptive to the highest truth, and to live therein, a man must needs be without before and after, untrammelled by all his acts or by any images he ever perceived, empty and free, receiving the divine gift in the eternal Now, and bearing it back unhindered in the light of the same with praise and thanksgiving in our Lord Jesus Christ. [Sermon 6, Walshe]

Since it is God's nature not to be like anyone, we have to come to the state of being nothing in order to enter into the same nature that He is. [Sermon 7, Walshe]

We find people who like the taste of God in one way and not in another, and they want to have God only in one way of contemplation, not in another.I raise no objection, but they are quite wrong. [Sermon 13a, Walshe]

For he alone is a good man who, having set at nought all created things, stands facing straight, with no side-glances, towards the eternal Word, and is imaged and reflected there in righteousness. [Sermon 14b, Walshe]

The human spirit must transcend number and break through multiplicity, and God will break through him; and just as He breaks through into me, so I break through into Him. [Sermon 14b, Walshe]

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Eckhart contends that the absolute principle (or the absolute cause: God) is pure intellect and not being. According to this view, being (esse) is always caused and thus presupposes intellect, itself without being, as the cause of being.

This line of thinking, a continuum of the Christian apophatic tradition, marks the distinction between that and panentheism. All being, all creation, exists in God as idea in the Divine Mind, however it possesses no actuality, no actus; no being, no esse.

As the absolute cause, intellect is thought of as absolutely unlimited only if it is thought of as wholly without being. As such, intellect becomes the principle for absolute as well as contingent being.

Nicholas of Cusa maintains accordingly that the maximum is without being, yet can be contracted to being.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Panentheism implies difference and distinction within the Godhead, which renders God in Itself neither absolute, infinite, One, or Simple. In fact such a deity would become necessarily complex, and fall under the condemnation of those such as Richard Dawkins.

(In fact the whole Dawkinian atheist argument collapses under his assumption that as creatures and creation is complex, God must necessarily be complex — which is not the case — but that's another discussion.)

Thomas

 

[Radical_Reformer]

Hi RR —

Don't get too carried away ... Eckhart was a reformer putting a stop to certain 'wayward' practices in some German religious houses, so certainly would have been a bad guy by that rule!

, yeah he may not have been radicial enough for me !!

So, Thomas, what do you think about this wiki quote about the Meister ?

Renewed academic attention to Eckhart has attracted favorable attention to his work from contemporary non-Christian mystics. Eckhart's most famous single quote, "The Eye with which I see God is the same Eye with which God sees me", is commonly cited by thinkers within neopaganism and ultimatist Buddhism as a point of contact between these traditions and Christian mysticism.

Meister Eckhart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am personally not a big fan of the anthropomorphism displayed in this quote which discusses the "eye".

Part of Eckhart's 'appeal' is that he was condemned, and that his writings can be interpreted so widely.

Right, I like that.

Eriugena was condemned for exactly the same reason before him

Well then, I like him too !!

 

[Thomas]

So, Thomas, what do you think about this wiki quote about the Meister ?

I think this kind of thing happens when the Meister is read out of context.

As a point of contact however, it is useful in ecumenical debate. Path-of-One and I have enjoyed long discussions and some discoveries of each other's traditions, and I have re-addressed some presuppositions regarding paganism in light of that.

Eckhart is not a pagan, nor is he a Buddhist ... but nor is any tradition utterly void of truth, so the call is twofold: to arrive at an objective view of those truths without dismembering one's own or the other's tradition, but more importantly these days, is to arrive at a subjective position where one can discern the other's dialogue with the Divine.

Well then, I like him too !!

That's fine ... until one gets to the position of assuming that a condemnation is somehow a badge of validity — I could present more than a few of the condemned whom you probably wouldn't like at all — and the contrary that assumes that if one hasn't been condemned, then one's got nothing to offer!

Eckhart was terrifically influenced by his Dominican Master, Albert the Great. Albert and secretary-student Thomas of Aquinas, succeeded in incorporating Aristotelian philosophy into the Christian West.

Albert taught Ulrich of Strassburg who wrote a commentary on Aristotle's Meteors, Hugh of Strassburg wrote the famous Compendium theologicae veritatis; John of Freiburg wrote the Libellus de quaestionibus casualibus; Giles of Lessines wrote a treatise on the unity of substantial form, the De unitate formae.

Dietrich of Freiberg wrote treatises on natural science, which give evidence of his having carried out actual scientific investigation. He wrote a treatise on the rainbow. Berthold of Moosburg wrote a commentary on Proclus' Elements of Theology, introducing the major work of the great Neo-Platonist into German metaphysics.

Albert's ideas influenced not only these, but Meister Eckhart, John Tauler, and Heinrich Suso. The Albertist tradition continued through Heymeric de Campo and on to Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century. From Nicholas the ideas pass down to the 16th century Renaissance.

Nicholas was widely read. Giordano Bruno quotes him; and thinkers like Gottfried Leibniz are thought to have been influenced by him.

Nicholas was a genius ahead of his time in the field of science. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler (who called Cusanus 'divinely inspired' in the first paragraph of his first published work) were influenced by him.

Cusanus was the first to say no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing Aristotle, and later Copernicus), thus opening the possibility for Kepler's model featuring elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun. Astonishingly, his astronomical insights were based almost entirely on his own personal numerological calculations and metaphysics.

In mathematics Cusanus developed the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. He was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus as well as Cantor's later work on infinity.

The point is ... none of these people pop out of a vacuum, but too often they are regarded as such, or rather their writings are read without reference to their time and place, their beliefs and their influences ...

Thomas

 

[Radical_Reformer]

I think this kind of thing happens when the Meister is read out of context.

Zounds! Hoist on my own petard!

As a point of contact however, it is useful in ecumenical debate. Path-of-One and I have enjoyed long discussions and some discoveries of each other's traditions, and I have re-addressed some presuppositions regarding paganism in light of that.

Yes, you are both quite brilliant.

That's fine ... until one gets to the position of assuming that a condemnation is somehow a badge of validity — I could present more than a few of the condemned whom you probably wouldn't like at all — and the contrary that assumes that if one hasn't been condemned, then one's got nothing to offer!

Most great advances have been made by people that were willing to take the risk of being condemned. These brave folks are responsible for moving most of humankind forward. Einstein is a great example.

Eckhart was terrifically influenced by his Dominican Master, Albert the Great. Albert and secretary-student Thomas of Aquinas, succeeded in incorporating Aristotelian philosophy into the Christian West.

Great. I think the most significant contributions are around logic and ethics, do you agree ?

Cusanus was the first to say no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing Aristotle, and later Copernicus), thus opening the possibility for Kepler's model featuring elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun.

I think he must have been a little Asbergher, how else would one associate a defective circle with an elipse ?

Astonishingly, his astronomical insights were based almost entirely on his own personal numerological calculations and metaphysics.

Less to do with numerology and metaphysics and more to do with intuition.

In mathematics Cusanus developed the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion.

Brilliant notion, many today still do not understand infinitesimals.

He was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus as well as Cantor's later work on infinity.

Calculus was co-founded with Newton. But Leibniz did invent the product rule of calculus. Cantor's work led to set theory. I like this quote on Cantor:

Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God,[4] on one occasion equating the theory of transfinite numbers with pantheism.[5]
Georg Cantor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sancho]

What attracts me to Eckhart's words is not that he was a radical heretic, or was able to command the lofty heights of metaphysical traditions. I came across Eckhart's words while browsing through the shelves of the Atlantic School of Theology's library in search of solace. And solace I have found there. Though Eckhart was one of the most highly educated men in Europe in his day, the most powerful aspects of his teaching seem to have been derived from his own lived experiences and directed towards helping real people to live through their own experiences.

Eckhart's words on suffering, as in 'The Book of Divine Consolation', are what has had the most transformative effect on me.

"If God is with me in suffering, what more do I desire and what else can I desire? After all, I want nothing else; I want nothing more than God, if I am rightly disposed. St. Augustine says, 'He who is not satisfied with God is very avaricious and unwise."
. . .
"I say that 'God is with us in trouble' means that he himself suffers with us. Indeed he who recognizes the truth knows that I am speaking truthfully. God suffers with man, indeed He suffers in His way before and incomparably more than the man who suffers for his sake. Now I say, if God Himself is willing to suffer, it is quite right that I should suffer, for if I am well disposed, I will what God wills. I pray every day, and God bids me pray, 'Lord, thy will be done,' and yet, when God wills suffering I will complain about the suffering. This is quite wrong. I also say confidently that God suffers so gladly for our sakes that, if we suffer for the sake of God alone, He suffers without suffering."
. . .
"If God will give what I desire, then I have it and am joyful. If God will not give it, then I receive it in it's absence in God's will, in which he does not will it, and thus I receive it by renouncing it and not by receiving it. What then do I lack? And certainly one receives God more truly by renouncing then by receiving, for when a man receives, the gift has in itself the reason why he is joyful and comforted. But if one does not receive, one has nothing to rejoice in but God and God's will alone."

 

[c0de]

If there is to be any 'dialogue' between the human and the divine, then there must be something in common between them,

Rite ... and have you notice how "dialogue"
between humans and God is usually a one-way street?

As a point of contact however, it is useful in ecumenical debate. Path-of-One and I have enjoyed long discussions and some discoveries of each other's traditions, and I have re-addressed some presuppositions regarding paganism in light of that.

Perhaps, due to discoveries of certain, shall we say, similarities?

yet more than a few masters of the apophatic tradition have observed that the difference between man and God is immeasurably greater than the difference between man and everything else.

I think pantheism and panentheism is an attempt to bridge that gap.

So... in other words, your version of Christianity is just a little panentheistic?

And for what end have you made such a compromise with the dark side P) may I ask?
... to preserve some forlorn sense of "conversation"?

U have 2 admit ... this is all a little amusing, yea?
(well, it is to me, at least.. as are most human absurdities)

 

[Thomas]

Hi c0de —

Rite ... and have you notice how "dialogue"
between humans and God is usually a one-way street?

In the scheme of things I would say God talks, man doesn't listen ...

Perhaps, due to discoveries of certain, shall we say, similarities?

Yep.

So... in other words, your version of Christianity is just a little panentheistic?

Nope. Rather my version of Christianity has some common ideas regarding the source and origin of being.

My 'big problem' is where and how one locates suffering in a panentheistic model. It seems to me that too often and too easily panentheists locate the Deity as the source and cause of suffering. When someone presents me with a sound metaphysical argument, I'll investigate it.

Until then, panentheism renders the Christian idea of God becomes more and more contradictory and irrational — not the least how anything that is inherently divine can suffer imperfection of knowledge or being — so until that little issue is cleared away, I can only say that Christianity is not panentheistic.

And for what end have you made such a compromise with the dark side P) may I ask?
... to preserve some forlorn sense of "conversation"?

I always seek to keep channels of communication open ... but there's no compromise.

U have 2 admit ... this is all a little amusing, yea?
(well, it is to me, at least.. as are most human absurdities)

I think the 'absurdity' occurs when sentimentalism overtakes reason.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

.
Good morning Thomas

In the scheme of things I would say God talks, man doesn't listen ...

If that were true, that really isn't much of a "dialogue" then, is it?

Also, do you think God is like a parent yelling at his/her kids ??
Because I assure you, if God chose to speak, we'd hear Him.

My 'big problem' is where and how one locates suffering in a panentheistic model. It seems to me that too often and too easily panentheists locate the Deity as the source and cause of suffering. When someone presents me with a sound metaphysical argument, I'll investigate it.

That aint much of a disagreement. In fact, it is just a matter of semantics. Let me demonstrate:

A: Man causes suffering
B: God punishes the wicked

>>>> Is the "punishment" caused by God, not "suffering" ??

The issue is justice, not of suffering. But that is a non issue to begin with,
because whatever God does is "just" by definition.

Nope. Rather my version of Christianity has some common ideas regarding the source and origin of being.

--

not the least how anything that is inherently divine can suffer imperfection of knowledge or being — so until that little issue is cleared away, I can only say that Christianity is not panentheistic.

If you already share ideas about the "source and origin of being" with the panentheists, then you have much more in common with the pagans then you realize.

As for your conflict about "imperfection of knowledge" if you are referring to the suffering issue, then that area of disagreement is only superficial (as demonstrated above).

I always seek to keep channels of communication open ... but there's no compromise.

No, your lines of communication are open precisely because there is a compromise.

Your view, Thomas, and that of Christianity, historically speaking, has always been the middle ground between absolute monotheism and paganism. This is why there can be dialogue between me and you, but not between me and panentheists.

Until then, panentheism renders the Christian idea of God becomes more and more contradictory and irrational —

... ??

Dude, the Christian idea of God hasn't been "rational" for many a century.... Get a calender : P

I think the 'absurdity' occurs when sentimentalism overtakes reason.

I think human "reason," for the most part, equals sentimentality.

I just saw this yesterday, think you will enjoy it.

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? | Video on TED.com

It's a funny and informative talk by a behavioral economist.

 

[Penelope]

Towards a Poor Theatre (1968) by Jerzy Grotowski is one of the 20th century's key writings on Experimental Theater. Like Antonin Artaud, Peter Brook, Richard Schechner, Tadashi Suzuki, and others ... Grotowski sought to give modern theater both sound philosophical underpinnings but also give the theatrical-experience, physically, a very raw edge. He developed his ideas about a 'poor theater' in post-World War II Poland, under (but subtly subversive of) Communism.

Poor Theater ...
- Some commentators assume that, to Grotowski, "poor" refers to a "people's theater" - versus a theater for the bourgeoisie - refers to a theater aimed at not the privileged classes.
- Other commentators assume that "poor" refers to a "barebones theater" - Grotowski's theater company cannot afford fancy sets and elaborate costumes, and that is why they perform in disused manufacturing plants and wear (primarily) contemporary clothing to perform even period theater-pieces.
- But, if you read Grotowski, his meaning goes deeper than either of these:

Grotowski sought to strip all that was artificial from theater. Strip theater down to its core elementals. Grotowski wanted theater which was, for each audience-member, a raw physical encounter with their own life. Theater as emotionally stark and coldly real as theater could possibly be.
('Poor' - very much in Meister Eckhart's stripped-down sense.)

& & &

This stripping down is a negative dialectic.

As Thomas has pointed out, this negative-dialectic is an honored but somewhat elusive tradition within western philosophy and theology:
Meister Eckhart stands in the line of the Christian Apophatic Tradition, and specifically in the line of metaphysical thought called 'meontology' - the study on non-being, or beyond-being.
Eriugena, Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, et al.

The modern Idealist tradition has been the direct heir to this older tradition. It puts a primacy upon the critical facility we call 'intellect.'

Western intellectuals over the past two centuries have proven resounding failures at designing new ideologies of 'how people can live together in this world' - utopian ideals which totally failed, in practice, when these ideas were tried out in the real world. Intellectuals have proven time and time again to be utterly inept when it comes to propounding a 'positive-dialectic.'

But over this same period of modern history, western intellectuals have provided extraordinarily astute analysis and critique of society and culture 'as it currently exists.' A negative-dialectic which deconstructs the 'status quo' into its base-level elements. A critique which wishes to describe human society, 'as it is,' without harboring any illusions.

You strip away, and strip away some more, and strip away some more. And when you are done, if there is anything left ... this remnant is, logically (by elimination), a core principle upon which human society is based.

& & &

... In theory.

& & &

What if those core principles are actually 'false' too?
(A delusion upon which society has been based, throughout history, till now?)

& & &

Tariki:
I think that there is a "false" self, a social self ... and this seems to be the self that Eckhart would nullify, in his usual very radical manner. To me he is attempting to say that no amount of "adjustments", "polishing" or "spring cleaning" of the false self will ever make it "suitable" for God; that rather the false must be "seen through" and the real realized, uncovered - and that the true is when the false is gone, and that it can be lived, but not thought. Speaking positively of the true self, seeking to describe it, can only fill our minds with erroneous pictures, maybe creating confusion rather than clarity.

The core of the western Idealist tradition (classical or modern) is the concept of 'Being'.
Whether talking about the Self or talking about God (or talking about Society), this is the CORE PRICIPLE.

For Eckhart, you must clean away all false appearance. Then clean away more, and clean away more still. Strip away all 'false being' - all 'masks' - all the layers of 'polish' created by society and by culture. Clear out layer upon layer covering-up the truth. Then when you can scrub away no more 'dirty,' no more 'gloss' ... there is only one thing left:
True Being.

(Buddhism works by a similar negative-dialectic, but in the end Buddhism would seek to strip away the Core Principle too.)

The end-result of this negative-dialectic - of this long trek conducted by the Idealist tradition of western philosophy ... the ultimate end-product is:
this one true unembellished Being.
The Holy Grail.
The touchstone to God.

(Or, in the words of Existentialist philosophy: 'authenticity.')

& & &

But what if the Buddhists are correct ... and the very notion of 'Being' needs to be deconstructed, too?

What if 'Being' is a false principle?
(The ultimate false principle?)

& & &

A false description of the core Self.
A false description of God ('as God actually is').
A delusion.

In Ecological Theory, nothing exists 'alone.'

Even in solipsistic states, a human being seated upon a mountaintop, meditating, is not alone. That person is talking with someone. Not necessarily a specific human person. They can be communicating with an abstract personage ('all of humanity').
(This is something short of communicating with God, in my view. Though some might argue that the ability to communicate with other human beings - with the shared 'human genome at our core' - that 'this' is God. But, for me, 'this' does not go far enough.)

In Ecological Theory, everything exists in relationship to something else.
(Each seeming entity relates to something else, one at a time. But, ultimately and over time:
Everything relates to everything else.)
Boundaries are extremely fuzzy. Every seeming entity is contextualized.

There is no 'Being' in Ecological Theory. Only 'relationships.'
('Being' is a misunderstanding of how ecosystems actual work. A delusion.)

(The human 'self' - in Ecological Theory - is one example of what linguists and communication-theorists would call a 'tagmeme':
a "unit ... within a context ... within a context.")
In that sense, the "social self" (which Teriki refers to) is the Real Self, not a false "appearance."
(That is, if you apply a wider-than-human/full-environment definition to the word "social.")

& & &

And, in this way of looking, God is not a Being (not a 'delusion,' not a concept based upon a false assumptions about reality) but the broadest, most ultimate of Contexts.
(The full net of human and non-human interrelationships. The one all-inclusive ecosystem.)

(But, for me, this again does not go far enough. But it does put the notion of 'God' back into a positive-dialectic, theologically.)

& & &

Ecological Theory allows our idea of God to be less symbolical and more concrete.
Definable, in part. Thus ... communicable to the average person (just as God was to people back in the classical era, but now with the 'sense of God' embedding itself upon solider philosophical ground).

A God - or at least an 'idea of God' which is ...
Conversant to the non-intellectual ...

Less obscure.