My speculation is that insight was lost at the Fall: "And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked ... " (Genesis 3:7) signifies a vision of the externals, whereas before I believe they saw with 'insight'.
I think this is common to believe among Christians- that we are incapable of insight due to our fallen nature. However, I think it is demonstrably untrue, as even non-Christians have among their ranks those who have profound insight- the shamans, Buddhist monks, and mystics in various religions manage to see the interior- or as I see it- they see what is real rather than the superficial.
I do not read it quite so literally. Not so much a matter of this tree or that rock, but rather the one-ness of everything.
I see. I still hold that we cannot observe or know that this sense of oneness is limited to human beings. In fact, in my own spiritual experience, I am almost positive it is not. Nature radiates the truth of oneness, and I am simply open to her message. It is pure speculation to think that only humans receive this truth.
I hold that man is pre-thought, not a product of it, as per the Cartesian axiom "I think therefore I am" — rather "I am, and I am a being that thinks". It's not language per se, its what language attempts to communicate.
I agree, but I think this could be extended to practically any creature. "I am , and I am a being that XYZ." Why is thinking (philosophically in our way) considered greater? Higher? There is no logical reason for this, in my opinion. It certainly has not bought us a better, more sustianale existance. In fact, many of the great teachers of the world religions emphasized the need to get away from this incessant and noisy philosophizing and thinking in order to become at one with the divine. We are to be as children...
I would say art is to do with re-presentation ... it's the communication of abstract concepts.
I think it runs far deeper than that- art and music and dance. It's the union of soul and body, of spirit and matter. I can only speak for myself and some other artists I know- creating art isn't about the concepts, but about the spirit. I am expressing what I see beyond the surface- it is my expression of mystical insight. Perhaps for some it is about concepts and for others about spirituality? I find communicating through art and music is akin to communicating through telepathy and empathy- it is a more direct route to communication, unburdened by word and the categorization process of our thoughts. I find it interesting that when I communicate with animals, I generally receive sensations and visuals. We can communicate in this way with each other, but we have to become quiet enough to "hear" it.
There are some who suggest the explosion of art across the world coincides with the infusion of spirit into the soul that elevated the creature from a mode of being, to something conscious of itself as a mode of being...
Of course, there is no evidence in the record. But this seems appropriate spiritually. Although apes seem to have this to some degree as well- they are self-aware and paint with intention, although we may not find it fine art.
I think animal ethics are pragmatic. Basic human ethics are the same, but they can also be above that idealist, and above that religious.
I think animal ethics are more than pragmatic. Otherwise, the many instances of interspecies assistance and altruism would not be explicable. However, I do think for the most part animals just are and do, and people are thinking about what we are and do. I don't necessarily think that is a good thing. People tend to explain away their basic impulses to do good, to love, to embrace, to be what is most beautiful about humanity. I think the rest of nature tends to embrace pragmatism in a way that fufills the ideal. For example, it is pragmatic to be sustainable, but it also fulfills the ideal of being kind to other beings, to respecting God's gift of creation, etc. Generally, what is ultimately pragmatic (in the sense of a long-term planning horizon) is also the ideal. We cloud our thinking with selfishness and short-term planning horizons (the two are linked) and this derails both pragmatic ethics and ideal action.
As for what is religious, I think it is clear in social science that religion was generally an additional social layering of sanctions and rewards on ethics that are pragmatic and ideal. That is, religious ethics (outside of ritual rules) are generally nothing new or different, but a new way of saying something that people should do for the continuity of society anyway. It is really impossible to distinguish what benefits society (stability, low violence, altruism) from religious ideals (the 10 commandments).
What is interesting and more complicated are the elaborate and seemingly arbitrary rules in religion... Most seem to be about creating solidarity and distinction on the surface, but I put forth that ritual rules have ties to greater, more cosmic consequences. I just don't think there is only one way to accomplish this.
I think that is everything.
I think it is everything in terms of what makes us distinctive. I think it doesn't matter much spiritually
unless and until we can, as God does, merge creativity with love. So long as we fail to fully embrace what we truly are, we fail to fully realize the Kingdom of God among us. We create to our own destruction, and we ignore our true purpose in Nature.
The recognition alone is a start, and if we fail, it's because we measure ourselves against transcendental values. The next thing to learn is we cannot do it alone.
We fail because, for the most part, we act in self-centered ways. It isn't about how we measure it. We fall short measuring by Nature's standard as well. How many species are as brutal, as cruel, as cunning in their violence and greed, as humanity? We need only look to Nature to see that ethics is not all about fluffy lovey-goodness, but also that there is something horribly amiss with much of humanity. We are out of step with the rest of what is- out of harmony.
Transcendental values? Heck, we don't even measure up against natural values. My dogs and horses take care of each other better than many human parents give love to their own children.
Of course we can't do it alone, but then, neither does any creature. It is a matter of openness- of knowing one's place and sacrificing self for that deeper Self that is in harmony with all that is. Other creatures of Nature seem naturally open to this, as do most children. We train ourselves out of it- teach ourselves to pull away from God and our innate ability to have insight into what is the best path and to rely on society and laws/rules, which are always limited.
I have never seen in the natural world any evidence of the philosophy of love, or the reflection and consideration of its meaning. I see evidence of love, but not of the love of love.
That's interesting. I profoundly sense the love of love when I am in communication with Nature. I profoundly sense the culmination of the natural world in life, creation, and love.
But I put forth I see it as relatively irrelevant. If humans philosophized less, and actually loved more, we'd be better off. It is the love itself that is God, in my opinion, not the thinking about the love.
But that is the difference, angels are spirit, and are 'purer' because they see with insight, whereas humans are spirit and matter, so 'more' than angels in that regard. In this world, that's everything.
This is interesting. What of humans that see with insight? Or do we just categorize humans as being incapable, without any evidence?
I guess at the end of the day, what I see in this is a lot of complexity without any tie to observable or even experiential reality. If I have experienced humans who have insight, or conversely, if we accept the legends (in the Bible) that some angelic beings have taken on incarnate forms... then where is the boundary between human and angel?
Wisdom is connected to insight ... I would suggest a nature spirit does not possess the insight of an angel, nor of a human being.
They have their own type of insight, from what I've sensed. Actually, it seems that all individual beings have their own insights.
As is hierarchy.
Relationships are hierarchical. Hierarchies are all about relationships.
No, they are not necessarily. Hierarchy demands higher and lower. That does not need to mean inferior and superior, but yes, higher and lower. Relationships may be equal- that is, horizontal rather than vertical. Hierarchies are necessarily vertical, and this is not the only way to have a relationship.
I suggest you're putting a negative cultural value on the term. I think hierarchies are wonderful, but woefully abused.
Actually, hierarchies are just how some things work and not how other things work. I don't see them as the only way things work, more due to observation of reality than wishful thinking.
The body is composed of cells, all the same ... but they get together and say, "I'll be a kidney" and "I'll be a toe" and "I'll be a heart" ... without hierarchy, you'd nevver have a human being, or a horse, or a fly, or a crystal, or a flower ... just gloop. But you don't get them saying, "No! I wanna be the heart, the heart's the best bit!"
Here, though, it is not a hierarchy, but a bunch of parts that work in an emergent system. Hierarchy implies higher and lower. To some extent, this works in the body (i.e., you need your heart and brain more) but in others, it doesn't (you need
both your heart and brain equally). The various parts of the body communicate and interact without a clear order of "who" is in charge- you would think the brain, but that would be an incomplete story on anatomy and physiology...
Even more so we see this in ecology... The natural world is messy. Ordered, but not easily categorized.
That's speculation, surely? I would suggest hierarchy is implicit in any 'order' and that 'natural leadership' emerges naturally. The better hunters would lead, etc.
No, not speculation. Evidence is in modern hunter-gatherer groups and early ethnography. Yes, under some situations, some natural leadership emerges, but it is non-binding and this person is not any higher than the others. Their capacity to lead is based on their being able to obtain consensus among members, which is not hierarchical.
Oh, absolutely, but in Christianity it is the imago Dei ... the miss that modernity makes it the compass points not to me (as Adam and Eve tried, and as modernity would have it) but to God.
Thomas
I agree- the compass points to God.
