Click below on a category to see various posts!
Hi Majickian
I tried to post a response to 'The Bear and I' but it didn't work.
Reading your second post, with a somewhat clearer head this morning I confess to still being mystified. What exactly is it you are saying? Or am I missing the point entirely? Come on, give it to me in a nutshell. Or are you saying that's what you're unable to do?
I love the look of the site.
Marx's materialism stagnant and despairing?? No!! Marx's dialectic dynamic and hopeful!
Regards,
Cath
......................................................................................................
Hi Cath! Thanks for your post and your honesty! I will try and explain the best I can...
"Marx's materialism stagnant and despairing?? No!! Marx's dialectic dynamic and hopeful!"
I have a fundamental love-but-distant relationship with Marx but am able to identify with him greatly. He wrote in a time of great turmoil and wrote amidst the blatant uprising of Capitalist ideologies; in terms of such political issues, I hold immense respect with Karl Marx. In context with history, Marx's ideology is sound. Other literatures of that era highlight the struggles society was subjected to, all their fears and calls to pay attention have, in effect, been largely negated. (I have a fabulous source book from that time and you are willing to borrow and have a look at it!) However, I recently came to realise that Marx's work, although brilliant in the political spheres, is steeped in materialism, (but yes, his intent was good) and although I am for absolute equality and equal opportunity, I think we have to be very careful about exercising policies based on pure materialism alone! I can understand his position at that time what with the fall of religion, splintering hopes and faith into harsh barren realities that said God was a lie, society a sham...coerced to validate Kings whilst controling the masses... 'Religion is the opium of the people...' indeed! Christianity didn't offer anything except yet more control over the masses... but does that mean the soul doesn't exist? So, when I say materialism, I mean the concentrated emphasis on the political at the expense of all else... How many great literatures bestow philosophically-minded governments as a alternative to the hypocrisy that is? So many! That book you lent me had a council, a variant body of people from differing spheres, debating in such a way as to try and incur fair policy... Is this not because materialism is not actually enough on its own? People need to relocate some meaning outside the treadmill of the everyday. Ideally, philosophical government is thought to offer a more humane-centred council, rather than the secularised concentration on monetary issues that in reality aims to balance the bent books. (Philosophical government can only be an ideal... for it has never been a fair trial).
Society is starving without aesthetic/spiritual values, whilst law and reform ALWAYS falls into corrupt hands. But, the idea of law actually stems from divine laws of inner conscience. I am convinced that with a greater promotion and input of the positives throughout political thinking, filtering down with a greater emphasis on the arts in schools/local workshops/adult learning, society could start to heal, start reconciling those desperate isolations I see everywhere. High Culture is far removed from popular culture and that makes me mad! I cannot see that simply altering the financial base will ensure much difference... nor give people back their self-value, love of self, belief in self and others... That's why I see Marx having written in despair; I cannot see any practise in Marxism that could unite the people positively in today's cultural climate. This Capitalist world has almost gone too far in depreciating human values whilst promoting ideological identification with the world through difference! I fear practising Marxism today would entice fascism, which is a downright sin but that is what Capitalist thinking has done to the world. In fact, I fear they are actually one of a kind...
I concede the over-riding focus on materialism has bred apathy... it has bred contempt of one another. Do we actually need money???
So, in a nutshell about Marx? Great political thinker, sound material ideas but his doctrine doesn't infuse the need to nuture soul from all angles of society.
The political needs to find a soul.... touch the heart of man where it matters.
Whilst we are on the subject though, of trying to find alternative politics, have you heard of a site called The Third Way? I am not saying I agree with all it's points but it is trying to establish fresh ideas for the future, some I find refreshing and feasible, especially the idea of abolishing one centralised government. You can find the site here:
http://www.thirdway.org/
As to the blog entries called The Bear and I. Well they are early entries and believe me, there's more to come... but in a nutshell? I am aiming to prove that the Bear, like many others including myself at times, has become so accustomed to thinking in scientific absolutes, in black and white, that we invariably can't equate with altered ways of reaching a reality that may differ from what we are culturally accustomed to. It has been scientifically proven that such thinking has incured left hemisphere thinking at the expense of the other hemisphere. I think Nietzsche was onto this when he advocated throwing morality to the recycle bin! It goes against moral values to steal but theft is invariably caused by necessity or, in our society, a need to gratify something we feel is missing. Rather than moralistically condemn theft, Nietzsche wanted desperately for society to look at the underlying causes of such acts; he wanted political society to realise its responsibility in playing a part.
Right brain expression is vital to all I have said about what is missing in Marx; it is the artists ability to see the narrative and meaning in music, in a painting, in poetry. So first I have to dismantal the Bear's REASON-ABLED thinking patterns, the ones that see, for example, mythological stories without having any basis of meaning in society, the thinking that says unless you can see it, it is heresy. It's about bringing what's beautifully humane inside, out into the vast material world, thus finding ways to reclaim and rejoice in life, value our physical/material existence! We all have wonderous talents, even if it is to smile at someone who had forgotten the smile... it's about time our miracle was realised.
Does that help at all? Going out on Marx, I cannot agree more than with 'workers of the world unite!' I just think we should do it for ourselves... stuff the world economy up its own..... Sit down on the floor and refuse to feed any more bullshite. Surely communities wouild have to then pull together? yes, well...
Hopefully as the blog unravels itself, all will become clearer! But mystified is an interesting state of being, surely? he he
Oh... perversely! Did you take part in Melvyn Bragg's recent 'Nation's Favourite Philosopher'vote? Marx won that pole much to the mystification of Bragg and myself! Is Marx a philosopher? Bragg's brilliant 45min debates can be heard again at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_archive_home.shtml
Until the next time... :)
Over and out for now... and thanks for your input! I have enjoyed it lots! X
......................................................................................................
Well to cut to the heart of the matter...'but does that mean the soul doesn't exist?' (Re Marx's words on religion).
I am a materialist, but a dialectic materialist, like Marx. I simply believe that consciousness, and consciousness of consciousness, are natural products. No less beautiful, powerful and mysterious for that!
Is Marx a philosopher? Yes! First and foremost as well as in the literal sense; he was a student of philosophy and a Hegelian. He simply realised that philosophies serve the interests of a ruling group, and turned Hegel's dialectic on its head. Therefore 'consciousness does not determine social being, but social being determines consciousness'.
Now I imagine you will shudder at that word determine, but I don't think it is meant rigidly or mechanically, and may even be a clumsy translation for a German word that means something slightly but significantly different.
Can't write more as pc keeps freezing, this is the second time I've typed out the above.
Thanks for that wonderful Bragg link, the list of subjects looked fascinating; when I get a spare moment...
Cath
....................................................................................................
Posted by: Cathy Smith |
Hi Cath! There is just tooooo much to say! Sorry I have taken so long!
But hey, this is fun! I am entrenched with Marxist critiques... I have not left the subject alone!
I am glad you like the In Our Time archive site! I have listened to the archives for hours... I love the scope of the subject matter and you can sign up for Melvyn's newsletter, which can be interesting... He returned on air this week... Phew!
Firstly though; when I asked if Marx was a philosopher, I was kind of playing Devil's advocate really (philosopher vs politician) although I am still surprised Marx won the pole, and I hope to explain my reasons. Feel free to correct me; I do, however, recognise Marx's philosophical background and believe the philosopher in him can be heard in his works, especially as a viable discourse in which to view the world.
To clarify a few points though, before I enter my typical labyrinthine mode of thinking!
To Quote:
“I am a materialist, but a dialectic materialist, like Marx. I simply believe that consciousness, and consciousness of consciousness, are natural products. No less beautiful, powerful and mysterious for that!”
You mention consciousness in response to the question about soul. Do you consider consciousness as a constitute/reflection of soul or a replacement of the idea of soul? And I have to ask you... what you mean when you say 'consciousness of consciousness.'
[Marx] “turned Hegel's dialectic on its head. Therefore 'consciousness does not determine social being, but social being determines consciousness'.”
Marx said, 'My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, ... the process of thinking [is] under the name of the Idea, which he even transforms into an independent subject... the demiurgos (creator) of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of the Idea. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought." (Marx, Capital.)
Hegel's dialectic was based in idealism, a metaphysical idealism that Marx believed served the philosophies and power of the ruling group. And history was, for Hegel, the unfolding of the metaphysic ideal. Marx argued that dialectics could be rescued from Hegel’s idealist outlook- 'turned on its head' to reveal a 'rational kernel within the mystical shell.' So... if I get this correctly... Marx deemed idealism as being a falsified consciousness projected by man's conscious mind out into an idealized external source of consciousness, God being an ideal picture sanctified by man, wrapped up nicely in a controlling religion. Because of this, Marx asserted there was no divine consciousness that determined man's social being, no destiny, and most importantly, no pre-ordained hierarchy. Looking at the ideology that maintained the ruling group, Marx could assert social being must therefore determine consciousness, as history could proved again and again, the evidence found within the struggles of power, the conflicts of material interests. Would you agree so far? The general agreement between the two could be seen in how they both were of their time insofar as they both looked to history to evaluate the path on which humanity was on, and both were of evolutionary thinking.
“I imagine you will shudder at that word determine...”
Nope! I think its a viable word... but I laughed at the thought of you thinking I'd shudder!
From here on in, I may seem to make statements about what you obviously know a lot about? I am simply trying to clarify if my ideated notions of Marx are correct! So slay me down if necessary!
Marx was ultimately about the emancipation of the working classes and he centered his thesis on the idea that history is made up/told in terms of the clashes between the ruling and working classes, hence he assumed an historical dialectic that worked on behalf of materialism and the workers, rather than the power of the rulers and their philosophies/religion. Now, whilst I can understand Marx's political stance, I truly have an immense and somewhat immediate problem with his 'dialectic,' possibly because 'dialectic' history is itself mutable. Dialectics is a way of seeing the world that initiated with the Greeks (Greek dialego) and originally meant 'to discourse, to debate.' In ancient times, dialectics was the art of assigning an active space/environment for a revelation of personal truth about personal responsibilities and/or social issues, a truth usually ascertained by the good nature in man, or the so-called God-nature. Typical to all forms of dialectics, these truisms of nature worked by disclosing the contradictions at work in the argument, thus providing the objectives for the viewer/reader/listener to hopefully overcome these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth and their theatrical platforms were believed an ideal setting in which to work the magic of dialectics. Unlike the powerful image of Roman individualism, the Greeks were notably self-defined by a common soul of the city-state, the unseen source that infiltrated say, for example, Sparta and united the common ideas of what it meant to be Spartan. In such a society, where temples and theaters bedeck geographic homelands, there is an understanding that there are forces that govern space and place alike. The theatrical arts especially allowed the dialectic into the space found on stage. Rudolf Steiner, speaking of Grecian societies, says of the temples (but can be applied to their amphitheaters),
“Traditions were preserved in art... these mutually supporting forces in space were recognised as they streamed hither and thither... they did not 'think out' the forms, but they perceived the forces streaming through space and working within the stone accordingly....” (Universe, Earth and Man: Rudolf Steiner)
I fully understand this ancient dialectical philosophy in the following terms:
Many scholars have noted how Shakespeare's plays create, in performance, a space that is largely undefinable. Some believe this space is filled by Shakespeare's own presence, whilst others point to the dynamic 'space of now-time,' which is activated during the theatrical performance. There are many views, but I believe this space is actually created by the binaries/multiplicities always at work between both the characters and the issues at hand, whether investigating morality, religion, hierarchy etc... etc. Shakespeare used the Greek understanding of dialecticism and placed the viewer in the space, in the middle; whereas my lecturer kept insisting how slippery Shakespeare was and was virtually impossible to pin down, I do not think you were supposed to pin him anywhere! He was the pen that could superbly present all options, resurrected each and every time when any performance is in motion. Shakespeare brought the viewer into the space of opposing and conflicting truths in order for truth to be viewed and decided for himself. That's why the genius of Shakespeare is still active; the space is 'always-already' immediate in performance, meaningful- and will remain so whilst the question of the nature of man remains in doubt, irrespective of history or time or any other aspect of earth-nature. He uses geographical or meteorological natures as constant forces to impact mankind's bad judgments/senseless acts as actually opposing the symbiotic laws seen throughout the outside natural sciences. True... Shakespeare, like Marx, used the dialectical understanding that determined man's nature should be expressed as an interconnectivity with all other natures, and both show man's act/ions in desiring power over one and another man invariably at odds with natural laws.
However, unlike Marx, Shakespeare does not simply question the rulers (which he does astoundingly well) but neither does he respond with the antithesis as a natural right answer; society should be beyond accepting power as being determined from the top levels moving downwards, nor should it recognise some unseen power at the base working upwards. All power corrupts because of man's inability to put his own dialecticism personally into practice for the good of self and thus becoming as a mirror for all mankind! Shakespeare takes society as an organic whole in hope mankind will realise, in looking at the bigger picture, hi/her own futility and, as an individual, recognise a better nature, his/her God-nature - that would work for the better of humanity and place mankind into some more natural order within the scheme of life; it is no mistake that the opening act of Romeo and Juliet shows all levels of the class system found within a patriarch society as propergating the bloodshed, the anger, the wrongs, all that works at suffocating Love's truth. Shakespeare suggests men's masochism and ideas of what constitutes masculinity is what's in question here and in effect, the unity of such masochism in Romeo and Juliet smashes down all class divisions, uniting the men in terms of their misappropriated natures that determine to pursue masochistic means in which to honor themselves. And such behavior is often found questionable in Shakespeare because it belongs to a historical seed that man has forgotten. Nowhere is this more evident than in Romeo and Juliet whose family's ancient grudge is never explained; it just is and society goes on propergating it.
One could argue this indeed follows a margin of Marxist ideology; that the material self is responsible for the consciousness that surrounds him as well as loosely fitting with Marxist dialectics that does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of things/of phenomena, unconnected/ isolated from/independent of each other, but as a connected and integral whole, in which things/phenomena are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by, each other. Marx's dialectical method holds true with dialectic principals that state no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken by itself, divorced and isolated from surrounding phenomena, inasmuch as any phenomenon in any realm of nature may become meaningless to us if it is not considered in connection with the surrounding conditions.
But! It would be extremely hard to prove that the misappropriated nature Shakespeare speaks of is a direct result of Marx's specific theory of the mode of production, as a critique of political economy. The history of text goes hand in hand with the necessity of re-elevating issues of power; there are the documented debates in ancient Greece about man's need to 'compete,' recognised throughout a wide-sweeping diversity of different cultures/societies/tribes! How else could male dominance be so globally wide-spread? The Greeks believed there were several options to try and stop men killing one another whilst still recognising his need to shine, two suggestions immediately recognisable today; a) sport and b) honor bestowed on men of linguistic prowess... Homer's message springs to mind! The artist vs the warrior, both 'ideas' absconded by Plato in his republic, in some vain attempt to abolish man's need to parade glory all together! In fact, DH Lawrence's The Apocalypse deals vividly with this same issue; man's overt need to empower some area of his life, his need to strut 'like a peacock in his personal domain,' (hence the long history of man needing ownership of his space) and like Nietzsche, Lawrence tries to locate a passive way of fulfilling the masculine need to soar/shine like a superman! Men, both Lawrence and Nietzsche determine, (there's that word! ) have major conflicts with one another-Lawrence speaks of the power struggles that naturally occur in consequence of four men being left in a room together! Perhaps you may argue that Marx is saying just that; if mankind becomes conscious of itself, it would see human nature as also a progression of gendered conflicts and therefore has the knowledge to change it. But Marx, in his materialism, saw only the depressed worker-society governed by the ideology that the rulers were the all powerful; he believed only an economically-political revolution could re-appropriate the world and change the consciousness of man.
A tangential point here, but an important one no less: People today continue to doubt Shakespeare's authenticity and why? Because he was not of the higher cultural standing that would know so much about/of ancient knowledges; Shakespeare was so well read that many believe it ludicrous to believe he was a Joe Bloggs from the not-so-impressive Stratford-upon-Avon. Now I speak from within the spaces that ask why is it only the high-cultural population have access to these background arts – AND STILL DO - that still questions Shakespeare's intellectualism? And hang on a minute, I say... Queen Elizabeth was the only ruling politic who ever advocated that all schools must have access to the ancient arts! I am not saying there wasn't hierarchal systems still at play in Elizabeth's era, after all, she lived in a masculine world but she did not advocate intellectual eliticism. When else did we have historical proof of such an exciting and positive difference? She truly brought the magic of theatrical importance to the base levels of her society, never witnessed with such ferocity before or since. I cannot agree with Marx's assumption, therefore, that the productivity of material essentials should play a precedence over and above the arts nor can I agree that philosophy/arts etc should always be secondary, seen as elitist supra-structures. They were only ever secondary because the elite held on to them! There is a Beauty within the Arts that is as nourishing to the soul as is food to the stomach! Keats would feast his eyes upon the sea and beg you to do the same. What worries me about today is the starved soul cannot even note that whilst we here the West are all cared for to all intent and purposes, we are all so catered for because the hierarchy has moved out of eye-sight, earshot...
On the one hand it is easy to see where Marx was coming from; he believed the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and political institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.. But is this actually true anymore? The material difference is no longer evident down at the mines, in the industrialism. It is in those vegetables we see stacking the supermarket shelves, grown in Africa or other countries we exploit. It is in the Cola Cola made from diverse water supplies that cause the native tribes to suffer and die because these companies build dams and take all their local water! Clothes from sweat/slave shops! And the sickest part? Many of these 'slavery' items are called 'fair trade' because the pittance we pay these workers is so say enough to feed their families according to their own economies. So we can bring Marxist communism to the UK relatively easily I would think... and the rest of the world would suffer it because nobody really wants to give up their indulgences... nor do they truly realise the full extent of what it means when we say we live in a global economy... On another vein, I watched a programme recently where 300 American families were told how their government makes and supplies 99% of the world's cocaine. Not one family would even consider suffering their incomes to see Cocaine wiped off the planet, even knowing some of their income came from that industry. Materialism worries me... in isolation. And what about the Federal Reserve System? What I learned recently about the whole world economy is enough to tell me money is dead as a material means in which to survive. If we continue with it, we are soon to be mere robots too fearful to chance anything else. This Federal Reserve System is more horrific that any of us ever supposed. There is much to be said for a modicum of Marxism intertwined with local governance of communities. There is a lot to be said for the re-discovery of human faith.
There has been a huge division between science and theology, something most particular to Marx's era. With Darwinism came the death of religion, but let's be honest, the divide extends between the disciplines of the sciences and the arts too, a division that has remained consistent throughout the intellectual ages. This is a big motivation behind the The Bear and I entries... I am trying to show the miracle itself is wrapped in in the very theology of science!
There are several points of reference here:
Just because religion has been largely proved a political weapon of mass deception over the masses, it should not automatically follow that just because 'evolutionary' thinking came into being with Darwin, religion should be killed because someone narrowed it by determining it as 'creationism,' an ideology that will (according to the establishments that be) always be in opposition to evolutionary thinking. Darwin's theories have been kept out of the mainstream educational system in the US because they completely negate biblical timescales and Darwinism is believed to abolish the religious creation theory, thus religious validity. Well, we have an overt problem here! The West has been insistent that the Bible is to be read literally... they still physically search for the Arc of the Covenant! Yet most people who encounter the mystery itself, myself included, would probably agree that the mystery is ineffable and the scriptures are a mystery unto themselves, deliberately obscure to entice the personal journey and without the personal... the mystery cannot be found. The grail will always remain an external object. Hence, the biggest religious lie of all time was the political/monarchical dis-empowerment of the theological.
What both Marx and Engels do wrong, in my opinion, is to take the opposite standpoint and argue from that singular position. An example of this continuous error: “The question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of spirit to nature is the paramount question of the whole of philosophy.... The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature ... comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.” (Marx, Selected Works )
My point here is where is the middle-ness of divine humanity? The Ideal Material?The Material Ideal? It seems to me there is a middle ground here somewhere... somewhere we have forgotten in the bindings that political institutions have monopolized. This darn west wants everything politicized and that is the problem. Nothing can know or experience freedom when politics gets its teeth into it... the dialectic is even forgotten in the ideology that states dialecticism will always concur with two sides... but there are no two sides to life in reality! There is only abundance of all experience/forces that surround one at any given moment in space... These dualisms are just mirror reflections, set one against another by the establishment themselves! It keeps folk arguing for the yea or nay.
Isn't it true to say that Marx and Engels paradoxically spoke of the dialectical method as requiring that phenomena should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence, but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming into being and going out of being? “All nature,” says Engels, “from the smallest thing to the biggest.... from grains of sand to suns, from protista [the primary living cells] to man, has its existence in eternal coming into being and going out of being, in a ceaseless flux, in unresting motion and change... [Therefore dialectics, Engels says] takes things and their perceptual images essentially in their interconnection, in their concatenation.” (Marx and Engels, Vol. XIV, pp. 484&23.) So how did economic materialism become so single-mindedly the dominant center from which all things should be considered? If ancient Greeks and Shakespeare are anything to go by, there are a multitude of factions that skirt the dialectic environment!According to Engels' speech above he would agree that the natural way is to consider all aspects that could be contributing to and from, not just from the material perspective.
I need to backtrack a little:
It must be stated that for Marxists in general, in contrast and in opposition to the dialectical method is the philosophy (the method of thinking) of the ruling classes. For the sake of clarity the philosophy of the ruling classes has been termed by Marxists as the Metaphysics - that is in the sense that the rulers' philosophies are anti-dialectical in that they do not adhere consistently and comprehensively to the standpoint of the evolutionary development of the natural world nor of human society. Metaphysics is often connected in one way or another with religion. It does not accept that change is a part of the natural world nor of human society, instead it views the world as being composed of fixed categories, in which each thing is equal to itself, that is each thing does not undergo change. Everything is permanent and unchanging; the solar system, the stars, all organisms. Change is part of a fixed system - there is something permanent, changeless within or behind the changes, i.e. God, gods or some kind of innate natural law. Yet, according to Marxists, when we examine and analyse the natural world, and human society, we find that this method of thinking is incorrect, indeed it is nonsense, for there is clear evidence of the evolutionary development of the natural world, and of human society and hence, we find the dialectic; Trotsky described the dialectic as being the logic of evolution. The foundations of the exact natural sciences were first worked out by those genii, the ancient Greeks who advanced the disciplines of mathematics, mechanics, geography, astronomy, anatomy, physiology, zoology, politics, sociology, and other sciences. The man who is acknowledged as being a founder of dialectics, Heraclitus, gave birth to the idea that everything is and is not. All is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away. He used the natural world itself for his materialism and so began an exploration into the natural world and its connotations for human society.
The idea that everything is in a state of flux is his most famous and the one most emphasised by his followers: “You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you.” Indeed is the river which flows into the sea that same river? Of course not, it is now the sea! And yet it is still the river, it is and is not. Also let us say, that the river bursts its banks an swamps everything around it, villages, fields of crops, livestock, everything. What would we say had happened to the environment? We would say a change had occurred; a violent change to the environment. Yet an evolutionary change...
Heraclitis also said: 'We are, and are not', in this he is absolutely correct. As Frederick Engels states, every organic being is every moment the same and not the same; every moment it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew. In a longer or shorter time the matter of its body is completely renewed and is replaced by other molecules of matter, so that every organic being is always itself, and yet something other than itself.
Perhaps I am getting hung up over semantics but the Metaphysical does not account for me as it did for Marx and other like-minded thinkers. I took the following definition which works for me from Wikipedia:
“Metaphysics (Greek meta = after/beyond and physics = nature) is a branch of philosophy, related to the natural sciences, like physics, psychology and the biology of the brain; and also to mysticism, religion, and other spiritual subjects. It is notoriously difficult to define, but for purposes of briefly introducing it, it can be identified as the study of any of the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about the basic nature of reality, on which many other concepts and beliefs rest.”
So, the metaphysical is an understanding that all things have a basic nature of reality, something Marx denied because of all he could see in history that made this basic reality a lie. But it was surely the rulers that lied, took that basic nature into a hierarchy for self-gratification! To negate the very idea that there is something sacred that binds us all together in the flux... as interconnected... one-in-all... becoming...being... is to completely miss something that is so beautiful, so joyful, so life-enhancing as to be almost blasphemy as far as my heart can feel to tell! Yes, publicize the facts that the rulers have distorted the very core that is our unified right for self-discovery! Yes, fight against hierarchy and the suffering it causes! But don't wipe out what is waiting to be enlightened! I have yet to find the words to speak of the wonderment I discovered within/without my self but believe me... it is all the unity of workers/nature/history/timefulness&lessness... and so much more besides!
There are a lot of mystics out there in this defining world of ours that will tell us how evolutionary thinking has placed history on a time-line that promotes the idea of progression when in fact, we have been moving away from the core of our truth for over 2,000 years. Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness compounds this message... we dress ourselves in an individual materialism that renders us all the same.... only some are devils in disguise.
Yes, there is evolution. Yes, there is materialism... Here we are! Yes, there is the Metaphysical and it dwells where we cannot see. For every thinker who says, 'I think therefore I am,' there will always be another who says, 'I am where I think not.'
But evolution can be spiritual as is it material as Rudolf Steiner's essays convincingly prove. Marx, for all his negation of the Metaphysical reality, still believed all science was knowable... that science was a knowable reality. What is the difference? All I am saying is that beneath the visual knowable science, there is birthing the quantum that is starting to justify what the mystics and spirit-teachers have been telling us for centuries. Perhaps our evolution will return us to where it all began... all workers in the grand universal scheme of Being.
.......................................................................................................
Hey Majickan!
Thank you for your thought provoking reply! So much food for thought...and for response too...
But I have to beg you...please don't write so much all at one time! It's really hard for me to read and digest it all...I have read it all but...
Anyway, re your questions..'Do you consider consciousness as a constitute/reflection of soul or a replacement of the idea of soul? And I have to ask you... what you mean when you say 'consciousness of consciousness.'
To me, consciousness means soul. Except that I believe individual consciousness dies with the death of the body; do you believe that?
I do believe it survives insofar as it is remembered by, or has affected, others. Eg I am still massively affected by the consciousness of William Blake - and therefore also all the people he has been affected by - and etc etc. As you - and therefore I - am affected by the consciousness Of Elizabeth I. And we are all affected by Shakespeare! So there is an inter-relatedness there. You say 'To negate the very idea that there is something sacred that binds us all together in the flux... as interconnected... one-in-all... becoming...being... is to completely miss something that is so beautiful, so joyful, so life-enhancing as to be almost blasphemy'. I believe that interconnectedness of which you speak is a simple fact of our existence as species-being. To me, the universe itself, as a physical and metaphysical reality, is so profoundly beautiful and mysterious that there is no need to look beyond it for answers.
As for consciousness of consciousness...well animals have consciousness (have souls) but are not, I would argue, conscious they are conscious. We humans are. In all the known universe, there is no yet known organic structure as complex as a human being. Perhaps then we represent the universe becoming conscious of itself?
As for the old Marxist chestnut...base and superstructure...as I understand it, Marx called art and culture secondary to food, drink and shelter only insofar as one must meet those primary needs first before satisfying those secondary ones. In other words, the imperative is to feed the baby before painting the picture...where the hideous and violent poverty in our world condemns adults and infants to suffer and die in their thousands in the midst of productive forces that could meet their needs hundreds of times over, the rationalising of the sharing of our productive forces must be our first priority...?
Now I won't accuse you of shuddering, again, but this time I imagine you shaking your head as I consign art to a secondary role...not at all! It's a dialectic, not a static heirarchical judgement.
To me, the dialectic is the best explanation of our nature...the inbuilt contradictions...how to reslove them...and the new contradictions that will result...
I'll read your post again, and perhaps post a further response, but I'll send this now, and meanwhile thanks again,
Cathy
...............................................................................................................
Hi Cathy!
I shall, for once, keep this short and answer the question you asked.... and recognise perhaps we hold faith in very similar things except for, perhaps, that one question... a question whose answers have strangely taken my path onto new questions recently!
Up until relatively recently, I did not hold an absolute regarding conscious life after death. I was pretty open-minded about it because I had made up my mind some 6 years ago that what I really couldn't know, I really couldn't answer nor form an opinion. I am very wary about saying I do not believe in something just because I have not experienced it.... nor do I believe a closed mind conducive to receiving answers. For example...many of my friends would ask my opinion about re-incarnation but I didn't know so remained open about it.
In respect of this, one thing I have known to say is that I am predominantly a Pantheist... (& not a Pagan as many define me!) http://www.pantheism.net/ and http://www.pantheism.net/paul/
However. Something did happen about 6 months ago and I really need to articulate it into word and post it here. What happened to me was beyond the normal realms of reality and split my fairly safe ideological structures in pieces... so one could say I did have pre-conceptions of a sort. Basically, without going into too much detail... I was shown (completely out of the blue) that this isn't it! This life we know is not the be-end-and-end-all and yes, there was a conscious knowing of self in this spirit world due to an ability to tap into this earthly one if one wanted because of our life-experience we have been given. Other than that we were consciously all.... I really must write it up! So this experience changed my direction somewhat although I am still trying to scramble onto my feet and discover where I should be applying my energies... I had been so political... so motivated by freedom of suffering and lies... I think we are meant to turn now and be freedom and truth but how? I am yet crawling.
So I will leave that with you, write up part III of the Bear and I and look forward to hearing from you more, my friend!
Sorry about my writing too much!
Love Light and Freedom
Imajicka
The Cosmos is divine,
all share divinity.
Divinity does not transcend reality
It surrounds us, and is within. ...Divinity is immanent.
Robb Miller
"Faith in wilderness, or in nature as a creative force... is a philosophy, a faith; it is even, if you like, a religion. It puts your ultimate trust not in human intelligence, but in whatever it is that created human intelligence."
Joseph Wood Krutch
25 September 2005 at 10:50 PM