On Language and Transcendence
This is just a quick post, but is a snapshot of a massive thought I've been pushing into.
I've talked a lot lately about love - the kind of love that Jesus described when he said "Love your neighbor as yourself." I often say that it means caring for another person the same way that you care for yourself. I say that it's the foundational virtue, that it's the greatest commandment, that God is love.
I'm always thinking of new ways to describe it because I build understanding through description. The other day I was describing what I meant by love and found myself using the term "transcendent." Love, I said, is transcendent; its goal is for someone to transcend himself so as to see himself and others in their natural equality. And having said it, I was a little taken aback at how 'eastern' I sounded.
Transcending the self is of prime importance in Hindu and Buddhist traditions. In my understanding, "Nirvana" can be passably defined as transcending the self. And here I was describing Jesus' teachings in the same terms, and being very impressed by well how those terms embraced his message.
In fact, my current favorite description of love is: the transcendent virtue. To love is to act upon the observation that those around you deserve your care as much as you do. Love is transcendence.
If transcendence, the means and ends of much eastern religion, is so similar to love, the means and ends of much western religion, I wonder how many other similarities we aren't seeing. I wonder how many of our differences, which we feel must be solved through persuasion and debate (or worse), could be aptly overcome by a good translator.
posted by James at 23:48
17 Comments:
We must remember that Yahweh called out an "eastern" people. Jesus was a Nazarene who compassionately and committedly extended his love to his "eastern" neighors. Christianity is seemingly, based on all honest observation, an "eastern" religion. I know modern historians would classify this view of Ultimate Reality otherwise. However, the essence in which Christ, The Word, has called his Disciples to embrace and embody inevitably requires a Transcendence of normative categories of eastern and western thoughts.
It is what it is...TRUTH. It is the Truth that Frees a person from the suffering of world (buddhism), it is the Truth that ends cycles of constant humanly effort to forego another round of life (hinduism), it is the Truth that makes Community of saints finally one without separatism (Islam)...Truth gives Breath, Liberates and Unifies. This is Transcendental.
James, I am loving these thoughts.
A gospel of transcendent truth, transcendent Jesus, deeply resonates with my heart.
http://www.aradhnamusic.com/music/index.html
This band is to music what you're quick post is to blogging.
Nicole - very interesting post! I've never thought of Christianity as an Eastern religion. I have drawn the parallels between Buddhisms emergence from Hinduism and Christianity's emergence from Judaism - rather striking really: Community-based, generational religions giving way to individualized, transcendence-based religions (though whether Christianity in its purest form is individualized would be up for debate :)
Yohan, beautiful music! Thanks for sharing. Are you in Kampala right now? I'm coming in Sept. I would love to see you!
James,
My friend, interesting post. As you would probably guess, I am a little skeptical. But then again, that is what I am trained to be. Anyway, the idea of transcendence also has a long Western history. In fact, much of the Western philosophical tradition is one that deals with this notion of transcendence. You see this very clearly in Plato (some would say the father of the western tradition) and his notion of the forms. You also see it in Augustine, Aquinas, some natural law thinkers, Kant, and many others. It is only recently that the notion of transcendence has been questioned. I think we have talked a little about this before. Anyway, Hegel really got the ball rolling here and then Nietzsche blew the doors of the house (at least for some). Recent thinkers have really challenge the idea that one could ever get beyond themselves. They asked how it is possible for one to transcend themselves, to rise above their own "impure" thoughts, passions, and desires, to access a realm of metaphysical absolutes and normative Truths. It is really a question of epistemology.
Lastly, I wonder if you might elaborate on your last paragraph a little. I am curious why love is "to act upon the observation that those around you deserve your care as much as you do." I certainly like this description, but am not sure why this is love and not something else (e.g. like a belief that has a long and distinct genealogy that can be traced to contingent and contested origins). Finally, who is that translator and how much does he or she cost? It seems that with out the ability to access that translator, the only thing that is transcendent is misunderstanding and difference. But then transcendence seems to be a bit empty.
Just some long winded thoughts. Looking forwarded to hearing from you.
James!
As I trudge through these questions myself, it's so wonderful and refreshing to read insight so poignantly phrased.
I really like the idea that love is transcendence. Because "transcending" also connotes "freeness" and true love is free--free of judgment, free of expectation, free from conditions. I also like how you used love as a verb. Because I think sometimes we forget that in order to love, we need to act. When Jesus gives his "love your enemies" spiel, he follows love with "do good," "pray for" "bless those" and "GIVE." I think sometimes, in order to free ourselves from accountability, we view love in terms of the negatives (particularly when we're dealing with someone who makes it hard to love him/her)-- "don't do harm," "don't judge," "don't be angry." These actions, however, are not love, they're just tolerance.
You write "to love is to act upon the observation that those around you deserve your care as much as you do." And I agree with that and I think it can go even deeper. I think that love is the deep understanding of suffering. And that understanding- that suffering exists and is universal- allows us to see the interconnectedness between man. And once that interconnectedness is understood, once we understand that we are inextricably linked and inherently the same (and perhaps this sameness can stem from Bryan's suggestion that love might be a belief in genealogy, e.g.), love is free to flow.
Suffering-and therefore love- is the basis of religion. Buddhism's 4 noble truths rest on the fact that suffering exists and in order to free ourselves from suffering we must free ourselves from desire. And where does all suffering stem from, where do all our desires stem from? I would argue that all of our suffering stems from the desire to be loved.
And in terms of Christianity, how did Jesus show his love for us? By suffering on the cross. And where does so much of people's love for Jesus stem from? through this act of suffering. It's all so circular.
I won't bore you with my thoughts on the issue of needing a translator and the sameness of all religions... but I will touch on Bryan's suggestion that the only thing transcendent is misunderstanding and difference. I think that while misunderstanding and difference surely exist, I don't think it's transcendent. Misunderstanding and difference stem from the desire to be loved "most" (whether by God or whoever) and in people's desperate attempt to be loved, they think they must hold the "truth." Therefore, though this creates difference and misunderstanding, love and it's freeness from righteousness and entitlements, will still transcend this difference. Does that make any sense?
I hope James doesn't mind if all of his fans comment on each others comments. In fact, I am quite confident that he loves our discussions. Anyway, I wanted to say that Kerry left a very thoughtful post. I especially liked how she picked up on James' emphasis on action. Thoughts without action are just dreams. However, I feel like her concluding comment demonstrates the difficulty of utilizing a concept like "transcendence" rather than the opposite. Kerry argues misunderstanding and difference are not transcendent because love is the only thing that can rise above and transcend those differences. While I agree that misunderstanding and difference are not transcendent (I don't believe any of us have the epistemological ability to know if something is transcendent), the fact that we disagreed over this concept itself demonstrates the paradox. The fact of matter is that sometimes people just have intractable disagreements and misunderstandings that are beyond translation. For instance, I doubt, though I welcome the discussion, that you could convince me that love is transcendent. The question I struggle with is what do we do after this realization? What happens when my understanding of love does not transcend cultural differences? How far does one go promote or defend their ideas about love, values, or religion?
Wow, I must say that I feel thoroughly over-matched. Nicole on theology, Bryan on philosophy, and Kerry on spiritual synthesis.
That's what I get for being a generalist and writing about, well, anything at all! I love all the ideas and how they sharpen me.
Bryan, I think I've thoroughly proven that I can in no way keep up with you on the ideas of important philosophers. So I won't try to speak to their ideas on transcendence. I will, though, share a question I've had about philosophy. That is: Is philosophy progressive? As you follow philosophers' ideas through time (as you do in your comment), are they getting closer to something? Are they getting more right? I suppose this is one of the questions of postmodernism.
To the question of whether transcending the self is possible - I would refer you to Buddhists who have done it, or claim to have. To say something is impossible, as it sounds like Nietzsche did, is of course to say that no one can do it. And to say that someone has done it is of course to say that it is not impossible. A good question to ask might be: Who better understands the possibility of transcendence, Nietzsche (and his successors), or someone who has spent a lifetime striving for transcendence?
Also, to clarify terms, I'm not speaking of transcendence as a permanent state, necessarily, but as an accessible state, something that humans can step into for a time. So in terms of the possibility of transcendence, the question is: Can someone transcend himself for a moment? Loads of anecdotal evidence support an affirmative answer to this. I can't say that I've personally experienced a fully transcendent state, but I believe I've at times cultivated something nearer to it than my usual state.
When I define love, I suppose I am doing two things. I am drawing understanding from the teachings of historical people that I admire, and I am making a judgment about those teachings. The foundation of my definition can be found primarily in the teachings of Jesus and Gandhi, both of whom taught a radical equality. My term I take from Jesus, when he sums up much of his ethical teaching in the phrase "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I make a judgment in accepting the ethical teachings of these men as right or good and using the term love to describe them. Unlike philosophers, who must rely on strict, widely accepted definitions in order to effectively communicate such intricate thoughts, I rely on the fluidity and organic nature of language in order to affect the way that people communicate with each other and themselves. In this sense love is a rather dangerous term to use, as it has so many concurrent definitions. Which is why I allude to a certain 'type' of love - the type that Jesus was talking about...etc.
The translators are beginning to emerge on the religious front as (and here I quote you) so many truth claims find themselves in proximity and competition with one another. Karen Armstrong comes to mind, and Thich Nhat Hanh. The Dalai Lama to some extent, even Barack Obama in his way. I don't think that translators are the limiting factor - I think it is the number of people who believe it is a translation problem. And even I only go so far as to wonder whether translation is the problem.
Well, now that I've thoroughly opened myself for more philosophical hole-poking, I'll move on.
Kerry, I'll start with a tangent :) Your discussion of love and suffering reminded me of the passage in Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet where he writes: "The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain." I know it doesn't really pertain, but I like it anyway.
On to your comment. I really appreciate your linking of suffering to love. It seems to me that, taking your point down to its basic idea, you are saying that suffering is the great commonality among mankind and so is the basis of the profound equality that transcendence observes. I can definitely see your point.
I have thought about it differently: that the basis of our equality is not suffering but, well, existence. I would say our createdness, our link to the divine gives us our equality (and I would understand those who would leave God out of it and just stick with existence). And that equality, totally innate, distinct from suffering, and positive in its connection to God, is the basis of love. It is the understanding of this equality above our individual desires that defines love.
What I realized, though, as I read your comment, is that I believe that suffering is what activates that love. As I said earlier, to love is to act upon the understanding that those around you deserve your care as much as you do. The time when that action is necessary is when we witness or understand the suffering of one of these people. So if, as you suggest, we understand that all people are suffering, then by virtue of our love we must act on behalf of all people.
So although I wouldn't go so far as to say that love and suffering are synonymous, but I would consider them intricately linked, the one being fueled by the other.
You say that "all of our suffering stems from the desire to be loved." That is a bold claim! I think there is suffering that stems from a desire for bread when there is no bread. There is suffering also that stems from violence. And suffering that comes from empathy with the suffering of another. So I'm not sure that all suffering can be tied back to the desire to be loved. However, I believe that the desire to be loved is very real and very powerful. And I admire your insight that much misunderstanding and difference comes from the desire to be loved most (which, incidentally, is a denial of innate equality and therefore, by our running definition, an offense against love).
Well, with that circular train of thought I've hit my limit of deep ponderings for the night. I'd love to continue these conversations later!
xI must say that I love this conversation and am glad that everyone is chiming in. James, you should not degrade your philosophical thoughts. You are quite the critical thinker.
Besides, when you do this, you give philosophy way too much credit. Now an answer for your question about the progressive nature of philosophy. This question has been taken up by a lot of thinkers. The idea of a progressive "convergence" upon Truths or a "teleological" unraveling toward some end state have had their popular moments and still have a number of supporters in philosophy departments. But, they are mostly outnumbered by those who would put themselves in the "critical tradition".
These thinkers would seize on your follow-up question when you ask, "are these thinkers getting it more right?" The problem with this question is that their are so many understandings of what "right" is, both throughout history and across cultures. For instance, you can take the notion of transcendence you have offered and compare that to the rest of the Western tradition and find that most philosophers would disagree with your notion. Are you any-less correct than these thinkers? I do not think so.
So, who is right? Is transcendence possible? I do not think anyone of us earthly beings has any idea. Even you demonstrate some skepticism in your comments. I've merely wanted to point out here the difficultly of knowing the answer to this question. Notice that I have never said that transcendence is impossible, or that their are no such things as eternal truths. I have only wanted to demonstrate that people do not have any privileged authority from which they can state things with absolute certainty. Here, your comment about Buddhists transcending the self, where you say "at least they claim they have," is rather telling. This comment points to our difficultly.
Let me be clear, I am not saying that we should not believe the Buddhists. Maybe we should or maybe we should not. I am only saying that our reasons for deciding one way or the other are not beyond us. In other words, their is no way to prove beyond certainty one way or the other. At some point, we just have to make irrational commitments to beliefs.
Lastly, your defense of your definition of love and transcendence are perfectly valid. Again, who would I be to presume that your Christian ethic is false. That would be to presume some absolute authority over truth that I do not have. However, this does not have to stop me from disagreeing b/c any commitment to a belief is imperfect.
We only have human tools to navigate this earth. The question is how can we convince others to use them in ways suitable to both our and their beliefs.
1 Corinthians 1:18-21 says:
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[a]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
***
John 15:13
13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
-Syble
This last comment/quote, which is clearly directed at me, is saddening. I thought we were simply having an open and respectful conversation with each other. But, apparently, I have been damned to "perish." Syble, I hope that you recognize that nothing about what I have said takes away from God. It takes away from us, but not from God. Lastly, I do not see how simply quoting scripture moves us any closer to understanding or common ground. I respect and value your participation but do not see how this helps discourse.
I'm genuinely sorry, Bryan. I didn't intend to direct the scriptures at you or anyone else specifically. I just wanted to throw them out there for consideration. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Syble
Bryan, funny, because I assumed that last comment was directed at me, or all of us.
It is interesting how clearly it crystallizes your point about pluralism, though. My question is: Is that comment really saddening? Syble was simply making a truth claim - stating her belief in the most pure form possible, letting the scripture from which she draws her belief speak for itself. She was not belligerent or nagging about it, she just made a truth claim.
You wonder how that brings us closer to common ground, but of course in her paradigm common ground is not the goal, holy ground is. She wants to move us to holy ground because she strongly believes that it is best for us. Is that not just as viable a truth claim as your emphasis on understanding?
This is one of the difficulties of pluralism, that it hesitates to accept anything that doesn't accept pluralism.
More later. I'm trying to dive into your ideas about pluralistic understanding more. I think it's an important conversation.
No problem Syble. I am sorry if I took it out of context.
James, the saddening part was that I, in an apparent mistake, took it as a shot against me. I've been quite boisterous in these comments and have made a number of them that reflect my philosophical roots. The scripture, at least to me (good ol pluralism again here), reads as a bit of an attack on those who take stock in worldly knowledge. Basically, I interpreted this quote as a strike against me. Perhaps it was meant to characterize the general tone of these conversations though, and if so, I apologize and retract my comments.
James, I have no problem with someone positing a truth claim. I am not a relativist. I hold as many beliefs as the next person. One of them is a belief in pluralism. A Belief! This means that it is subject to the same difficulties that your beliefs are. This is that essential antagonism that I have been trying to point to. I don't claim to be free from this problem but rather deeply engaged in trying to shape it and manipulate it.
I am very much interested in what Syble has to say (though don't feel obliged Syble). This is a very interesting piece of scripture that can have numerous interpretative readings. Part of my original frustration with just quoting scripture is that I can only draw my own conclusions. I want Syble to try and mold my opinions by pointing out something that I would not have caught or read differently. The scripture alone feels more like a conversation stopper than an inducer in this regard.
James, the scripture obviously did not speak well "for itself" because I drew totally wrong conclusions from it. And, though I do not personally know Syble, I would venture to say that she probably does seek some sort of common ground. Only this is a common ground that has the Christian ethic as its foundation. This common ground has strong limits and borders though, just like my pluralism.
I am interested in getting to know these borders if you and others can help me.
Bryan, no worries, and thanks for being so kind. James and Bryan, you guys have been blessed with really great minds. I agree that Cor. 1:18-21 seems like a conversation stopper. I guess that’s the point of those kinds of scriptures, though. To surrender to God is to be willing to “stop the conversation” and admit God’s sovereignty. The scriptures say he requires this intellectual submission of those who would enter into a relationship with him. Once in, the conversation resumes, only you begin to wrestle with the Living God rather than human ideas.
In regard to our common ground, it’s found in Romans 3:10-18:
10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."[c]
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."[d]
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."[e]
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[f]
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."[g]
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[h]
I wish I had more time, but my three-year-old needs me to manufacture a Ninja Turtle sword belt using packing tape. Before I run… another thing worth thinking about is this quote by C.S. Lewis: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
Fantastic comment Syble. Really well said (especially the use of "sovereignty"). I can begin to see now where conversation stops and where it begins. My only question would be: How do YOU know that this piece of scripture is asking for one to submit to God's Sovereignty? Can this scripture be interpreted otherwise?
Hey Bryan. That's a good question. If you're to go from the state of "perishing" (a mocker of the cross), to the state of "being saved" (believing the cross is the power of God), you have to be willing to embrace what you believe to be foolishness, and admit that you've been wrong(submit). 1 Cor. 1:18-21 is one of many pointing to God's requirement for intellectual submission. I pasted a few supportive scriptures for your analysis if you're interested.
1 pet. 5: 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
1 Corinthians 3:19-25 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: He catches the wise in their craftiness; 20 and again, The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.
1 Cor. 2: 6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him— 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2
1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
Post a Comment
<< Home