I realized this morning in
contemplation-reverie that I have brought a peculiar bias to this
endeavor, one that is uncommon, and, I now realize, is in its own way
unrealistic! I have sought to establish a line of philosophical
coordination, of “tightness,” that I viewed as responding to and
resolving a number of problems in this endeavor. This is in turn has
been based on my appreciation for Whitehead’s and Hartshorne’s “process
philosophy” approach. However, this desire, I now realize, may have a
number of psycho-emotional dis-advantages, which may explain why it
hasn’t been more successful.
For the great majority of people involved in this endeavor, I think the
goal has been the establishment of a workable faith process, and that
this is a process that involves a number of
less-than-completely-rational elements. This is okay, perhaps even
necessary, because life is so complex that rational solutions to most
existential dilemmas simply do not exist. There is no way of rationally
“working through” such predicaments as the death-loss of a loved one,
for example. There are too many non-rational aspects, themes that are
best responded to not by thinking through or talking through
(rationally), but through art, music, poetry, story-telling, ritual,
dance, and plunging in to other aspects of living. The prospect of
one’s own mortality is similarly un-resolvable. Whatever intellectual
formulation may be used, there are clearly a number of emotional
variables that predominate and need to find their own subtle resolution.
A major dynamic in this regard is simply the quantitative filling of
life with compensatory images, ideas, and experiences. These are not
logical equivalents—that’s where rationality fails—but they do the job.
In this sense, if I can create a faith process (emphasize the process
element), I may successfully heighten and give added weight to certain
symbols, ideas, images, rituals, and other elements that in their
aggregate satisfy my unique make-up (i.e., literally thousands of
variables involving personal background, interests, abilities,
temperament). (Link to a paper that discusses what I call "
aggregate experiences.")
In other words, to cite the lyrics of a popular song from the 1940s by
Johnny Mercer, “You got to ack-centuate the positive, ee-liminate the
negative, latch on to the affirmative and don’t mess with Mister
In-Between.”
A "Tighter" Philosophy?
My preference for process philosophy is that it resolves a number of
issues I see prevalent in the areas of religion. What occurred to me is
that these rational resolutions are intellectual props that facilitate
my own faith process, but that are not really needed by many others.
Indeed, their sharpened critique undercut certain complexes of symbols
and faith that arise from more chthonic roots. (A friend used that
word, “chthonic,” and I had to run to the dictionary: It refers to our
groundedness in our roots, our psycho-emotional foundation in smells,
sounds, feelings of bonding and allegiance, place, image, and so forth.)
For example, the image of salvation has always seemed problematic.
First, it just was not an element in my Jewish background. We weren’t
condemned to hell, so didn’t need to be saved. However, on reflection,
I opened my mind to the symbolic healing experience of communion, of
the sacrifice of Christ, as a personal image-symbol of the reaching
into life of a benign, giving force. That I can imagine, and indeed, do
imagine—and in my own case, it is far from entirely rational. I imagine
angelic forces helping me out—it was a playful myth I began to imagine
a decade ago and it continues to become more vivid for me. The basic
function operates beyond reason and expresses that faith-ing process I
speak of.
There have been other residues of the old traditional theologies that I
think can slip into misleading complexes of ideas and personal and
political attitudes. Yet I have met too many others who enjoy being
half-in and half-out of those religious traditions and don’t seem to be
discomfited by this syncretistic activity. They pick what works, what
lifts them, what seems most expressive of community values, ethics,
celebrations of the cosmos. Each person’s blend is different because
that blend expresses the equally unique blending of elements in the
person’s unique make-up of qualities.
My previous preference for more rational discussion has thus softened a
bit, because I see it now as an expression of my own symbol-system (one
which includes a measure of elegant rationality, but is not dominated
by it). Others can’t buy into it completely because it’s too grounded
in other elements in my makeup, such as my enjoyment of the images of
science as part of spirituality. For others without that particular
combination, my own philosophy at best can be informative: Folks might
find this or that idea of mine adds to their own construction as an
ornament or even perhaps one of the supporting elements, and I in turn
can open to enjoying and continuing to build into my own developing
relationship with the Greater Wholeness images and ideas of others.
Whaddaya think? (Hee hee.) Please feel free to email me at
adam@blatner.com