 |
| "Read all about it!" |
And after all, who is more good? Somebody who believes that by being good they will be rewarded in heaven, and escape hell-fire; or somebody who seeks no personal reward, nor punishment, yet is good simply for goodness' sake?
EPOCHS AND ZEITGEISTS
where are we now?
The Good Life
That, we are social beings. That much at least is self-evident!
And given that we are social beings this carries by its nature certain needs, responsibilities and obligations.
To this fact can be added a religious context.
Yet, just as easily a secular one!
Moreover, as pointed out above, a really good life lived out in a secular context with no thought of any heavenly reward in return, could be more pure, less self-seeking than its religiously-motivated counterpart.
This last point is indeed the very question at the heart of T.S.Eliot's Murder in The Cathedral.
A work that explores the questions of conscience, of motive and deed. The looking-glass of profoundest motive and intent.
The storyline is Christian and historical, of King and arch-priest.
Yet within this framework, Eliot employs a moral cosmos first given voice in the ancient Indian subcontinent.
Murder in The Cathedral.
And given that we are social beings this carries by its nature certain needs, responsibilities and obligations.
To this fact can be added a religious context.
Yet, just as easily a secular one!
Moreover, as pointed out above, a really good life lived out in a secular context with no thought of any heavenly reward in return, could be more pure, less self-seeking than its religiously-motivated counterpart.
This last point is indeed the very question at the heart of T.S.Eliot's Murder in The Cathedral.
A work that explores the questions of conscience, of motive and deed. The looking-glass of profoundest motive and intent.
The storyline is Christian and historical, of King and arch-priest.
Yet within this framework, Eliot employs a moral cosmos first given voice in the ancient Indian subcontinent.
Murder in The Cathedral.
Rage! A Character Arc
link
Finally, to repeat the opening statement 'to look at one's self honestly in the mirror'. A key term there is 'honestly'. And this is: relative - to values.
Surely notorious figures such as Stalin and Hitler would be proud of what they see in the mirror?
Even though we may judge, or set value on their handiwork as evil.
Yet surely at the same time they would be proud of their 'achievements' - of how much power they could wield; of how very high above the ramble they stood.
Less extreme may be an ordinary person's response when feeling guilty that they'd been false, or else done wrong to somebody else. Yet are we now led to a question of - depth?
link
Two Extremes
Finally, to repeat the opening statement 'to look at one's self honestly in the mirror'. A key term there is 'honestly'. And this is: relative - to values.
Surely notorious figures such as Stalin and Hitler would be proud of what they see in the mirror?
Even though we may judge, or set value on their handiwork as evil.
Yet surely at the same time they would be proud of their 'achievements' - of how much power they could wield; of how very high above the ramble they stood.
Less extreme may be an ordinary person's response when feeling guilty that they'd been false, or else done wrong to somebody else. Yet are we now led to a question of - depth?
Facing your own self in the window of your soul. This can take on a neurotic or corrupted form.*
Crippled by guilt complexes for example. Not measuring or judging one's self by highest potential; but rather by false, unrealistic or delusional standards. Being wrong no matter how much you do right, for example.
Crippled by guilt complexes for example. Not measuring or judging one's self by highest potential; but rather by false, unrealistic or delusional standards. Being wrong no matter how much you do right, for example.
*
Addendum
Phineas Quimby's 'The Secret' and the question of values? The records and testimonies regarding this extraordinary man indicate he cured his own self from an incurable disease through a process of changing his consciousness at its deepest roots. He went on to be a great healer by extending this gift to countless thousands of other sufferers.
All we know now about the significance of his work is: his successes; a rudimental biography; some hints and signposts about how his 'gift' developed and progressed; and certain principles or 'laws' later to be articulated and codified - by some of those followers who had been healed by him, alongside others - as The Law of Attraction. This progress and development occurred through 'A movement of the written word', known also as 'New Thought'.
In conception and development therefore an essentially Nineteenth system of beliefs. Yet one which recently gained a new leash of life. When innovatively promoted and marketed for the new Millennium: enticingly repackaged as The Secret.
An attraction of this 'wisdom of the ages' however is - that's it not. This is a new idea! Which, in my book, makes it that much more extraordinary and interesting. It suggests that there could be a real and profound phenomenon that's been brought to our attention here?
To wash away its distinctiveness beneath a welter of tenacious historical associations and over-glib cliche, leads nowhere except platitudes of feel-good drivel.
In contrast to a philosophical Materialism paradigm, The Law of Attraction conforms more to that of philosophical Idealism. In other words, where mind not matter is more primary!
footnote
In the field of Science a Materialism paradigm was in the ascendent during the Nineteenth Century. However since the quantum revolution, an Idealism paradigm seems to suit much better evidence subsequently collected from the cutting edge of science. Both in 'the world of ideas' and also in the Arts, the great Idealism vs Materialism debate rumbled on throughout that pivotal old century. Although taking different forms, it persisted later in the century with regards to the USA then it did for Europe. In Europe a key move was that Marx 'turned Hegel upside on his head'. Hegel, having been the last major figure in a tradition of German Idealism, began by Kant, was very popular in Marx's youth. Europe embraced Materialism and a metaphysics based on systemized 'political' interpretations of power-relationships; dignified in the name of 'science' and modeled on the achievement of Darwin's 'system' amongst others. This paradigm was more in tune with the average person's experience during a period of rapid and unprecedented chance in the very nature of their material circumstances, during the transition from rural to urban living; accompanied as that was also with wider and wider enfranchisement of all into the democratic process, with a voice in choosing a democratically elected government; whereas previously only a privileged elite had held such power of self-determination. rough draft
All we know now about the significance of his work is: his successes; a rudimental biography; some hints and signposts about how his 'gift' developed and progressed; and certain principles or 'laws' later to be articulated and codified - by some of those followers who had been healed by him, alongside others - as The Law of Attraction. This progress and development occurred through 'A movement of the written word', known also as 'New Thought'.
In conception and development therefore an essentially Nineteenth system of beliefs. Yet one which recently gained a new leash of life. When innovatively promoted and marketed for the new Millennium: enticingly repackaged as The Secret.
An attraction of this 'wisdom of the ages' however is - that's it not. This is a new idea! Which, in my book, makes it that much more extraordinary and interesting. It suggests that there could be a real and profound phenomenon that's been brought to our attention here?
To wash away its distinctiveness beneath a welter of tenacious historical associations and over-glib cliche, leads nowhere except platitudes of feel-good drivel.
In contrast to a philosophical Materialism paradigm, The Law of Attraction conforms more to that of philosophical Idealism. In other words, where mind not matter is more primary!
In the field of Science a Materialism paradigm was in the ascendent during the Nineteenth Century. However since the quantum revolution, an Idealism paradigm seems to suit much better evidence subsequently collected from the cutting edge of science. Both in 'the world of ideas' and also in the Arts, the great Idealism vs Materialism debate rumbled on throughout that pivotal old century. Although taking different forms, it persisted later in the century with regards to the USA then it did for Europe. In Europe a key move was that Marx 'turned Hegel upside on his head'. Hegel, having been the last major figure in a tradition of German Idealism, began by Kant, was very popular in Marx's youth. Europe embraced Materialism and a metaphysics based on systemized 'political' interpretations of power-relationships; dignified in the name of 'science' and modeled on the achievement of Darwin's 'system' amongst others. This paradigm was more in tune with the average person's experience during a period of rapid and unprecedented chance in the very nature of their material circumstances, during the transition from rural to urban living; accompanied as that was also with wider and wider enfranchisement of all into the democratic process, with a voice in choosing a democratically elected government; whereas previously only a privileged elite had held such power of self-determination. rough draft
