Broken Tools
June 24th, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: broken tools :: Broken Tools :: Broken Tools :: Broken Tools
Tags: religion
I’m glad you returned.
You might have noticed that some of the boys have
been bad-mouthing religion, once again
cataloguing the ridiculous and terrible things
people do with it, as if that had something to do
with it. Of course, what people do with it has
nothing to do with it. Presuming the mattering
of to-do-with-it reduces any idea to the
arbitrary doings of the mindless, the ultimate in
meaninglessness (except for the sociologists who
study these patterns of mindless doings as if
that’s all there is).”
Sam Harris’s “The End of Faith: Religion,
Terror, and the Future of Reason,” the ultimate
in
horrible-sins-committed-in-the-name-of-religion
catalogues brings Judaism, Christianity and Islam
almost even with one another in horrific catalog
entries. The case against religion is made: all
that’s left to do is to carry out the prophetic
indications drawn from this “history.” The book
ends thus:
” The days of our religious identities are
clearly numbered. Whether the days of
civilization itself are numbered would seem to
depend, rather too much, on how soon we realize
this.”
The academic as prophet! Pitiful. As if the
relationship between thinking and acting were
that simple, and on a mass scale no less!
Religion finds its true nature only in
philosophy, which knows enough to investigate
religion not in its particular effects, not in
its particular embodiments, but in its
being–religion as as such. Religion gives
itself to thinking as what it is, as how it is
what it is. And what thinking it has given! Here
Heidegger’s light shines brightest. Religion
should be known by the thinking it gives.
I think an essential dimension of its gift to
thinking is its mononomialism. Religion gives
itself to thinking as the One which becomes all,
the Name which contains within it all possible
names,
phenomenon par excellence: Plotinus, Augustine, Eckhart, Hegel, Heidegger.
Regards,
Allen
I have been heading towards one aspect of the
>Allen Anew: :The traditional interpretation, of
>course, is return to God, but the expression
>itself has, in this case, dropped “God” because
>obvious, thereby, perhaps inadvertently, but it
>doesn’t matter, leaving it open to
>interpretation.. Anyway, I think the basic “
>return to” is what’s essential here–the
>movement, the how. . .
>
>Tympan anew: Ultimately it is impossible to say,
>well, it’s a return to this or that thing that
>is called such and such or a name in general.
>The mind just goes silent and becomes unable to
>express whatever it is that one is experiencing
>which as soon as it comes to language is no
>longer that. But yet the proliferation of names
>shows how slippery the incomprehensible and
>utterly unknowable is.
>
>
>Allen anewnew: I’m very much attached to the
>notion of one man, one name. For me it’s YHWH
>(I use here the root “consonants” of the Name as
>we find it in the Torah, rather than Yahweh,
>because it’s the letters with which one comes to
>be on intimate terms. Not so with Allah or
>Jesus. Each of the names of God co-responds
>with a way of contemplation, as you might call
>it. Name-of-God-wise, I’m a heavily invested
>monotheist. That’s the only way it works, I
>think. Slippery and incomprehensible to
>comprehend or hold onto perhaps, but not to
>practice. And out of practice comes
>possibilities for thought, at least for me.
>Kabbalists like Abulafia and Isaac the Blind
>focus too hard on the name and its letters
>(There’s a relationship we could spend some time
>on!), but their writings give one “pause” to
>think on, enriching the moments of thoughtful
>intimacy with the letters and the aura they give
>off for those who think in relationship to them,
>that is in relationship the singular Thou.
>
>
>tympan: Sorry to take so long to respond was
>busy and took a break from communicating with
>just about everyone. One of the nice benefits of
>being a bachelor and enjoying one’s own company.
>
>The name of God that you point seems like it is
>one that leaves you tongue tied. I have a vague
>understanding of how the name and the letters
>are used in the Kabbala. My probably simplistic
>view is that the letters are sometimes used to
>improve concentration. A monotheist by
>definition is obssesed with cultivating a narrow
>focus so everything is geared towards staying on
>track and following the traces…. after all
>there is only God’s back in front of us no? I
>always get the sense of being left behind by the
>glory of the past and arriving very late in
>history and having to deal with missing the boat
>to the promised land.
>
>
>
> Tymp: I think today we would use
>the word “metonomy” to describe this
>displacement of the object of our desire rather
>than our needs or appetites? But yeah that is my
>mantra, the how… is it not a turning movement
>or conversion of the mind such that it is not
>governed by the appetites or need but it’s
>beautiful shiny object and goal up in the
>heavens?
>
>Allen anewnew: That’s part of the work of
>(consolation of) philosophy. I have trouble
>with “governed” in any version of the “how.”
>It’s not so much a choice you make ( maybe
>that’s not what you meant), but an altered mood
>in which you find yourself, after giving
>yourself over to the work, but, of course, not
>always.
>
>tympan: No not a choice ultimately but I do
>speak of effort that’s the Catholic in me. The
>Fathers of the church can be said to speak in
>terms of a dynamic back-and-forth play between
>human effort (choice) and grace (no choice but
>gift, surprise, etc.). Maybe the word governed
>is not always the choice word but there is a
>question of abandonment to what you called
>”work” just now and a Christian might think of
>as the “will of the Father”. This is the whole
>conversion experience where the salvation of the
>soul or mind is at stake and probably the
>purpose of conversing for some of us. The hard
>part it seems to me is separating our own
>intentions, vanity and pride for instance and
>the will of the Father. Often one can detect for
>example spiritual hubris or arrogance by simply
>paying attention when one is smiling and feeling
>good as one discusses spiritual matters. Often
>this smiling that only you can detect is a kind
>of smug sense of security and narcissistic
>comfort that simply is an expression of a proud
>mind and not a humble one. At this point it is
>enough to see the lack of humility and
>associated feeling and return to sobriety and
>seriousness which can in turn be a very subtle
>further expression of extreme hubris 
. It’s
>like you see yourself becoming a champion or
>spiritual hero and how silly the pursuit is at
>which point perhaps you start seeing the wisdom
>of being crazy.
>
>
>
>The appetites, on the other hand, come and go.
>How they come and go is between me and them.
>(Time to switch to the first person.) The
>stoics, beautiful as they are, apply philosophy
>too directly to the task, I think. But as with
>the Kabbalists, they do give one pause to think.
>And then there’s eros, especially in the
>Phaedrus. I delay figuring that one out because
>it’s too active, or perhaps I’m too re-active.
>I’ll let you know.
>
>
>tympan: the Phaedrus well that’s a sacred text
>on the very art of pausing of ruling over the
>unruly horse that wants to control the chariot.
>One could also follow through the how here by
>way of Aristotle and his commentators discussion
>of de anima. Without these there is no way of
>seeing how the how works to refine our thoughts
>and so save the soul and get closer to the holy
>of holies and so on.
>
>
>regards,
>tympan
>
>Regards,
>
>Allen
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Find out more about Canadas Real Estate Outlook
>in Sympatico / MSNs Spring Lending Features
>http://spring.finance.sympatico.msn.ca/
>
>_______________________________________________
>heidegger mailing list
>heidegger@soca.ecu.edu.au
>http://www.soca.ecu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/heidegger
>http://heidegger.an-archos.com/
