A Guide to The Numinous Way is a collection of essays of mine, in a pdf format, compiled by JR Wright, and dealing with my philosophy of The Numinous Way.
The pdf file (of c. 571 Kb) can be download here:
A Guide to The Numinous Way
(Revised April 2011)
As JRW writes in her Introduction:
This collection of essays by David Myatt is a companion volume to the compilation Corpus Numinosum, which was a selection of Myatt’s more academically inclined writings concerning his Philosophy of The Numen, and many of which writings used technical terms, often deriving from Pre-Socratic philosophy, and included copious quotations in Ancient Greek.
In contrast, the essays included here – with the possible exception of On The Nature of Abstractions - are rather more accessible, and therefore this collection may serve as a more general introduction to Myatt’s Esoteric Philosophy of The Numinous Way. An Appendix contains a dialogue by Myatt on the nature of Culture, and my own essay summarizing Myatt’s esoteric philosophy.
Contents
Overview of The Numinous Way of Life
Life and The Nature of the Acausal
A Numinous View of Religion, Politics, and The State
The Numinous Way and Buddhism
Living The Numinous Way
The Cultivation of Empathy
The Social, Personal and Family Values of The Numinous Way
Homo Hubris and the Disruption of The Numinous
On The Nature of Abstractions
Appendix
I – The Numinous Foundations of Human Culture
II – The Numinous Way of David Myatt
The aim of The Numinous Way Foundation is to publish and make known the philosophy of The Numinous Way and to encourage the study and practice of its principles of empathy, compassion, and personal honour.
The Numinous Way is a philosophy, in the Western tradition, originally devised by David Myatt. This new mystical Way (also known as The Philosophy of The Numen) is now independent of Myatt, who wrote:
” As for The Numinous Way, I do now incline toward the view that this ethical Way of Life, which I have developed, is now independent of me, a complete philosophy of life, and can and should be judged as all such Ways, all such philosophies are judged, on their merits or their lack of them, independent of the life, and wanderings and mistakes, of those individuals who may have brought such Ways into being, or rather, who have presenced something of the numinous in the causal, just as the life of an artist, while it may or may not be interesting, does not or should not detract from or colour an artistic, aesthetic, judgement of his, or her, works of art…”
Empathy, Compassion and Honour
The Numinous Way is a particular way of individual living; that is, it is a Way of Life, which individuals can choose to follow. The basis, the foundation, of The Numinous Way is the belief that we, as individual human beings, are a connexion to all other life, on this planet which is currently our home, and a connexion to the Cosmos itself. Thus, we are a connexion to – connected with – Nature. We are or we can be aware of this connexion through the faculty of empathy.
An awareness of this connexion, and the cultivation of our latent faculty of empathy with living beings, disposes us toward compassion and toward acting in accord with personal honour. Thus empathy disposes us to be compassionately aware of others, of the suffering of all living beings, and particularly aware of the reality that human beings are unique individuals who, like ourselves, can suffer pain, sadness, and experience joy and love. Personal honour directs us to treat people with manners, and respect, and as we ourselves would like to be treated. That is, personal honour disposes us toward both dignity and fairness, and, in a quite simple way, honour is a practical manifestation of empathy: of how we can relate to other people, and other life, in an empathic and compassionate way.
From compassion arises the desire to cease to cause suffering, the desire to alleviate suffering – and honour is one ethical way by which, and how, we can do this, for honour disposes us to restrain ourselves and so do the right, the moral, the empathic, thing. Thus, compassion and honour are how we can develope, and extend, our innate – but often underused or ignored – human faculty of empathy.
Empathy is thus, for The Numinous Way, the source of ethics, for what is good is considered to be that which manifests empathy and compassion and honour, and thus what alleviates, or what ceases to cause, suffering: for ourselves, for other human beings, and for the other life with which we share this planet. Hence, what is unethical, or wrong, is what causes or what contributes to or which continues such suffering.
Essentially, The Numinous Way places our own lives, as individuals, into a particular context: that of Nature, of all Life, and of the Cosmos beyond the life which is Nature, and it provides practical guidelines – a code of ethics – to enable us to strive to live our own lives in an empathic, compassionate, and thus honourable, way.
The Numinous
Empathy also makes us aware, or can – by its development – make us aware, of the numinous: that is, of those things which do or which can or which have presenced (“manifested”) the beauty, the joy, the awe, the “sacredness” – the goodness – felt in those moments when we are transported beyond ourselves and become aware of the connexion between all life, and of the underlying unity beyond us, and of the potential we as individuals and as human beings possess to be a source of joy, positive change, and of love.
In a simple sense, the numinous places our own personal lives in a larger context: that of other human beings; that of the other life with which we share this planet; and that of the very Cosmos itself, with its billions upon billions of stars and billions upon billions of Galaxies, some of which stars and some of which Galaxies may well have life-bearing planets of their own.
What is numinous is that which predisposes us to change ourselves in an ethical way; that which reminds us of our mortality – of life, existence, beyond us; that which manifests the essence of Life itself, and that which re-presents to us what we feel is beautiful and good.
Empathy itself expresses – or can express – the numinous, and what is of particular importance about empathy is that it is only and ever personal. That is, empathy – like the numinous – only lives and thrives within an individual living being; it cannot be abstracted out of a living, individual, being.
A Reformation and Evolution of Ourselves:
One of the basic principles of The Numinous Way is that we human beings possess the ability to change ourselves. That is, we possess the faculty to consciously change our behaviour, our attitudes, our way of living. Thus, we are much more than just animals who possess the faculty of speech and the ability of conscious, rational, thought, for we have the faculty of will which enables us to restrain and control ourselves. However, like the faculty of empathy, our faculty of will – the faculty of reformation and evolution of ourselves – is often underused or ignored.
How can we develope this faculty? How can we reform ourselves and so evolve? The answer of The Numinous Way is that this is possible through compassion, empathy, gentleness, reason, and honour: through that gentle letting-be which is the real beginning of wisdom and a manifestation of our humanity. To presence, to be, what is good in the world, we need to change ourselves, through developing empathy and compassion, through letting-be; that is, ceasing to interfere, ceasing to view others (and “the world”) through the immorality of abstractions, and ceasing to strive to change or get involved with what goes beyond the limits determined by personal honour. For honour is only ever personal – and relates to that which affects us, as individuals, and those near to us, such as our family, or those with whom we come into contact on a personal basis. For personal honour can never be abstracted away from the immediacy of the moment – out from a living personal interaction between individuals.
The Immorality of Abstractions
Empathy leads us away from the artificial, lifeless and thus un-numinous abstractions we have constructed and manufactured and which we impose, or project, upon other human beings, upon other life, and upon ourselves, often in an attempt to “understand” such beings and ourselves. And it is abstractions which are or which can be the genesis of prejudice, intolerance, and inhumanity. In addition, abstractions are one of the main causes of suffering: one of the main reasons we human beings have caused or contributed to the suffering of other human beings.
Abstraction (or abstractionism) – as understood by The Numinous Way – is the manufacture, and use of, some idea, ideal, “image” or category, and thus some generalization, and/or some assignment of an individual or individuals to some group or category. The positing of some “perfect” or “ideal” form, category, or thing, is part of abstraction.
According to The Numinous Way, it is immoral to apply such abstractions to what is living. Why? Because such abstractions usurp or limit or constrain our own individual judgement, which individual judgement – to be ethical – should and must be based upon empathy, that is, upon a direct and personal knowing of other individuals. All abstractions distort or destroy our correct, and of necessity our individual, perception of other human beings.
Abstractions – be they classified as political or religious or social – either predispose us to judge according to what someone else has devised or theorised, or they already contain, within themselves or within some theory or schema or model or “archetype” associated with them, a pre-judgement.
Thus, all abstractions to do with or concerning what is living, limit, restrict or undermine, or even destroy, empathy, and thus do they sever our numinous connexion to other life, and to the Cosmos itself.
An obvious example of one type of abstraction is the concept of “nation”. Thus, some individuals are said “to belong” to a particular designated “nation”, or consider themselves as belonging to a particular nation. That is, this nation becomes, for them, a source of personal identify, a provider of meaning for their lives, and a basis – often, the basis – of their judgement of others, with “their nation” becoming contrasted with others, and with they themselves often considering they have a “duty” and obligations to this particular abstraction termed a nation. Thus do differences, and conflicts, arise. Thus do people inflict suffering upon others in the name of this particular abstraction, and thus are there wars and invasions, as one “nation” – for whatever reason – wants to impose its own “values” and ideas and ways upon others.
Another abstraction quite similar to the concept of “nation” is the concept of “race”, where individuals are assigned to some abstract, idealized, category.
Another obvious example of an abstraction is a political theory, or idea, or cause – such as, say, “democracy”. This abstraction (however defined) comes to be regarded – by a certain nation or government – as “right” and necessary. Some government or nation (or leader or whatever) then believes that such democracy should and can be imposed upon another nation and government, and that it is thus “right” and “moral” to use force to get “these others” to accept such an abstraction as democracy. In the process, of doing what they regard as “right”, there is of course conflict, and killing, and thus much suffering.
Yet another obvious example of an abstraction is the notion of a supra-personal culture, or way of life, or religion. This particular abstraction (be it a culture, or way of life, or religion) comes to be regarded by a certain group (be it a nation, a government or whatever) as “morally right”, as “civilized” (or even as “superior”), and this group believes it is their “duty” – or their “destiny” or whatever – to get others to accept this particular abstraction. This – as almost always – involves force or coercion or similar things. Thus is there, yet again, conflict, and killing, and thus much suffering.
Yet one more obvious example of an abstraction is a professional Army, or some large professional fighting force. Such an Army, or such a fighting force, have an allegiance – a duty – to observe a given chain-of-command, and their obligation is to do what some abstract authority commands them to do, even if they do not personally know the person or persons behind the abstract authority and even if they do not personally agree with all the orders given through such a chain-of-command. Thus will they go and fight – and kill – in the name of that abstract authority, such as some nation, or some leader who has been elected by millions of people or who has seized power. In this instance, the soldiers or fighters dehumanize both themselves, and dehumanize whatever “enemy” the abstract authority commands them to fight.
Another example of an abstraction is the judgement of an individual on the basis of their occupation or on their known or perceived political (or religious) views or on the basis of some deed they may have committed in their past. Thus, the person is viewed according to such an occupation or such views, instead of as an individual, or is judged according to the deed they have committed – or are alleged to have committed – in the past. That is, they are assigned to some abstract category, and – in a very important sense – become dehumanized, and are often treated according to whatever moral value is, abstractly, assigned to such a category or such a deed. Consider, for example, a woman categorized as being a “prostitute”. Almost always there are certain assumptions made about such a person, since the abstract category “prostitute” carries various connotations, or is assumed to denote a certain type of person. Thus, instead of being regarded, and treated as, an individual human being, the woman is regarded and treated as “a prostitute” and in the process often dehumanized. All such judgement according to such an assigned abstract category is unethical because it is not based on a personal knowing of the person; it is not based on the immediacy of empathy with that person.
What these obvious examples illustrate is a giving-up of individual judgement; a taking of the individual out of the immediacy of the numinous, personal, moment. Instead, the individual relates to, or judges by, the abstraction; refers to the abstraction for value, worth and judgement. Almost always, there is an acting on behalf of the abstraction, often with a sense of “being right” and of desiring to persuade or force others to accept or adopt this particular abstraction and a use of some sort of force or violence or coercion to persuade others to change and adopt such an abstraction. Always there is lack of letting-be; always there are impersonal generalizations; and, almost always, there is dehumanization.
According to The Numinous Way, when applied to what is living, all abstractions, by their very nature, by their very being, cause – or are or can be the genesis of – conflict and suffering. Furthermore, the individual intent behind the abstraction is irrelevant, for once empathy is lost – and empathy is only and ever individual – then there is either suffering or the potential for suffering. Thus, it does not matter if someone or some many believe that some particular abstraction is “right” and “just”, for what is right and just cannot ever reside in an abstraction, or be manifest by, an abstraction or by someone acting on behalf of such an abstraction. What is right and just only ever reside in and through and because of individual empathy and an individual, personal, honour and personal judgement.
A Better Way of Life
According to The Numinous Way, the only ethical way in which we can change ourselves, and our society, is through an inner, individual, transformation by developing empathy and by striving to live in an ethical, and honourable, way.
There is thus a self-transformation, an inner change – a personal and very individual living according to the ethics of The Numinous Way. That is, there is compassion, empathy, honour, reason – the cessation of suffering, and the gradual evolution, development, of the individual. This is a personal change, and, in consequence, a very slow, social change. The social change arises, for example, when groups of people who follow such a Way freely decide to live in a certain manner through, for example, being part of, or creating, a small community. The social change also arises when others are inspired by the ethical example of those who are individually or collectively following such a way as The Numinous Way.
Hence, The Numinous Way is profoundly apolitical, and opposed to the use of force, and violence, in the service of any abstraction or “cause”, believing that better communities – “a better world” – can only be brought-into-being by the efforts of ethical individuals who concern themselves only with that which, and those whom, they personally know and personally interact with.
Fairness, Law and Self-Defence
The Numinous Way expresses the view that honour is not only personal, relates to the immediacy of the moment, cannot be abstracted out from such a personal immediacy, but also depends – by its very nature – upon others treating us honourably, and with respect. This means that our personal, individual, tolerance, and compassion, have certain ethical limits, and it is these setting of very human, and ethical limits, which in one way serves to distinguish and separate The Numinous Way from other ethical philosophies, such as Buddhism, based upon compassion and upon a desire to cease to cause suffering.
Thus, while personal honour demands that we are fair and tolerant and unprejudiced and compassionate toward others, it also allows for not only self-defence, but also for the employment, if required, and as a last resort, of the use of violent force (including lethal force) to defend one’s self and those who might be in need of some immediate, honourable, and personal, assistance. Hence, if one is attacked, it is – according to The Numinous way – honourable to defend one’s self, and if the circumstances require it, ethical to use such force as is necessary, even if this means that the attackers or attackers are injured or possibly killed.
Similarly, if one finds one’s self in a personal situation where, for example, several people violently attack another individual, it would be quite honourable to come to the aid of that individual, and use whatever force necessary, because such a violent attack is, in itself, a dishonourable thing.
To so act in such a personal situation is the fair, the just, the human – even the numinous – thing to do, because our practical use of honour restores the natural balance that the dishonourable actions of such attackers have upset.
However, it is worth emphasizing again that such a use of force is only fair, honourable and ethical, in a personal situation, in the immediacy of the moment, and the individual so using such force only does so because they themselves are immediately attacked or because some one, or some others, nearby in that moment, are dishonourably attacked.
Who decides whether such a use of honourable force is justified? According to The Numinous Way, this can only and ever be the individual in the immediacy of the moment itself. It is for the individual to use their own experience and judgement: their faculties of empathy and of fairness. This is so because, as mentioned previously, personal honour can never be abstracted away from the immediacy of the moment, out from a living personal interaction between individuals, and thus cannot be enshrined in some abstraction, such as a law manufactured by someone else at some other time, or be manifest in some supra-personal abstraction, such as a government or State or their “Courts of Law”.
For true, human, justice is only and ever personal, related to and entirely dependant upon, personal honour. Hence, for The Numinous Way, the basis for all law in any community can only be personal honour.
The Spirituality of The Numinous Way
Our very individuality is a type of abstraction in itself, and thus something of an illusion, for it often obscures our relation to other life, as we often describe and define ourselves, or own personal life, in relation to, and by, our own personal desires, needs and feelings, which needs, feelings and desires we often do not understand and often do not control or, it seems, we cannot control.
Thus are we brought into conflict with others, and often ourselves; and thus do we often cause suffering, to others, and sometimes to ourselves. In addition, we often pursue the illusion which other abstractions present to us, and which we believe, or which we have been led or persuaded to believe, will bring us “peace”, security and a personal “happiness”.
However, according to The Numinous Way, all life is a manifestation of – a presencing of – what it is convenient to call acausal energy, and that it is this acausal energy which makes our physical molecules “alive”. In addition, it is this energy which is the basis for the matrix of Life: which is the connexion between us and all other life, human, on this planet Earth, and elsewhere in the Cosmos; and it is this acausal energy which forms the basis of empathy itself: what we sense, feel, and can come to know and understand, when we interact compassionately with other life.
Thus, all living beings in the physical, causal, Cosmos possess a certain type and amount of this acausal energy, which – like all energy – can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed in some way. Hence, when our physical, causal, bodies die, they die because the acausal energy which has animated them and which gave them life and vitality has ceased to be presenced – ceased to be manifest – in the causal physical Cosmos. This acausal energy – which in a causal sense, “was us”, the essence of our being – then returns to the acausal part of the Cosmos from whence it was presenced to give us our causal life. That is, it flows back to its origin, and will flow from there to become presenced in some other, causal, form, some-where, at some causal Time. Or, expressed another way, our acausal aspect – or essence, beyond the illusion of our causal, abstractive, mortal self – returns from whence “we” arose.
In a quite important sense, empathy, compassion, and a living by honour, are a means whereby we increase, or access for ourselves, acausal energy – where we presence such energy in the causal – and whereby we thus strengthen the matrix of Life, and, indeed, increase Life itself. Thus, when we live in such an ethical way we are not only aiding life here, now, in our world, in our lifetime, we are also aiding all future life, in the Cosmos, for the more acausal energy we presence, by our deeds, our living, the more will be available not only to other life, here – in our own small causal Time and causal Space – but also, on our mortal death, available to the Cosmos to bring-into-being more life. Thus will we aid – and indeed become part of – the very change, the very evolution of the life of the Cosmos itself.
This does not mean we transcend – as some conscious, individual, being – to some other acausal realm where we “live” another type of individual existence. It only means that we have used the opportunity of this, our mortal life, to increase life, to further evolution; that we have seen beyond the illusion of self to the essence, and choose the essence, the reality, over the illusion. For the illusion is of separate, discrete, unconnected living beings, while the essence, the reality, is of the flow of Life; of acausal energy being presenced in the causal, and so “creating” life. The illusion is of this mortal life as the aim, the goal, whereas the reality is of an evolving living Cosmos that we are part of, were once part of and will be part of, again.
Thus, we conceive of the very Cosmos itself as a living, evolving Being. We – all life – are not separate from this Being, but rather we are this Being, in evolution, evolving in the causal to become, by virtue of our sentience, the very consciousness of this Being, the very awareness of this Being. Similarly, Nature – the life dwelling with us on our planet, Earth – is a manifestation of this Being.
In addition, this Cosmic Being is not perfect, nor omniscient – not God, not any human-manufactured abstraction – but rather a burgeoning of Life, which Life we aid when we live with empathy, compassion and honour, when we respect other life, and which we diminish, or harm, when we do the opposite. Hence, there is not, nor cannot be, any “prayer” to this living Cosmic Being; no “reward” or “punishment” from this living Cosmic Being. Instead, there is only an empathic awareness, often – or mostly – beyond words, and presenced, manifested, sometimes, in some numinous music, or some work of Art, or in a personal love or by some honourable deed.
cc David Myatt & The Numinous Way Foundation
2009 CE
Race and Individuality in The Philosophy of The Numinous Way
Introduction
The intention of this essay is to provide an overview of The Numinous Way in relation to matters such as race, individuality, change, and what is sometimes termed ‘the civilizing process’.
Given the social and political importance of these matters, and the interest in them by those curious about my philosophy of The Numinous Way, I considered such a summary might be useful especially since my treatment of these topics is contained in many separate essays written over a period of some years, with many of those essays making use of terms from Ancient Greek [1].
The Ethics of Empathy
Empathy, and the natural humility that arises from empathy, may be said to be essence of The Numinous Way, and the ethics of this Way result from individuals using their faculty of empathy [2]. That is, such ethics are,
“… a consequence of the insight and the understanding that empathy provides for individuals in the immediacy-of-the-moment. This insight and knowledge is of how we are not isolated human beings, but rather only one fragile microcosmic nexion and thus connected to all Life, sentient and otherwise, human and otherwise, of this planet and otherwise. Consequently, there is a cosmic perspective – a cosmic ethic – and compassion: that is, the human virtue of having συμπάθεια with other living beings, and the feeling, the knowledge, that we should treat other human beings as we ourselves would wish to be treated: with fairness, dignity, and respect.” [3]
This numinous morality is thus a personal and direct one, free of dogma and assumptions, and does not require any faith or any belief, political, social, or religious. Hence it is individuals who possess certain virtues – such as compassion, fairness, tolerance, and honour – who represent, who are, the cosmic ethics of The Numinous Way.
What is ethical is therefore what is compassionate, fair, tolerant, respectful, honourable. Thus it is unethical – unfair – to prejudge a person without knowing and interacting with them personally; immoral to judge someone on the basis of some prejudice or on some assumption about them such as their appearance or what others may have said/written about them. Thus it is wrong to judge someone on the basis of their perceived or their assumed ethnicity, or on their perceived or their assumed or their stated sexual orientation/preference.
The Question of Race
As I saught to explain in my essay Empathy and the Immoral Abstraction of Race, race is a causal ideation, an abstraction, and, as a manifestation of the causal separation-of-otherness, it contradicts empathy and the intuitive knowing of and sympathy with the living other that individual empathy provides or can make us aware of.
In essence, the notion of race separates, divides, human beings into manufactured lifeless categories which nullify the empathic knowing of individual human beings.
Such assignment of individuals to a posited abstract category – some assumed ‘race’ or sub-race – is irrelevant, since individual human beings are or have the potential to be unique individual human beings, so that such an assignment, whatever the alleged reason, is a dehumanizing of those individuals. For our humanity is expressed by an individual and personal knowing of individuals, by a personal interaction with others on the basis of respect, tolerance, reason, and honour, and which personal knowledge of them renders their alleged or assumed ethnicity or ancestry irrelevant.
In addition, to ascribe some value or some worth – how/low, civilized/uncivilized, evolved/primitive – to these abstract categories termed ‘race’, and thence to the individuals alleged or assumed to belong to such categories, is immoral because value and worth are themselves lifeless un-numinous divisive abstractions which cannot, should not, be applied to human beings, or to any living being. Which in essence means that all life is numinous, worthy – and cannot and should not be sub-divided into categories of value or worth.
Similarly, to judge – prejudge – individuals or some group on the basis of the assumed or the alleged ‘character’ or generalized nature assigned to some ‘race’ is immoral because dehumanizing, usurping as such prejudice does the personal knowing of individuals that is the human, the empathic, the honourable, the moral, the right, thing to do.
In practical terms, this means: (i) that the concept of ‘race’ is not only irrelevant but an immoral aberration; (ii) that the alleged or the assumed ethnicity of a person is irrelevant; and (iii) that treating/mistreating people, hating people or causing suffering to people, on the basis of their alleged or assumed ‘race’ is immoral, reprehensible.
For what matters is the person, the individual as an individual human being who is unique or who has the potential to be unique. What matters, what is human and moral, is a personal knowing of individuals and treating others with fairness, and tolerance, on the basis of equality.
Destiny and The Civilizing Process
The idea of and the belief in some individuals having a special personal ‘destiny’ – or being chosen by ‘fate’ or by the gods or by God in some way – is a pernicious immoral abstraction, a great cause of suffering. For the person so believing this assumed destiny always assigns to themselves and their judgement a higher value than they give to other human beings and thus they treat or end up treating others in an uncompassionate, dishonourable, way. In addition, in order to achieve ‘their destiny’ or accomplish their ‘mission’ such people will use brutal force and, almost invariably, resort to killing and to war.
Such a personal belief is a manifestation of hubris, of the tyrannos. From Hitler and Stalin to Napoleon to Ivan the Terrible to Genghis Khan to Peter the Hermit to Alexander of Macedon and before, the immoral pride and arrogance of such men has caused immense human suffering. As has occurred when the concept, the ideation, of destiny – or fate, or some ‘divinely sanctioned mission’ – is or has been assigned to some other abstraction, such as a nation, a people, a race, or a religious group. Thus the chosen abstraction – the alleged chosen instrument of fate/destiny/god – is believed to be superior to others and believed to empower those belonging to it with ‘the right’ to dominate, kill, and if necessary subdue with force, other nations/peoples/races/groups, with the classic examples being racism, the nazi doctrines of Hitler, and The Inquisition.
A similarly pernicious, though less obvious, immoral abstraction is that sometimes termed ‘the civilizing process’. This was the abstraction, for example, that was the raison d’etre of European colonialism. Inherent in this disruptive abstraction is the ideation of a linear progress. This ‘civilizing process’ involves:
“…constant change and a continuing development. This is the acceptance of the idea that there is ‘something’, in some future – near or distant – that can be and should be striven toward, and this ‘something’ is always some ideal, or more perfect, form of something that either already exists or which, it is alleged, can be manufactured (brought into being) if certain things (within one’s self, or within society, for instance) are changed in accord with some other manufactured idea or abstraction, or deriving from some -ism or some -ology (be these deemed to be political, social or religious). ” [4]
As I also mentioned in On The Nature of Abstraction:
“…the very notion of ‘civilization’ is unethical, because it both classifies, and excludes, based on some abstract criteria, some abstract non-empathic judgement of others; that is, of who and what is deemed to be ‘civilized’ [...] The very notions of ‘progress’ and of some ‘civilizing process’ are unethical because they predispose individuals toward the unbalanced disruption of and the striving for some type of perfection or ideal, and which striving (because it is a causal striving) always entails placing that ideal or that abstraction before the compassion born of empathy, and which always tends toward creating suffering, and always involves a loss of numinosity: of that delicate, reasoned, balance that an empathic awareness brings to we human beings. “
In brief, this ‘civilizing process’ – this desire for some assumed progress – usurps the individual empathy of the immediacy of the moment, and the compassion and the wu-wei that naturally arise from such empathy. Both the ‘civilizing process’ and the desire for some assumed future perfection (progress) are or lead to ὕβρις, to the disruption of the natural balance and which disruption inevitably is the genesis of suffering and strife.
Individuality, Morality, and Change
As outlined in the essay Authority and Legitimacy in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way, empathy and thence the morality that derives from it implies an individual judgement and an individual authority. That is, that The Numinous Way establishes a new type of authority, and thence a new type of legitimacy, different from those assumed by the modern nation-State, by governments, and previously assumed by monarchs, potentates, and tyrants.
This is the moral authority and the moral legitimacy of the individual manifest in self-responsibility and honour. There is therefore no desire for – or ultimately no need for – authority over others but rather the inclination toward self-reliance, toward the authority, the freedom, of the individual and a respect for the freedom, the self-reliance, of others.
In practice, this means no desire for rapid exterior change, or change based upon some abstraction. Instead, there is wu-wei, and the necessary inner change of individuals:
” The Numinous Way approach to the problems of society – to reform and change – is an individual one, deriving from the faculty of empathy, and from the uniquely individual authority and personal judgement that empathy and a personal knowing reveal in the immediacy-of-the-moment.
This means that reform and change is personal, direct; of and involving individuals who are personally known; and begins with the necessary inner change in the individual. That inner, personal, change – in individuals, of their nature, their character – is understood as the means to solving such personal and social problems as exist and arise. That such inner change of necessity comes before any striving for outer change by whatever means, whether such means be termed or classified as political, social, economic, religious. That the only effective, long-lasting, change and reform is the one that evolves human beings and thus changes what, in them, predisposes them, or inclines them toward, doing or what urges them to do, what is dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate.
In practice, this evolution means, in the individual, the cultivation and use of the faculty of empathy, and acquiring the personal virtues of compassion, honour, and love. Which means the inner reformation of individuals, as individuals.” [6]
Conclusion
Empathy inclines us – by its revealing of others, its revealing of ourselves as we really are, its revealing of us as an affective and effecting connexion to other human beings and other life – toward humility. Thus we are moved away from prejudices and prejudgement and hate toward gentleness, kindness, love, compassion, and fairness; that is, toward the virtues that express our humanity and thus toward the cessation of suffering.
Empathy by its personal, immediate, nature manifests a new type of authority; that of the individual whose concern is not power over others but rather over themselves through the development and exercise of those virtues that express our humanity.
Empathy also inclines us toward wu-wei; toward interior reflexion, toward neither acting with haste nor on the basis of abstractions and unbalanced feelings. It moves us instead toward a knowing that real change is interior, personal, change – of character, of behaviour, of feelings, of thought, of intent; of removing prejudice and intolerance.
Thus there is, in The Numinous Way, a complete rejection of the intolerance of racism, of authoritarianism, of violent political, social, or religious, change, and instead the individual interior way of a quiet desire to live numinously, ethically, harmoniously, in accord with wu-wei, in accord with the natural balance of Life.
David Myatt
February 2012 ce
Notes
[1] As I mentioned in the Preface to the compilation Prolegomenas to The Philosophy of The Numinous Way:
“I have sometimes used terms from Ancient Greek because such terms, in my view, are informative and comparative, with there thus being a link between the philosophy of The Numen and the weltanschauung of early Hellenic culture, embodied in and manifest as this was by the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Heraclitus, Sappho, and many others. Thus, it would be fair to assume that the ethos of my weltanschauung is both indebted to and a development of the ethos of that Hellenic culture; an indebtedness obvious in the centrality, in the Numinous Way, of personal honour and notions such as δίκη, and a development manifest in notions such as empathy.”
[2] Terms such as empathy are explained below, in the Appendix – Notes on Some Terms Used. In respect of humility, see – for example – my essays (i) Numinous Expiation, (ii) Humility, Abstractions, and Belief, and (iii) From Aeschylus To The Numinous Way – The Numinous Authority of πάθει μάθος
[3] War and Violence in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way.
[4] On The Nature of Abstractions.
[5] Authority and Legitimacy in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way.
[6] Society, Social Reform, and The Numinous Way
Appendix
Abstraction
An abstraction is a manifestation of the primary error of conventional causal thinking; that is, of assuming only a causal linearality – of using causal reductionism: that simple cause-and-effect that excludes the acausal knowing that empathy provides and which knowing the numinous is a manifestation of. Implicit in abstractions is the notion of – the illusion of – the separateness of beings.
An abstraction is the manufacture, and use of, some idea, ideal, ‘image’ or category, and thus some generalization, and/or some assignment of an individual or individuals – and/or some being, some ‘thing’ – to some group or category with the implicit acceptance of the separateness, in causal Space-Time, of such being/things/individuals. The positing of some ‘perfect’ or “ideal” form, category, or thing, is part of abstraction.
Abstraction-ism – and the ideation that derives from it – can be philosophically defined as the implementation, the practical application, of ὕβρις.
Compassion
The English word compassion dates from around 1340 ce and the word in its original sense (and as used in the philosophy of The Numinous Way) means benignity. Hence, compassion is being kindly disposed toward and/or feeling a sympathy with someone (or some living being) affected by pain/suffering/grief or who is enduring vicissitudes.
The word compassion is derived from com, meaning together-with, combined with pati, meaning to-suffer/to-endure, and thus useful synonyms for compassion, in this original sense, are compassivity and benignity.
Empathy
Etymologically, this fairly recent English word, used to translate the German Einfühlung, derives, via the late Latin sympathia, from the Greek συμπάθεια – συμπαθής – and is thus formed from the prefix σύν (sym) together with παθ- [root of πάθος] meaning enduring/suffering, feeling: πάσχειν, to endure/suffer.
As used and defined by The Numinous Way, empathy – ἐμπάθεια – is a natural human faculty: that is, a noble intuition about another human being or another living being. When empathy is developed and used, as envisaged by The Numinous Way, it is a specific and extended type of συμπάθεια. That is, it is a type of and a means to knowing and understanding another human being and/or other living beings – and thus differs in nature from compassion.
Honour
The English word honour dates from around 1200 ce, deriving from the Latin honorem (meaning refined, grace, beauty) via the Old French (and thence Anglo-Norman) onor/onur. As used by The Numinous Way, honour means an instinct for and an adherence to what is fair, dignified, and valourous. An honourable person is thus refined: that is, they are noble and cultured and hence distinguished by virtue of their character, which is one of manners, fairness, natural dignity, culture, and valour.
Hubris ( ὕβρις )
ὕβρις is the error of personal insolence, of going beyond the proper limits set by: (a) reasoned (balanced) judgement – σωφρονεῖν – and by (b) an awareness, a personal knowing, of the numinous, and which knowing of the numinous is provided by empathy and πάθει μάθος.
Hubris upsets the natural balance – is contrary to ἁρμονίη – and often results from a person or persons striving for or clinging to some causal abstraction.
Pathei-Mathos ( πάθει μάθος )
The Greek term πάθει μάθος derives from The Agamemnon of Aeschylus (written c. 458 bce), and can be interpreted, or translated, as meaning learning from adversary, or wisdom arises from (personal) suffering; or personal experience is the genesis of true learning.
Wu-Wei
Wu-wei is a Taoist term used in my philosophy of The Numinous Way to refer to a personal ‘letting-be’ deriving from a feeling, a knowing, that an essential part of wisdom is cultivation of an interior personal balance and which cultivation requires acceptance that one must work with, or employ, things according to their nature, for to do otherwise is incorrect, and inclines us toward, or is, being excessive – that is, is ὕβρις. In practice, this is the cultivation of a certain (an acausal, numinous) perspective – that life, things/beings, change, flow, exist, in certain natural ways which we human beings cannot change however hard we might try; that such a hardness of human trying, a belief in such hardness, is unwise, un-natural, upsets the natural balance and can cause misfortune/suffering for us and/or for others, now or in the future. Thus success lies in discovering the inner nature of things/beings/ourselves and gently, naturally, slowly, working with this inner nature, not striving against it.
This item is covered by the Creative Commons (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0) Licenseand can be freely copied and distributed, under the terms of that license.
Modern Society and The Individual
Society, in the context of this essay, refers to ‘modern societies’ (especially those of the modern ‘democratic’ West) and means a collection of individuals who dwell, who live, in a particular area and who are subject to the same laws and the same institutions of authority. Modern society is thus a manifestation of The State, and which State is predicated on individuals actively or passively accepting some supra-personal authority [1].
In modern societies, change and reform are often therefore introduced or attempted by The State most usually: (1) on the basis of the manufacture of some law or laws which the individuals, and the established institutions, of the area governed by The State are expected to obey on pain of some type of individual punishment, financial and/or physically punitive (as in prison); or (2) by means of State-sponsored or State-introduced schemes such as, for example, the British National Health Service and which schemes are invariably enshrined in law.
The essence of such change and reform of a society – large-scale, effective, rapid change and reform in society – is therefore, for the majority of people, external, and most often derives from some posited or assumed or promised agenda of the government of the day; that is, derived from some political or social or economic theory, axiom, idea, or principle, posited by others, be these others, for example, politicians, or social/political/economic theorists/reformers (and so on).
There is thus a hierarchy of judgement involved, whatever political ‘flavour’ the government is assigned to, is assumed to represent, or claims it represents; with this hierarchy of necessity requiring the individual in society to either (i) relinquish their own judgement, being accepting of or acquiescing in (from whatever reason or motive such as desire to avoid punishment) the judgement of these others, or (ii) to oppose this ‘judgement of others’ either actively through some group, association, or movement (political, social, religious) or individually, with their being the possibility that some so opposing this ‘judgement of others’ may resort to using violent means against the established order.
Objectively, this process of change and reform by means of a hierarchy of judgement manifest in laws, and of State authority and power sufficient to enforce such laws, has resulted in fairly stable societies which are, for perhaps the majority of people, relatively peaceful, not overtly repressive, and – judged by the criteria of past societies and many non-Western societies – relatively prosperous.
Thus, while many problems – social and economic – remain and exist in such societies, with some such problems getting worse, such societies seem to work reasonably well, still contain an abundance of well-intentioned, moral, individuals, and appear to be better than the alternatives both tried in the past and theorized about. Hence it is not surprising that perhaps the majority of people within such societies favour solving such problems as do exist by existing social, political, and economic means; that is, by internal social, political, and economic, reform rather than by violent means.
In addition, while most large-scale, effective, rapid change and reform in society is by enforceable State laws and State-sponsored schemes, change and reform also occurs and has occurred within society, albeit more slowly, through the efforts of individuals and groups and organizations devoted to charitable, religious, or social causes and which individuals and groups and organizations by their very nature are invariably non-violent and often non-political. Furthermore, such non-violent, non-political, individuals and groups and organizations often become the inspiration for reform and change introduced by The State.
Some Problems of Modern Society
Before outlining the Numinous Way approach to reform and change, it would perhaps be useful to outline some of the social problems that still beset modern societies. What therefore constitutes a social problem within a society? How is such a problem defined?
In essence, it is an undesirable circumstance or way of living that affects a number of people and which undesirable circumstance or way of living others in society are or become aware of; with what is undesirable being – according to the ethics of The Numinous Way [2] – that which is, or those who are, unfair; that which deprives or those whom deprive a human being of dignity and honour; and that which is and those who are uncompassionate.
Thus, among the many problems of modern societies are misogyny; ethnic and religious discrimination, hatred, and prejudice; and social/economic inequality.
For example, misogyny – from the Greek μισογύνης – is unfairness toward, and/or prejudice and discrimination against, women. Often, as in the past, this is a consequence of an existing prejudice in a man: for example, that men are somehow better than women, or that women are ‘useful’ only for or suited to certain things; or that the subservience of women, and thus their domination/control by men, is ‘a natural and necessary’ state of human existence.
Misogyny in individual practice often results in men being violent/domineering toward, or selfishly manipulative of, women; and thus in them treating women in a dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate way.
Similarly, a hatred or dislike of or discrimination against an individual or a group of individuals on the basis of their perceived or assumed ethnicity is treating that individual or group in a dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate way.
Thus such social problems are often the result, the consequence of, a lack of empathy in a person, with this lack of συμπάθεια with other human beings having often in the past been evident in the treatment of people and individuals by governments, States, and institutions, and often revealed in and through discriminatory, unfair, uncompassionate laws.
The Numinous Way Approach
The Numinous Way approach to the problems of society – to reform and change – is an individual one, deriving from the faculty of empathy, and from the uniquely individual authority and personal judgement that empathy and a personal knowing reveal in the immediacy-of-the-moment.
This means that reform and change is personal, direct; of and involving individuals who are personally known; and begins with the necessary inner change in the individual. That inner, personal, change – in individuals, of their nature, their character – is understood as the means to solving such personal and social problems as exist and arise. That such inner change of necessity comes before any striving for outer change by whatever means, whether such means be termed or classified as political, social, economic, religious. That the only effective, long-lasting, change and reform is the one that evolves human beings and thus changes what, in them, predisposes them, or inclines them toward, doing or what urges them to do, what is dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate.
In practice, this evolution means, in the individual, the cultivation and use of the faculty of empathy, and acquiring the personal virtues of compassion, honour, and love. Which means the inner reformation of individuals, as individuals.
Hence the basis for numinous social change and reform is aiding, helping, assisting individuals in a direct and personal manner and in practical ways, with such help, assistance, and aid arising because we personally know or are personally concerned about or involved with those individuals. In brief, being compassionate, empathic, understanding, sensitive, kind.
Furthermore – importantly – this type of reform and change also means being honourable, acting with honour, which in turn may mean dealing in a practical, direct, personal, and honourable, manner with another individual or individuals who are being unfair, unreasonable, and dishonourable with those we are aiding, helping, assisting; and which dealing with such unfair, unreasonable, and dishonourable, people may or could involve, as a last resort, the use of physical force against them consistent with a code of honour. There is, however, one important – necessary – condition regarding the use of physical force arising from the nature of both empathy and personal honour, which is that it applies only in personal circumstances, personal situations, and cannot be abstracted out from the immediacy-of-the-personal-moment. That is, such honourable force does not apply to anything supra-personal such as any cause, movement, political, social or religious.
Who thus decides when such a personally known social problem requires such a use of honour? And the only answer consistent with the ethics of empathy, with the virtue of honour, is that it is the empathic, the honourable, individual in the immediacy-of-the-moment. Or, expressed in more familiar terms, ‘according to their conscience’ – according to what they, as a unique individual of empathy, compassion, and honour, judge is necessary to alleviate unfairness and restore dignity, fairness, and honour.
The individual of empathy and honour thus has – in certain circumstances – an honourable, a moral, duty which comes before obedience to the authority of some State as manifest in the laws of that State, and even if a majority of people in such a State support or seem to support such laws.
An Experience of The Numinous
The change that The Numinous Way seeks to foster, to encourage, is the natural, slow, interior and personal change within individuals; that is, the change of personal character by the individual developing and using their faculty of empathy and inclining toward being compassionate and honourable by nature. In essence, this is a numinous – a spiritual – change in people, a change of perspective, quite different from the supra-personal social change based on laws desired by modern States and by those who champion or who employ political, economic, and social theories regarding society, government, and the individual.
This interior personal change, by its numinous and ethical nature, is one that does not seek to reform society through politics or by any type of agitation, or through the use of force, or by means of any type of organization, social, political, economic, religious. Instead, such numinous change is the reform of individuals on a personal, individual, basis; by personal example and by individuals cultivating, in accordance with wu-wei [3], conditions and circumstances whereby they themselves and others can move toward συμπάθεια with other human beings through a personal knowing and experience of the numinous. Such a knowing and experience of the numinous can be cultivated by a variety of means, for example by harmonious surroundings; by love and respect; by interior and exterior silence; through music, Art, literature; through a living in balance with Nature.
David Myatt
February 2012 ce
(Revised JD2455967.591)
Notes
[1] The State is defined, in Authority and Legitimacy in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way, as:
The concept of both (1) organizing and controlling – over a particular and large geographical area – land (and resources); and (2) organizing and controlling individuals over that same geographical particular and large geographical area by: (a) the use of physical force or the threat of force and/or by influencing or persuading or manipulating a sufficient number of people to accept some leader/clique/minority/representatives as the legitimate authority; (b) by means of the central administration and centralization of resources (especially fiscal and military); and (c) by the mandatory taxation of personal income.
As mentioned in my note On Idiosyncratic Capitalization, I capitalize certain words, such as State, and often use terms such as The State to emphasize the philosophical truth of State as entity, as both a concept – an abstraction – and as a type of being which thus has or which is capable of having a certain longevity in relation to the life of mortal human individuals.
[2] The ethics of The Numinous Way are the ethics of empathy – of συμπάθεια; that is, of compassion and honour. In practical personal terms, this means dignity, fairness, balance (δίκη), reason, a lack of prejudgement, and the requirement of a personal knowing and of personal experience, of πάθει μάθος.
An ethical person thus reveals, possesses, εὐταξία – the quality, the personal virtue, of self-restraint; of personal orderly (balanced, honourable, well-mannered) conduct, a virtue especially evident under adversity or duress.
The morality of The Numinous Way is outlined in the first section of War and Violence in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way, and in other essays such as Ontology, Ethics and The Numinous Way, and The Natural Balance of Honour.
As I mentioned in my essay In Pursuit of Wisdom:
” Empathy thus establishes a new (or possibly a re-expressed older) understanding of our human nature – both existing and potential – and a new (or possibly a re-expressed older) knowing of how we might avoid ὕβρις and thus the suffering that ὕβρις brings. This understanding and knowing is of the numinous manifest in the indivisibility of living beings.”
[3] Wu-wei – a Taoist term – is used here, and elsewhere in the philosophy of The Numinous Way, to refer to a personal ‘letting-be’ deriving from a feeling, a knowing, that an essential part of wisdom is cultivation of an interior personal balance and which cultivation requires acceptance that one must work with, or employ, things according to their nature, for to do otherwise is incorrect, and inclines us toward, or is, excessive – that is, is ὕβρις. In practice, this is the cultivation of a certain (an acausal, numinous) perspective – that life, things/beings, change, flow, exist, in certain natural ways which we human beings cannot change however hard we might try; that such a hardness of human trying, a belief in such hardness, is unwise, un-natural, upsets the natural balance and can cause misfortune/suffering for us and/or for others, now or in the future. Thus success lies in discovering the inner nature of things/beings/ourselves and gently, naturally, slowly, working with this inner nature, not striving against it.
This selection of recent (2010-2011 ce) essays of mine – available as a pdf document from the link below – provides a reasonable overview of my weltanschauung (deriving from my pathei-mathos of some forty years) and which weltanschauung I have termed both The Numinous Way and The Philosophy of The Numen, given that, perhaps somewhat pedantically, I use the term philosophy to refer not to some modern academic subject or subjects but rather to the learning and knowledge of and acquired by a philosopher, where a philosopher, as the etymology of the word suggests, is someone who is a friend of – whose companion is, who seeks to find, to acquire, to follow – σοφόν. Thus in this sense, a philosopher is someone seeking to acquire both a certain skill and a particular knowledge, and a skill and a knowledge acquired through both learning and from practical experience, from life; a dual sense evident from the meaning and usage of σοφός.
The particular knowledge – as Cicero mentioned in De Officiis (Liber Secundus, 5) – is of Being and beings (rerum divinarum et humanarum) and their genesis; and the certain skill is σωφρονεῖν - of having a reasoned, a balanced, a prudent, a wise, personal judgement and thence a balanced, a wise, personal character; a skill acquired, quite often, from pathei-mathos.
In many of the essays included here, as elsewhere, I have sometimes used terms from Ancient Greek because such terms, in my view, are informative and comparative, with there thus being a link between the philosophy of The Numen and the weltanschauung of early Hellenic culture, embodied in and manifest as this was by the works of Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Heraclitus, Sappho, and many others.
Thus, it would be fair to assume that the ethos of my weltanschauung is both indebted to and a development of the ethos of that Hellenic culture; an indebtedness obvious in the centrality, in the Numinous Way, of personal honour and notions such as δίκη, and a development manifest in notions such as empathy.
David Myatt
January 2012 ce
JD 2455944.913
Contents
^Preface
^In Pursuit of Wisdom
^The Principle of Δίκα
^A Brief Numinous View of Religion, Politics, and The State
^War and Violence in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way
^Authority and Legitimacy in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way
^Notes Concerning Causality, Ethics, and Acausal Knowing
^Honour, Empathy, and Compassion
^Toward Understanding The Acausal
Attic Vase c. 480 BCE, depicting Athena (Antikensammlungen, Munich, Germany)
Corpus Numinosum is a collection of essays by David Myatt, in pdf format, compiled by JR Wright, and dealing with Myatt’s philosophy of The Numinous Way.
The pdf file (of c. 757 Kb) can be download here:
Corpus Numinosum
(revised April 2011)
As JRW writes in her Introduction:
Given, to date, the sheer quantity of essays written by David Myatt about his Numinous Way philosophy – amounting to a hundred or so essays, and many thousands of pages – it seems apposite to collect together in one volume those of his writings which give a good overview of his philosophy.
Also included, in an appendix, are an autobiographical essay by Myatt – to provide context, since in that essay Myatt expounds upon and explains this philosophy in relation to his own varied life – and my own summary of Myatt’s Numinous Way.
Corpus Numinosum should therefore provide a necessary and welcome proemium to Myatt’s esoteric Philosophy of The Numen.
Contents of Corpus Numinosum
Introduction to The Philosophy of The Numen
Concerning The Nature of Religion
Some Notes Concerning Causality, Ethics, and Acausal Knowing
Acausality, Phainómenon, and The Appearance of Causality
An Introduction To The Ontology of Being
On The Nature of Abstractions
Empathy and The Immoral Abstraction of Race
The Classical Foundations of The Numinous Way
Appendix
I – The Numinous Way of David Myatt
The phrase Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεῖ – attributed to Heraclitus [See Note 1] – is often translated along the following lines: Nature loves to conceal Herself (or, Nature loves to hide).
Such a translation is somewhat inaccurate, for several reasons.
First, as used here, by Heraclitus, the meaning of Φύσις is rather different from his other usage of the term, as such usage is known to us in other fragments of his writings. For the sense here is of Φύσις rather than φύσις – a subtle distinction that is often overlooked; that is, what is implied is that which is the origin behind the other senses, or usages, of the term φύσις.
Thus, Φύσις (Physis) is not simply what we understand as Nature; rather, Nature is one way in which Φύσις is manifest, presenced, to us: to we human beings who possess the faculty of consciousness and of reflexion (Thought). That is, what we term Nature [See Note 2] has the being, the attribute, of Physis.
As generally used – for example, by Homer – φύσις suggests the character, or nature, of a thing, especially a human being; a sense well-kept in English, where Nature and nature can mean two different things (hence one reason to capitalize Nature). Thus, we might write that Nature has the nature of Physis.
Second, κρύπτεσθαι does not suggest a simple concealment, some intent to conceal – as if Nature was some conscious (or anthropomorphic) thing with the ability to conceal Herself. Instead, κρύπτεσθαι implies a natural tendency to, the innate quality of, being – and of becoming – concealed or un-revealed.
Thus – and in reference to fragments 1 and 112 – we can understand that κρύπτεσθαι suggests that φύσις has a natural tendency (the nature, the character) of being and of becoming un-revealed to us, even when it has already been revealed, or dis-covered.
How is or can Φύσις (Physis) be uncovered? Through λόγος (cf. fragments 1, and 112).
Here, however, logos is more than some idealized (or moralistic) truth [ ἀληθέα ] and more than is implied by our term word. Rather, logos is the activity, the seeking, of the essence – the nature, the character – of things [ ἀληθέα akin to Heidegger's revealing] which essence also has a tendency to become covered by words, and an abstract (false) truth [ an abstraction; εἶδος and ἰδέα ] which is projected by us onto things, onto beings and Being.
Thus, and importantly, λόγος – understood and applied correctly – can uncover (reveal) Φύσις and yet also – misunderstood and used incorrectly – serve to, or be the genesis of the, concealment of Φύσις. The correct logos – or a correct logos – is the ontology of Being, and the λόγος that is logical reasoning is an essential part of, a necessary foundation of, this ontology of Being, this seeking by φίλος, a friend, of σοφόν. Hence, and correctly, a philosopher is a friend of σοφόν who seeks, through λόγος, to uncover – to understand – Being and beings, and who thus suggests or proposes an ontology of Being.
Essentially, the nature of Physis is to be concealed, or hidden (something of a mystery) even though Physis becomes revealed, or can become revealed, by means such as λόγος. There is, thus, a natural change, a natural unfolding – of which Nature is one manifestation – so that one might suggest that Physis itself is this process [ the type of being] of a natural unfolding which can be revealed and which can also be, or sometimes remain, concealed.
Third, φιλεῖ [ φίλος ] here does not suggest “loves” – nor even a desire to – but rather suggests friend, companion, as in Homeric usage.
In conclusion, therefore, it is possible to suggest more accurate translations of the phrase Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεῖ. All of which correctly leave Φύσις untranslated (as Physis with a capital P), since Φύσις is the source of certain beings [or, to be precise, Physis is the source of, the being behind, our apprehension of certain beings] of which being Nature is one, and of which our own, individual, character, as a particular human being, is another.
One translation is: Concealment accompanies Physis. Or: Concealment remains with Physis, like a friend. Another is: The natural companion of Physis is concealment.
Or, more poetically perhaps, but much less literally, one might suggest: Physis naturally seeks to remain something of a mystery.
DW Myatt
2455357.951
Notes:
[1] Fragmentum B 123 – Fragmente der Vorsokratiker ed. H. Diels, Berlin 1903. An older reference for the text, still sometimes used, is Fragment 10 [Epigrammaticus] (cf. GTW Patrick, after Bywater; et al). If the first letter of φύσις is not capitalized, then the phrase is φύσις κρύπτεσθαι φιλεῖ
Heraclitus flourished c. 545 – 475 BCE.
[2] Nature can be said to be both a type of being, and that innate, creative, force (that is, ψυχή) which animates physical matter and makes it living.
Part One – Fragment 112
σωφρονεῖν ἀρετὴ μεγίστη, καὶ σοφίη ἀληθέα λέγειν καὶ ποιεῖν κατὰ φύσιν ἐπαίοντας. [1]
This fragment is interesting because it contains what some regard as the philosophically important words σωφρονεῖν, ἀληθέα, φύσις and λόγος.
The fragment suggests that what is most excellent [ ἀρετὴ ] is thoughtful reasoning [σωφρονεῖν] – and such reasoning is both (1) to express (reveal) meaning and (2) that which is in accord with, or in sympathy with, φύσις – with our nature and the nature of Being itself.
Or, we might, perhaps more aptly, write – such reasoning is both an expressing of inner meaning (essence), and expresses our own, true, nature (as thinking beings) and the balance, the nature, of Being itself.
λέγειν [λόγος] here does not suggest what we now commonly understand by the term “word”. Rather, it suggests both a naming (denoting), and a telling – not a telling as in some abstract explanation or theory, but as in a simple describing, or recounting, of what has been so denoted or so named. Which is why, in fragment 39, Heraclitus writes:
ἐν Πριήνηι Βίας ἐγένετο ὁ Τευτάμεω, οὗ πλείων λόγος ἢ τῶν ἄλλων [2]
and why, in respect of λέγειν, Hesiod [see below under ἀληθέα] wrote:
ἴδμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα,
ἴδμεν δ᾽, εὖτ᾽ ἐθέλωμεν, ἀληθέα γηρύσασθαι [3]
φύσις here suggests the Homeric [4] usage of nature, or character, as in Herodotus (2.5.2):
Αἰγύπτου γὰρ φύσις ἐστὶ τῆς χώρης τοιήδε
but also suggests Φύσις (Physis) – as in fragment 123; the natural nature of all beings, beyond their outer appearance.
ἀληθέα – commonly translated as truth – here suggests (as often elsewhere) an exposure of essence, of the reality, the meaning, which lies behind the outer (false) appearance that covers or may conceal that reality or meaning, as in Hesiod (Theog, 27-28):
ἴδμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα,
ἴδμεν δ᾽, εὖτ᾽ ἐθέλωμεν, ἀληθέα γηρύσασθαι [3]
σωφρονεῖν here suggests balanced (or thoughtful, measured) reasoning – but not according to some abstract theory, but instead a reasoning, a natural way or manner of reasoning, in natural balance with ourselves, with our nature as thinking beings.
Most importantly, perhaps, it is this σωφρονεῖν which can incline us toward not committing ὕβρις (hubris; insolence), which ὕβρις is a going beyond the natural limits, and which thus upsets the natural balance, as, for instance, mentioned by Sophocles:
ὕβρις φυτεύει τύραννον:
ὕβρις, εἰ πολλῶν ὑπερπλησθῇ μάταν,
ἃ μὴ ‘πίκαιρα μηδὲ συμφέροντα,
ἀκρότατον εἰσαναβᾶσ᾽
αἶπος ἀπότομον ὤρουσεν εἰς ἀνάγκαν,
ἔνθ᾽ οὐ ποδὶ χρησίμῳ
χρῆται [5]
It therefore not surprising that Heraclitus considers, as expressed in fragment 112, the best person – the person with the most excellent character (that is, ἀρετὴ) – is the person who, understanding and appreciating their own true nature as a thinking being (someone who can give names to – who can denote – beings, and express or recount that denoting to others), also understands the balance of Being, the true nature of beings [cf. fragment 1 - κατὰ φύσιν διαιρέων ἕκαστον], and who thus seeks to avoid committing the error of hubris, but who can not only also forget this understanding, and cease to remember such reasoning:
τοῦ δὲ λόγου τοῦδ᾽ ἐόντος ἀεὶ ἀξύνετοι γίνονται ἄνθρωποι καὶ πρόσθεν ἢ ἀκοῦσαι καὶ ἀκούσαντες τὸ πρῶτον [6]
but who can also deliberately, or otherwise, conceal what lies behind the names (the outer appearance) we give to beings, to “things”.
DW Myatt
2455369.713
Notes:
[1] Fragmentum B 112 - Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels, Berlin 1903
[2] ” In Priene was born someone named and recalled as most worthy – Bias, that son of Teuta.”
[3]
We have many ways to conceal – to name – certain things
And the skill when we wish to expose their meaning
[4] Odyssey, Book 10, vv. 302-3
[5] “ Insolence plants the tyrant. There is insolence if by a great foolishness there is a useless over-filling which goes beyond the proper limits. It is an ascending to the steepest and utmost heights and then that hurtling toward that Destiny where the useful foot has no use…” (Oedipus Tyrannus, vv.872ff)
[6] ” Although this naming and expression, which I explain, exists – human beings tend to ignore it, both before and after they have become aware of it.” (Fragment 1)
^^^
Above text in pdf format:
Phainómenon and Causality
What is apparent to us by means of our physical senses – Phainómenon – is that which is grounded in causality. That is, the phenomena which we perceive, is, or rather hitherto has been, perceived almost exclusively in terms of causal Space and causal Time. To understand why this is so, let us consider how we have regarded Phainómenon.
We assign causal motion or movement to the phenomena which we perceive, as we assign other properties and qualities we have posited, such as colour, smell, texture, physical appearance, and, most importantly, being. Hence, we come to distinguish one being from another, and to associate certain beings with certain qualities or attributes which we have assigned to them based on observation of such beings or on deductions and analogies concerning what are assumed to be similar beings.
This process – and its extension by observational science – has led us to distinguish or perceive individual human beings (ourselves, and the others); distinguish a human being from a tree and from, for example, a cloud, a rock, and a cat. It has led us to assign a specific tree to a certain type of tree, so that “that tree, there” is said to be an Oak tree, to belong to a class of similar things which are said to have the same or similar qualities and properties, and which properties or qualities can include such things as texture or colour or shape. It has also led us to make a distinction between a living being (an organism) and inert matter, with a living being said to exhibit five particular properties or qualities: a living being respires; it moves (without any external force acting upon it); it grows (changes its outward form without any outside force being applied); it excretes waste; it is sensitive to, or aware of, its environment; it can reproduce itself, and it can nourish itself.
Thus, we have assigned a type of being (the property of having existence) to what we have named rock; a type of being to what we have named clouds; a type of being to ourselves; and types of being to trees and cats. This assignment derives from our perception of causality – or rather, from our projection of the abstraction of causality upon Phainómenon. For we have perceived being in terms of physical separation, distance between separate objects (that is, in terms of a causal metric); in terms of the movement of such perceived separate objects (and which movement between or separation of objects existing in causal Space, can and has served as one criteria for distinguishing types of being); and in terms of qualities or properties which we have abstracted from our physical perception of these beings, be these qualities or properties direct ones (deriving for example, from sight, smell, texture, taste) or indirect, deduced, theorized, or extrapolated ones, such as, for example, the property of gases, the property of liquids, of solids, and such things as atoms and molecules.
In general, therefore, all such things (all matter and beings) are said to exhibit the property of existing, of having being, in both (causal) Space and at a certain moment or moments of (causal) Time. That is, being and beings have hitherto been understood in terms of, defined in terms of, causality, so that being itself has been assigned a causal nature. Or, expressed another way, it is said that causal Time and a causal, physical, metrical, separation (causal Space) are the ground, or the horizon, of Being.
Knowledge and Acausal Being
While this particular causal understanding of being and of beings has proved very useful and interesting – giving rise, for example, to experimental science and certain philosophical speculations about existence – it is nevertheless quite limited.
It is limited in three ways. First, because both causal Space and causal Time are human manufactured abstractions imposed upon or projected by us upon Phainómenon; second, because such causality cannot explain the true nature of living beings; and third, because the imposition of such causal abstractions upon living beings – and especially upon ourselves – has had unfortunate consequences.
The nature of all life leads us to conceive of non-causal being. That is, that life – that living beings – possess acausality; that their being is not limited to, nor can be described or defined by, a causal Space and a causal Time. Or expressed another way, the being of all living beings exists, has being in, acausal Space and acausal Time, as well as in our phenomenal causal Space and causal Time.
How, then, can we know or come to know, this acausal being, given how causal being has been and is known to us in observable phenomena? And just how and why does the nature of all life leads us to conceive of non-causal being?
We are led to the assumption or the axiom of acausality because we possess the (currently underused and undeveloped) faculty of empathy [ συν-πάθοs ] – that is, the ability of sympathy, συμπάθεια, with other living beings. It is empathy which enables us to perceive beyond (to know beyond) the causal – and particularly and most importantly beyond the causal abstraction of the separation of beings: beyond the causal separateness, the self-contained individual being that causal apprehension presents to us, or rather has hitherto presented to us. That is, empathy reveals the knowing of ourselves as nexions – as a connexion to other life by virtue of the nature, the being, of life itself, and which life we, of course, as living beings, possess.
This empathy is in addition to our other faculties, and thus compliments and extends the Aristotelian essentials relating to Phainómenon [1]. Furthermore, it is by means of empathy – by the development of empathy – that we can begin to acquire a limited understanding and knowledge of acausality. Thus, this knowledge of acausality extends the type of knowing based upon or deriving from a causal understanding of Phainómenon.
Hence, for living beings, causality (and its separateness) is appearance, rather than an expression of the nature of the being that living beings possess.
The Being of Life
Acausal being is what animates inert physical matter, in the realm of causal phenomena, and makes it alive – that is, possessed of life, possessed of an acausal nature. Or, expressed another way, living beings exist – have their being – in both acausal Space and acausal Time, and also in causal Space and in causal Time. That is, they are nexions between the acausal continuum (the realm of acausal Space and acausal Time) and the causal continuum (the realm of causal Space and causal Time; the realm of causal phenomena).
Thus, living beings, in the causal, possess a particular quality that other beings do not possess – and this quality cannot be manufactured, by us (in the causal, and by means of causal science and technology), and then added to inert matter to make that matter alive. That is, we human beings cannot abstract this quality – this acausality – out from anything causal, and then impose it upon, or add it to, or project it upon, some causal thing to make that thing a living being.
Furthermore, the very nature of acausal being means that all life is connected, beyond the causal, and this due to the simultaneity that is implicit in acausal Time and acausal Space. For we may conceive of the acausal as this very matrix of living connexions which exists, which has being, in all life, everywhere (in the Cosmos), simultaneously, and in the causal past, the present, and the future, of our world and of the Cosmos itself. For the acausal has no finite, causal, separation of individual, distinct, beings, and no linear casual-only progression of those beings from a past, to a present, and thence to some future. Rather, there is only an undivided life – acausal being – manifest, or presenced, in certain causal beings (living beings) and which presencing of acausality in the causal lasts for a specific duration of linear causal Time (as observed from the causal) and is then returned to the acausal to become presenced again in the causal in some other causal being in what, in terms of causality, is or could be the past, the present, or the future.
Therefore, for human beings, the true nature of being lies not in what we have come to understand as our finite, separate, self-contained, individual identity (our self) but rather in our relation to other living beings, human and otherwise, and thence to the acausal itself. In addition, one important expression of – a revealing of – the true acausal nature of being is the numinous: that which places us, as individuals, into a correct, respectful, perspective with other life (past, present and future) and which manifests to us aspects of the acausal; that is, what in former terms we might have apprehended, and felt, as the divine: as the timeless Unity, the source, behind and beyond our limited causal phenomenal world, beyond our own fragile microcosmic mortal existence, and which timeless Being we cannot control, manufacture, or imitate, but which is nevertheless manifest, presenced, in us because we have the gift of life.
DW Myatt
2455347.197
Notes:
[1] These Aristotelian essentials are: (i) Reality (existence) exists independently of us and our consciousness, and thus independent of our senses; (ii) our limited understanding of this independent ‘external world’ depends for the most part upon our senses – that is, on what we can see, hear or touch; that is, on what we can observe or come to know via our senses; (iii) logical argument, or reason, is perhaps the most important means to knowledge and understanding of and about this ‘external world’; (iv) the cosmos (existence) is, of itself, a reasoned order subject to rational laws.
Causal and Acausal Being
According to The Numinous Way, what exists – Being, the source of beings – is both causal and acausal. That is, philosophy, understood as an ontology of Being, is or should be the study of both causal and acausal existents: of those beings whose being is causal, of those beings whose being is acausal, and those beings whose being is both causal and acausal.
By causal is meant that aspect of Being which exists, has being in, causal Space (of three spatial dimensions) and in causal, linear, non-recurring, Time. By acausal is meant that aspect of Being which exists, has being in, acausal Space (of a currently unspecified number of non-spatial dimensions), and in the non-linear, simultaneity, of acausal Time.
Hitherto, the study of beings has been somewhat hindered by the error of abstraction. The limitation – the error – of abstraction is that all abstractions, by their nature, are causal; based upon the linearality of causal Time and the limitations of causal Space, whose dimensions are spatial and thus distinct from each other (conventionally, and geometrically, at right angles to each other).
That is, abstraction is the process whereby beings are described in causal terms, as separate, or individual, entities, or existents – in terms of a linear, non-returnable, Time and a separation of linear dimensions – which entities can be referred to, be compared to, or can be defined by means of, some abstract construct which is said to have the ideal being, or form, or be the genesis of, such discrete entities or existents.
That is, abstraction posits Being as a collocation of, or groups of, separate and specific beings which can be categorized according to, or included in, or which belong to, some generalization, some pure or idealized form [ εἶδος and ἰδέα ] of all such specific and separate, separated, beings; with these separate and specific beings all possessing the quality of – being subject to – the linearality of causal Time, that is, having the nature of existing, of having being, in a linear way, so that there is assumed to be some progression, or some linear change, or the possibility/potentiality of such linear change, in such beings.
One aspect of this assumption of linear progression – of a causal-only change of being – is that of πόλεμος [as a revealing of Being, for instance], one manifestation of which is said to be, or can be described as, a dialectic. That, from such a dialectic, from such πόλεμος, there is or there can be understanding and knowledge, and what has been termed “progress”. or, expressed another way, such dialectic is a means to understanding and knowledge and thus an important mechanism by which “progress” can be obtained.
The error of abstraction leads us to perceive our being as in separation to or from other beings (human and otherwise) and to posit that we, as existents, are discrete, and independent of other beings. That is, that we have a self; or that it is in our very nature, as human beings, to be a self, and which self is contained in, limited to, the causal space and causal Time – the causality – of our individual physical body, and which body is in separation to other such bodies, ontologically, physically, and otherwise.
In a similar way, knowledge has been considered to a knowing of – or a process of linearly becoming aware of or progressively accumulating such knowledge of – such causal abstractions and what they denote, represent, or contain.
Such perception, and such a type of knowing, are but a limited, causal, view (dependant on causal Space and causal Time) – and do not include any awareness of, or any understanding of, the acausality of our being, as humans. As such it is lifeless, an un-numinous, abstraction, and what derives from it is a covering-up of the numinosity [1] of our being.
For our being, as human beings, is both causal and acausal. That is, it is numinous, possessed of Life, and Empathy – the use of the faculty of empathy – is a means whereby we human beings can perceive and know the acausality of our being.
Empathy is, by its nature, an apprehension of acausality, and an apprehension that moves us away from the limitation, the error, the restriction, of abstraction – from the illusion of a discrete self-containment (the self) – and restores us to our numinous being. This numinous, this empathic, apprehension or knowing, is one of connexion, and which connexions manifest the acausal Time and the nature of acausal Space inherent in acausal being.
Thus, with the knowing deriving from empathy, there is knowledge of ourselves, of we individual human beings, as but one nexion, one connexion, to other human beings, and to all beings which possess acausality, that is, which presence or manifest Life, and thus are alive. For it is the possession of acausality – of acausal being – that distinguishes what lives, from what is non-living. Empathy, therefore, places us in relation to – as connected to – other human life, and all existents which are alive, and implicit in such empathy is the cessation of causal presumption.
Our relation to other living beings – which empathy uncovers – is thus one of interconnected being, where we affect, and are or can be affected by, other life. That is, there is a symbiosis; a living connexion of acausal simultaneity. Hitherto – often because of abstractions, the illusion of self-hood, and our failure to use and develope our faculty of empathy – we have been mostly unaware of, or have ignored, this symbiosis, how we affect or can affect other living beings because of our inherent acausal nature, and how other living beings affect or can affect us, directly and otherwise.
Thus, this knowing of ourselves as but one, finite – one microcosmic – nexion has certain consequences, ethically – in relation to how we relate or, can relate to, or perhaps should relate to, other human beings and other life – and philosophically. Here, we will only consider the ethical consequence of such acausal knowing.
The Immediacy and Acausal Nature of Empathy
One important consequence of empathy is that since the knowing that empathy provides is of acausality, of what has acausal being and thus lives (that is, what is essentially numinous) and is presenced by acausal and not linear Time, such numinous knowing cannot be abstracted out from the immediacy of the personal, causal, moment that is the genesis of that knowing. That is, it is dependant on what lives, on the living being apprehending such knowing. To attempt to abstract it would be to obscure, to cover-up, to denude of numinosity, such knowing, given the causal nature of all abstractions. That is, it would be to distort it, re-interpret – or attempt to re-interpret it – according to causal linearity (causal Time) and causal separation.
Hence, such numinous knowing cannot form the basis of any abstract theory, of any dogma, of any ideology, of some religion – to be applied to or used by others – for all such things are abstractions, devoid of numinosity.
One practical consequence of this is that there cannot be any numinous theory of ethics, or of such things as what has been termed politics. What is ethical is simply what empathy reveals and consequently inclines us toward – which is ourselves as a nexion to other life, our connexion to other living beings, and thence a sympathy, συμπάθεια, with those other living beings: συν-πάθος.
The Ethics of Empathy
The knowing of ourselves – as one affective and affected microcosmic nexion – makes us aware of the propensity of living beings to suffer [ πάθος ] as it can makes us feel, present us an awareness of the potentiality of, that suffering of theirs as if it were our own, as indeed, acausally, it is, given the simultaneity of acausal Time.
There is thus, or there can be, with empathy and its development, a translocation of ourselves, from what we regard as our self, toward and into other living beings, with this translocation being independent of causal, linear, Time. That is, the distinction we make – and which abstraction inclines us to make – between “them” and “us” no longer exists, for this distinction is fundamentally an illusion, a forgetting or a covering-up of, or a suppression and ignorance of, our own acausal nature.
Importantly, this συν-πάθος is independent of causal, linear, Time – that is, it is not limited to what we may be aware of or observe in the immediacy of the moment, but includes the potentiality of other living beings to suffer, and an awareness of past suffering.
Thus, given this acausal translocation of ourselves, given this συν-πάθος, empathy moves us or inclines us toward a knowing of compassion and thus to the understanding that the cessation of suffering is the most practical manifestation, or presencing, of what is ethical. This is the desire, the intention, based on acausal knowing, not to inflict suffering upon or contribute toward the suffering of other living beings, human and otherwise.
David Myatt
2455340.359
