THOUGHT

WE ARE HUMANS

2020-05-10T08:15:00.000-07:00

LET’S FORGET NOT, THAT...

Humans believe that they are the crown of existence; one of the finest products of evolution. Ever since the human civilization picked up momentum we see development in every aspect of human living. With the passage of time, advancement of intelligence and with the progress in literacy we see a natural human tendency of criticizing the past and glorifying the present. Apparently this phenomena prompts us to think that with the passage of time humans are moving from good to better. But are we?

When we see gruesome atrocities committed on fellow humans: Rape and murder becoming almost ‘every day news items,’ when we have not only capital but a ‘Rape Capital’ as well in a country. We have not one but many “Nirbhaya’s.” When we have innocent children killed in the battle fields of Syria, Iraq, Sudan etc., for no fault of theirs. We wonder what is wrong?

The number of innocent people who lose their lives on account of communal divide are increasing. More and more people seem to be interested in dividing societies based on social and communal lines for political mileage. Surely, all these signs indicate we have gone haywire sometime, somewhere. All these incidents also make us wonder where has humanity gone?

Scientific discoveries, technological advancements, advancement in medicine, mass media; all of these and more have made life much more easy and comfortable for us humans. But in the craze for modernity, comfort and seeking for easy life are we missing out on something very essential? Are religious differences and ideological disagreements making us forget some basics? ARE WE FORGETTING THE FACT THAT WE ARE HUMANS?

The problem with us today is we have money but no happiness, we have good houses but no proper sleep, we have lots of friends on the social media but no one to be by our side when we fall ill. We are too busy to lend a helping hand even to the family members. We have knowledge/information but lack wisdom.

Being human or human qualities (love, concern, kindness etc.,) ensues naturally to humans. However since many are lost in their ‘functions’ and ‘ideas’/ideologies they are gradually become insensitive towards human emotions and ultimately becoming “functions”/ “mechanical” and not humans. For instance a soldier is expected to be rude, heartless and insensitive; a Teacher- strict, disciplined, demanding etc., but don’t you feel delighted to see a kind policeman, a loving teacher or a gentle judge? We all feel happy to see the smile of an air hostess, however fake it might be. We feel delighted when a table boy at a restaurant takes our orders with a smiling face and polite gestures. Generally, we love to visit places where people respect and show love towards us. This is because human qualities attract us.

The fact is we love human qualities, we desire to be treated as human beings. However, the danger is to forget the essentials. Let’s forget not, that we are humans and be a good one.

THE TRUE INTELLECTUAL

2016-04-03T10:44:00.002-07:00

The world has many “educated” and “knowledgeable” people today. However, we do not find too many who are humble. We have too many people who are too sure of things. Switch on a television set to watch news debates in the Indian Channels and you find galore of these individuals there. There is a popular saying that attributes ‘humility’ as the mother of all virtues. But many do not seem to be aware or convinced of this fact of life.

Humility is also often the consequence/fruit of the acquisition of true knowledge. Observe the greatest of intellectuals/Philosophers/Scientists etc., one would be surprised to find them more humble than most common people. The humility of these great men does not spring from ignorance, timidity or lack of knowledge but from the abundance of knowledge. It is said, ‘The more you know, the more you realise that there is to know.’ It’s possible that the humility of these great men spring from the awareness of this Truth. Charles Darwin observed in ‘The Descent of Man,’ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” In fact, the most ‘ignorant’ pretends to be most sure of things. Of course, I do not intend to propagate scepticism here. But apparently the humility of greatest of intellectuals arise from the realization of one’s own “ignorance” leading to expression of opinions and ideas bordering on ‘Scepticism.’ It wouldn’t be correct to equate this state of apparent “Unsurity” of things to ‘scepticism’ but rather to ‘Intellectual humility’ arising from the foretaste of wisdom.

The arrogance of the ignorant and the unwise arise from their own ignorance. Most of them are unaware even of the fact that they are ignorant. This is how ignorance begets confidence. On the other hand, as elaborated above, true knowledge/wisdom appears to portray exactly the opposite dynamism.

The success of a genuine intellectual pursuit often lies in the attitude of humility with which one approaches wisdom and true understanding. It’s not enough to acquire information; what is even more important is the acquisition of wisdom. If one has mere information or knowledge one tends to be arrogant and proud. However, knowledge and information when coupled with wisdom gives rise to a TRUE INTELLECTUAL.

The hallmark of a ‘True Intellectual’ lies in the attitude of openness, ability to listen patiently even to wrong opinions, the childlike quest for more wisdom and above all humility.

Strive to be a true Intellectual!

Nobin Narzary

BE CRAZY FOR SOMETHING

2014-11-27T05:25:00.002-08:00

GOAL AND DYNAMICS OF INTERPERSONAL-RELATIONSHIPS

2014-07-20T04:09:00.000-07:00

[This article is based on Gabriel Marcel’s (1889-1973) theory of Intersubjectivity; a French Existentialist Philosopher.]

Interpersonal-Relationships may seem a futile issue not worth a serious philosophical consideration. However, the fact is we spend most part of our waking day in constant relationships. Even before considering Interpersonal-Relationships analysis of the human Person is pivotal; so that one gets a clear idea of who a human being really is.

The Human Person:

It is not an uncommon phenomenon that the dignity and respect that every human Person deserves by virtue of being human is often bracketed or compromised in more ways than one. There are certain groups of people who have a misguided/perverse perception that some people or races are superior to others; consequently, justified in taking advantage of them. The predicament with such people is, they (knowingly/unknowingly) question the concept of the universality of the sacredness of the human Person; influenced by their own dwarfed philosophies of life. However, such views of ignorant few do not change the universality of the sacredness of the human Person; the fact is, each person is sacred and deserves respect. There are some who question the source of this sacredness. A simple analogy on the phenomenon of ‘life’ will perhaps help clarify this issue: ‘Life’ comes as a gift to an individual. Gift is something every person treasure, gifts are cared with utmost love. Life too, being one of the greatest gifts gifted to the person; is something very precious and of great value. This fact of great ‘value-laden-ness’ of life is true for each individual. Thus, each life is valuable.

Interpersonal Relationships:

Most people agree that it is extremely difficult to be alone. In fact, more than sickness and pain, loneliness is one of the most agonizing experiences in life. No doubt humans are social animals and are oriented towards meaningful relationships.

A true and genuine Interpersonal-Relationship refers to a relationship wherein the partners in relationship are able to recognize and relate to each other as ‘Persons.’ (A person is someone who has intrinsic eternal value or someone endowed with spiritual qualities and consequently, sacred; someone, who should be treated with respect, love and reverence.) Interpersonal relationship is the vocation of every human person; it is in it that the Person realizes one’s identity and self-worth.

One can establish oneself as ‘Person’ only through the ‘other’ in the experience of meaningful ‘Interpersonal Relationship.’ The bond which aids interpersonal relationship is the bond of love (agape). The experience of Interpersonal Relationship helps one to authentically understand oneself. It is a great struggle to remain at the level of authentic Interpersonal Relationship because often we are assailed by egoism and self-dependency. However, to be lost in egoism is to be lost in “oneself”/ a false self; to be lost due to the ignorance of one’s real needs.

The process of Interpersonal-Relationship entails certain basic elements like Presence, Availability, Participation and Reciprocity. Presence is essentially the ability to recognize the other as ‘Person.’ Presence demands availability; availability is a free offering of oneself for the acceptance by the other. It is a free act, it cannot be demanded. Participation happens when the ‘Persons’ make themselves available to each other. Participation is accomplished through an exercise of freedom which continually acknowledges one’s presence in the presence of the other. Ideally, a relationship of availability must include an element of reciprocity; Interpersonal Relationship is impossible without reciprocity.

Interpersonal relationships can be very concretely felt in the experiences of Fidelity, Faith, Love and Hope. Fidelity aspires towards unconditionality; fidelity is always directed to a ‘Person’ and it is always a response to a ‘Person;’ it is the response to an appeal which recognizes in the other Person something of lasting value. In pledging faithfulness to another Person we recognize the sacredness and value of the other; recognizing him/her as ‘Thou’ and not as an ‘it,’ as ‘Presence,’ and not as an ‘object.’ Fidelity is impossible without faith in the other, for faith is the highest expression of fidelity. Faith is an unceasing attention, an active recognition of something permanent/eternal in the other. Faith issues forth from the whole being of the Person and involves him/her in something which transcends him/her. To believe in something or someone is to place oneself at the disposal of that something or someone.

Analyzing the experience of love, one realizes that it is nothing but an affirmation of the value of the other. True love is full of unconditionality. To say ‘I love you’ is to affirm the other as someone of great value and this affirmation bridges the vast abyss that death places before us. Love cannot be separated from faith, in fact, it is faith. Connected to love is the element of hope. It is hope which gives meaningfulness to a Person’s existence. Hope is the final guarantor of fidelity which keeps one away from despair and gives one the strength to continue to be available to the other. Without hope there can be no meaningful life whatsoever. Hope is essential for life as breath is to the living organism.

While it is true that Interpersonal-Relationship is the vocation of every Person. One of the greatest challenges of today towards realizing our vocation to be good humans by means of meaningful relationships is the tendency of the technocratic society; the utilitarian mentality that propagates functionalism or objectification of the humans. In such a milieu, humans are nothing but functionaries who are capable of certain output; and the self-worth measured in terms of those outputs. At this point it is worth a mention why there are certain people in the society who believe euthanasia is justifiable. The problem here is that such people calculate the Person’s worth in terms of ‘output-capability.’ However, the fact is, humans can’t be measured in terms of output. Human dignity and right go beyond calculations. Remember, we were not born by virtue of our own merit and we have no right whatsoever to decide our termination on the criterion of merit or output-capability.

The effects of scientific developments, and with it, the menace of utilitarianism, functionalism and objectification continues to haunt us. One of the vivid effects of this is seen in the numerous divorces and broken relationships. It is quite obvious that most often relationships break and divorces happen when partners are not able to interact with each other with respect and love, recognizing the ‘other’ as Person with dignity and as possessing eternal intrinsic value.

The objectification of the human Person distant though it may seem to some of us; is rampant in our societies today. We hear of numerous instances of child prostitution, rape, pornography, child labour, domestic violence and caste/class discrimination, violence and war in the name of community or religion. In all these cases what we see is that the human Person is totally objectified and commoditized. The culture of functionalism and objectification has crept into our societies and the social practices very powerfully. One such example is the indecent and suggestive language that is used by some mean men/youth when referring to women. Obviously, what we see in the use of such language is, how objectification of the other (in the above mentioned example, women) has become seemingly “integral” to our living. What is even more worrisome today is the ‘objectified world’ becoming the status symbol. For instance, we are familiar with the ‘Item Girl’/‘Item Song’ phenomenon in the Bollywood. We are also familiar with the “most desirable man/woman” phenomenon. These are some of the practices that are considered normal or in some cases even glorified today.

Functionalism has also entered our personal dealings and our way of life. Often we find ourselves taken up by the position a person holds in public office. Our introduction of a person to others is never complete till we have publicized his/her position in the society; be it Director, Manager, the Principal or a C.E.O. Often our way of relating to the ‘other’ is shaped by the public office the ‘other’ holds. To be carried away by the positions and power one holds do make our dealings functional or utilitarian.

We also see shades of functionalism entering into marriage and family life. It is quite common that good-looking men/women or elite class like Doctors, Engineers or successful Businessmen are sought after to be one’s life partner. The looks or occupations, in other words, the function has taken precedence over the Person today. In a parent-child relationship, sometimes some parents shower gifts and rewards on their children only as long as the child performs well in school. Often parents forcefully send children for tuition classes so that they may “perform” well academically. Among youth, some of them feel ashamed to introduce their parents to their friends just because their parents do not hold high social status. Thus, we see how functionalism has affected our way of relating.

Functionalism poses a great threat to interpersonal relationships. Functionalism and objectification may bring about some wearied sense of pride but it actually self-alienates the person from oneself; from one’s true self. Human Persons are ontologically relational and this fact needs no proof look at the rapid growth of communication industries. If it were not true that relationship is one of the most important aspects of life for humans the mobile phone industries would have gone on a heavy loss years back. But the fact is the contrary, it goes on flourishing and it will continue to flourish in the future too.

Interpersonal-Relationships will continue flourishing and adding meaning to our years as long as the sacredness of the Other is not blurred by selfishness and ignorance.

BEGIN TO RELATE GENUINELY NOW, AND ADD MEANING TO YOUR YEARS…

HAPPY RELATIONSHIP!!!

FAITH

2013-07-16T00:16:00.001-07:00

TALK ON FAITH:

Do You Believe?

The Father’s Love Letter: (By Barry Adams)

The words you are about to experience are true. They will change your life if you let them. For they come from the very heart of God. He loves you and he is the father you have been looking for all your life this is his love letter to you:

My child you may not know me but I know everything about you. I know when you sit down and when you rise up. I am familiar with all your ways. (Ps. 139:1- 3). Even the very hair on head are numbered. (Mt. 10:30). You were made in my image. (Gen. 1:27). In me you live move and have your being. (Acts 17: 28). For you are my offspring. (Acts 17: 28). I knew you even before you were conceived. (Jeremiah 139:1) I chose you when I planned creation. (Eph 1:11-12). You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in my book. (Ps 139:15-16). I determined the exact time of your birth and where you would live. (Acts 17:26). You are fearfully and wonderfully made. (Ps 139:14). I knit you together in your mother’s womb. (Ps 139:13) And brought you forth on the day you were born. (Ps 71:6). I have been misrepresented by those who do not know me. (John 8:41-44). I am not distant and angry but I am the complete expression of love. (1John 4:17). It is my desire to lavish my love on you. Simply because you are my child and I am your father. (1John 3:1). I offer you more than your earthly father could. (Mat. 7:14). For I am the perfect father. (Mat.6:48). Every good gift that you receive comes from my hand. (Js 1:17) I am your provider and meet all your needs. (Mat. 6:31-33). My plan for your future has always been filled with hope. (Jer. 29:11). Because I love you with an everlasting love. (Jer. 31:3). My thoughts towards you are countless as sands on the seashore. (Ps. 139:17-18). I rejoice over you with singing. (Zephaniah 3:17). I will never stop doing good to you. (Jer. 32:40). You are my treasured possession. (Ex. 19:5). I desire to establish you with all my heart and all my soul. (Jer. 32:41). And I want to show you great and marvelous things. (Jer. 33:33) If you seek me with all your heart you will find me. (Deu. 4:29). Delight in me and I will give you the desire of your heart. (Ps. 37:4). For it is I who give you those desires. (Phil. 2:13). I am able to do more for you than you can possible imagine. (Eph. 3:20). For I am your greatest encourager. (2 Thes. 2: 16-17) I am also the father who comforts in your troubles. (2Cor. 1: 3-4). When you are broken hearted I am close to you. (Ps. 34:18). As a shepherd carries a lamb, I have carried you close to my heart. (Is. 40:11). One day I will wipe away every tear from your eyes. (Rev. 21:3-4). I will take away all the pain you have suffered on this earth. (Rev. 21:3-4). I am your father and I love you even as I loved my son Jesus. (Jn. 17:23). For in Jesus, my love for you is revealed. (Jn. 17:27). He is the exact representation of my being. (Heb. 1:3). He came to demonstrate that I am for you not against you. (Rom 8:31) And to tell you that I am not counting your sins. Jesus died so that you and I could be reconciled. (2Cor. 5:18-19). His death was the ultimate expression of my love for you. (1Jn. 4:10). I gave up everything I loved that I might gain your love. (Rom. 8:31-32). If you receive the gift of my son Jesus, you receive me. (1 Jn 2:23). And nothing will ever separate you from my love again. (Rom. 8:38-39). Come home and I will throw biggest party heaven has ever seen. (Luke 15:7). I have always been father and will always be father. (Eph.3:14-15). My question is… will you be my child? (Jn. 1:12-13). I am waiting for you…. (Lk.15:11-32)

Love, Your Dad, Almighty God.

As we have just listened to the letter written by God the Father to us it is clear that God is our Father, he himself says so through the scriptures. Do we believe in him? Do we love him enough? He is always waiting for us are we ready to go to him? God created us with the hope that will respond to him in love and faith. Do we love Him?

Someone once said, “Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.” And keep in mind that, “there are a thousand ways of pleasing God but not one without faith.” What faith does to us is it enables us to see the invisible, believe the incredible, and receive the impossible. Faith works miracles.

We have just seen that Faith comes from God as a gift to us. The faith that comes to us from is very vital also in our day to day life. Our societies are founded on faith, hope and love. We are born as a result of faith and trust our parents put on each other…faith is what makes us human beings. Faith takes also forms like trust, hope, generosity, love, sincerity etc., Imagine a society where: people don’t travel by any public vehicle (because you don’t believe that the bus driver will take you to the correct destination), don’t go out in open (because someone could attack you; everyone remaining in hiding in their homes) imagine people in a society not eating the food cooked by someone else (because who knows it could be poisoned), Friendship, family life and marriage in such a society would be unimaginable (because your friend, brother/sister/parents/children could turn out to be your enemy. And who would think of marriage because your future husband/wife could be a tyrant and a traitor?)

To believe is to make a jump, to take a risk, when we believe we put ourselves in the realm of uncertainty. For instance to be able to say ‘I believe you’ is to be able to say I place myself at your disposal; I make myself defenseless in front of you. To hope is to say I don’t know… but I believe something good will happen. Miracles happen when you believe…. Life becomes meaningful only because we are able to believe in each other, hope in each other and love one another. Above all faith in God can work miracles in our lives. It was faith that healed the paralyzed, the deaf, the blind, the dumb, brought transformation to the sinners,… If you believe in Him he will work miracles in your lives…

By Nobin Narzary

Community Anthem

2013-07-04T10:33:00.000-07:00

From the North and from the South
From the east and from the west
called by God to live as one
we live as brothers/sisters one at heart.
from the north and from the south
from the east and from the west
called by God to serve the young
to lead them to the Holy One.
Chorus:
we are united
a family filled with peace and joy
one love, one heart
together let us live for Christ.
One love, one heart
saving souls be our goal
one love, one heart
spread his love to all.

Why RAPE?

2013-01-04T09:12:00.001-08:00

All these days I have been disturbed by the news of rape flooding the news papers and Television channels. The way the rape news has spread all over the country and world shows how people feel saddened when human dignity is not respected. I believe in each person there is an instinctual drive towards the good; we all long to do good and feel good.
Reflecting over the rape case that was in the news last couple of weeks and other related news, I was thinking of the way the "other" is degraded in the case of a rape. No one who recognizes the "other" as a person will be able to do such an abominable act. The tendency to rape and the thought of rape comes about when one has failed to realize that one is a "human person;" with dignity and sacredness. In the case of rape the person involved in the crime is unable to recognize the other as "person" and consequently; himself (as person). Thus, in degrading the "other" the rapist degrades himself.

Christmas Talk

2012-12-20T09:30:00.000-08:00

AN INCREDIBLE LOVE

When I was given an opportunity to deliver a sermonette in preparation for Christmas, one of themes that came to my mind very powerfully was the theme of “Love.” I could not think of Christmas without thinking of love. I attempted to write this sermonette of several other exciting themes; however, I could not get rid of the theme of love. Dear friends, I believe Christmas is nothing but a celebration of the love of God for the humankind. It is an event that recalls to our minds how God loved humankind from the beginning of human’s existence and how he continues to love us.

Before I begin to speak of love let me elucidate what I understand by love. For me, “To Love is to wish the best and do the best for the other even if I have to make greatest of sacrifices; even if I have to give up my life.” We read in the gospel of St. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life.” God indeed loved us and loved us “madly.” His love for humankind was nothing but a “crazy love;” an incredible love. We see what happens when a boy falls in love with a girl: He does crazy things, he literally becomes mad. He does things that are unreasonable and incomprehensible. I believe you understand what I mean by madness of a lover; for all of you surely have fallen in love with someone or the other and experienced craziness in some way; if not with a girl at least with God. Let me recall to you some of the crazy things that God did for love of humankind:

He was born out of wedlock, born in a stable in a strange land, refused accommodation by many, chased after to be killed moments after his birth, experienced exodus since childhood, grew up as a carpenter and went on to become a wandering preacher, was accused and awarded the sentence that was given only to criminals; in fact he was crucified between two thieves. After his death he was buried in a tomb that was not his own. During his ministry of preaching and healing, the Jewish religious leaders accused him of being an illegitimate son; a bastard. When he began preaching and healing, people said, “What good can come from Nazareth?”… “Is he not the son of a carpenter?” (Jn. 6:42) He was also accused of being a drunkard and a glutton. (Lk. 7: 34) He was accused of entertaining sinners. (Lk. 7:39) Even at his last breath his identity was challenged when the thief who was crucified beside him mocked at him, “if you are the son of God come down from the cross…”

When I think of God who endured all these humiliations for the love of his beloved (humankind) I can describe his love in no better words than “crazy.” He did everything because he loved humankind but what he got in return was humiliation, crucifixion and death. Yet he bore all these because he loved humankind; because he was madly in love with men.

We read in the gospel of St. John 1:14 “And the word became flesh and lived among us…” Our God has not remained remote and unapproachable; he has come to us in person. He did not just write us a letter. He did not just send us a representative. He did not just speak his laws from a mountain. He came to us as one of us. The Infinite became an infant. The Eternal One became a weak one. The Bible describes the miracle of what Christ has done when it says: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:6-8).

No one could outdo what God has done. No one could give a greater gift than God has already given. His love for us is indeed irrepayable. However, the best way of being grateful to God for all he has done for us could be by imitating him. By making an effort to be like him more and more and our vocation is a little way of responding to the crazy love of God in a crazy manner. Let us strive to be better religious this Christmas. This could be our little gift to our God who has loved us much.

1. Let us this Christmas, remember the great love that God had for each and every one of us. By remembering His life, His teachings, His miracles, His prophesies, His death and His resurrection.

2. By reaching out to others with love and concern; by reaching out to the hungry, the sick, and the lonely. By loving like him, who loved lost sinners.

3. By forgiving those who sin against us and not being judgmental.

These I believe will make our Christmas celebrations more meaningful.

RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS

2012-12-20T09:26:00.003-08:00

1.0 Introduction

The study of symbols is one of the very important parts of the phenomenology or religion. Symbols are part and parcel of religions and they have a privileged place in most religions. Symbols are expressions that indicate realities that they represent. In the context of a religion, symbols are the visible signs of some of the deep realities that a religion concerns itself with. Religious symbols help us approach religion phenomenologically. They are the indicators of greater realities that a religion believes in. In this paper I intend to expound Louis Dupré’s understanding of symbols. Dupré mainly concentrates on religious symbols such as deeds, language, art and myth. He very beautifully elucidates the richness of symbols and indicates how important the symbols are to a religion. He shows how vital the symbols are to religion even today. Symbols are somehow inevitable part of religion because they are the means that enable the religious to express himself/herself. Some of the realities that humans experience cannot be expressed in the ordinary day to day deeds, language or art because they are inadequate. Thus, the person who wants to express deep realities is left with no other option but symbols. In the context of religion symbols are basically a help to articulate the transcendental realities.

Chapter: One

Signs and Symbols

Signs and symbols form very important part of human life in fact, for the earliest philosophers the foundational principle consisted in the very emergences of the appearances. They conceived of the absolute as expressiveness.[1] All symbols are signs and signs are forms which refer to something which is not directly given; signs may merely point to the signified but symbols represent it. The mediating function of the symbol grants it an independence which signs do not possess. Symbols are exclusive property of man. They carry meaning in themselves which allows them to articulate the signified. A symbol truly presents what it represents.[2] Symbols enable the mind to perceive the permanent in the transient, the universal in the particular. Each mode of symbolic perception creates its own unique meaning. By their very nature symbolic systems invite reflection.[3] All symbols reveal a reality beyond their sensuous appearance. A symbol never simply refers to a pre-existing reality; it opens up a new one. In the process of symbolization the real is negated by the mind and elevated onto a higher level. Symbol points forward not backward; it points beyond itself. The fundamental function of the symbol is to enable the mind to express itself. Plurality of symbolic structures is due to the mind’s protean nature which requires multiform expression.[4] The symbol presents a reality with which it never fully coincides; it represents beyond what it expresses.[5] In the context of religion the form/symbol does not attempt to copy its divine source but to manifest a God who remains hidden and precisely in its inability to do so lies its formal (aesthetic) perfection.[6]

All symbols surpass our ordinary perception of the objects they represent; but not in the same way. Aesthetic symbol maintain a tight unity between what appears and what is signified. In a religious symbol the signified remains forever beyond our reach. Religious symbols present their noumena in such a manner that they not only signify more than they represent but also fail to disclose the nature of what they signify; they conceal more than revealing. What we now call religious symbols grew out of our ancestor’s first attempt to articulate reality. The people of the past differentiated within the one sphere of the real that which is sacred and that which is profane.[7] Religious symbols remain elusive. As other symbols they are polyvalent and no single rational interpretation can ever exhaust their meaning. In fact, the less specific a symbol is the richer its symbolic meaning becomes.[8] Religious man has recourse to images because he cannot say directly what he wants to say. Images play only subordinate role in the representation; although necessary.[9]

1.1 Rites

The first among religious symbols are the ceremonial deeds of worship or the rite. Till today religions have maintained the priority of deed over word. Rites articulate real life, they mold it into their restrictive forms but they never fully merge with it.[10] The purpose of a ritual act is not to respect the ordinary action which it symbolizes, but to bestow meaning upon it by placing it in a higher perspective. Its purpose is to transform life and not to imitate it. Rites are also related to play acting.[11] In this regard, the earliest form of human play defines a sacred order, while even the most solemn ceremony retains the memory of its playful origins.[12] There is a close similarity between play time and religious celebration. To celebrate means to have a good time. Certain playfulness is inherent in all ceremonial worship. Play and ritual celebration have always belonged together. For instance the Olympic Games were part of ritual celebration. Dramatization is also common to both. However, the outcome of the two are different; in games there results disjunctive effect and in ritual, equilibrium.[13] Ritual celebrations are meant to make past present not to commemorate it. Rites are social activities; private rites could even be interpreted as neurotic behavior. Rite is not a mere reenactment of historical event it recreates beyond historical limits and gives it a permanent and universal significance.[14] Rites alone recall the sacred reality of the past into the present, rather than portraying an event of the past it recaptures the event itself. The ritual becomes effective by creating a new temporality in which the successive attains permanence. The ritual deed is no longer subject to the transitoriness of common time.[15] The sacred deed or the ritual recaptures the primeval time of a god, a hero, an ancestor. Ritual abolishes profane, chronological time and recovers the sacred time of myth.[16]

1.2 Sacraments

The sacrament is first and primarily a symbolic gesture of a transcendent reality.[17] Sacraments refer to particular rites. In a sacramental rite a common function of life obtains a salvific effect. Not every rite is sacramental. The Christian understanding of the sacrament too has a strong salvific dimension. Sacrament is distinct from magic rites. The salvific influence of the sacramental action does not originate in the nature of the rite considered in itself as is the case in magic. The rite partakes in a transcendent reality from which it derives an efficacy surpassing its ordinary power.[18] Sacraments symbolize a reality which can in no way be directly approached. Sacraments are symbolic in their very essence; they need to be recognized as intrinsically connected with the sacred.[19] The sacramental word is of vital importance in a sacrament. It is only in uttering the word that the transcendent and the physical act unite and gains meaning. The word is like “form” to the sacrament as opposed to the matter or element.[20]

1.3 Sacrifice

Sacrifices are almost as common as sacraments. In the past sacrifices always occupied a privileged place among ritual ceremonies. Usually sacrifices are considered either as gifts or as communion rites. Some say that rites were believed to feed the spirits or to connect itself to another non-human group.[21] Union is considered to be the original objective of sacrifice. Later the notion of property came into existence and consequently the notion of gift. The essence of sacrifice has itself shifted from archaic to more recent types. Offering is the only common characteristic which all sacrifices have in common. Another important element in sacrifice is the expiatory sacrifices or the substitution. Actually in some sense every sacrifice is substitutional.[22] Sacrifice continues to have a central place most religions even today.[23]

Chapter: Two

Language as Symbol

Language is the symbol par excellence. However, all symbols cannot be reduced to language. Language can do everything other symbols do; though less perfectly.[24] Language is the primeval symbol of the expressiveness of the absolute. According to Heidegger and Ricoeur without the ability to speak metaphorically there would be no way to refer visible appearance to invisible ground and hence no metaphysics. Since the transcendent cause is by nature ineffable, that reference had to be metaphorical.[25] It was only in the 12^th century that the philosophers realized symbolism as inherent in all languages and that words articulate the reality to which it refers.[26] Symbols can be religious in many ways but only words can name the sacred directly. Language alone is sufficiently flexible to refer explicitly to a reality other than the one to which its symbols normally refer. In fact any religious symbol needs language to be explicitly religious.[27] The purpose of religious language is to assert the transcendent as real. It facilitates the expression of the religious person’s most basic belief namely that he/she is speaking about ‘what is.’ For him religious statements are not only meaningful but truth.[28] Literary expression is considered indispensable to an advanced faith. All advanced religious symbols are either linguistic or based upon language. Symbol of the transcendental are by their very nature obscure therefore, language alone can be clearly metaphorical. All arts are symbolic yet language alone can do justice to the concern for religious purity in the expression. Thus, language plays a very vital role as a symbol.[29] Some philosophers question whether language is able to deal with reality that transcends the empirical world. Naturalists too, question the meaningfulness of religious language on this ground. However, symbol is the mind’s only way to surpass the purely empirical. Religious language is basically thetic i.e., positing a reality beyond the subjective experience of the speaker and objective reality of the world.[30]

2.1 The Paradoxicality of Religious Language

Religious language originates in an intimate relation between the speaker and the spoken. Religious language does not refer to an object but to a more fundamental reality in which the speaker is deeply involved with. It refers to this reality as transcendent therefore it differs from aesthetic language.[31] To the question how religious language could avoid being objective while still doing full justice to God’s transcendence? The oldest solution is analogy of predication; the univocal and equivocal terms. But to learn analogically about God one must first know something about him literally. Analogy is nothing but rule of logic which helps us define the limits of speech about God. It reminds us that all expressions about God have been derived from a human source.[32]

God-language/Religious language takes as its model a familiar situation but then qualifies it in such a way that the familiar suddenly turns highly unfamiliar.[33] Thus, Religious language is an odd language. Hamann speaks of religious language as contradictions of reason and Kierkegaard speaks of it as paradoxical. However, religious paradox does not go against reason; it uses contradictory expressions to draw attention to its attempt to go beyond rational expression not to destroy the laws of reason. Paradoxical/ religious language can be understood only through the nonparadoxical. However, the basic religious proposition cannot be reduced to ordinary language. The relation between them is unilateral i.e., religious language need the ordinary language to make sense but not the vice versa.[34]

2.2 The Symbolic Nature of Religious Language

Symbolic could also be understood as the typological interpretation of the text or even as allegorical. In typology an event comes to mean more than its actual occurrence directly implied as is also the case in allegory. Some objections to allegory came from renaissance humanists and the Protestants but later on it was realized that scripture itself was symbolic. Thus, the symbolicity of religious language was maintained. Only symbols can provide religious language with the two essential conditions- subjective involvement of the religious speaker and the transcendent nature of the referent.[35] The believer cannot despise religious language because of the ability of the symbols to express transcendental. Symbolic representations are also less misleading because in spite of the physical concreteness they are less determinate in their meanings. When it comes to speaking of God, it is said, no statement about God is entirely nonsymbolic not even the primary one (i.e., God is the Supreme Being) but that all discourses about God contains also a primary nonsymbolic affirmation without the nonsymbolic the mind would be unable affirm God at all.[36]

Chapter: Three

Religious Art

For the longest part of human history art symbolized religion; one could not be discussed without the other. Art was religious art and religion without art was incomprehensible. In fact, art and religion were synonymously used. Direct link between art and faith was dissolved only in our own secular culture. Today, the attitude with respect to art differs according to religions; according to the mode of envisioning the infinite in the finite.[37] Art expands the expressive power of religious symbolism.[38] Neither the effect of the art nor the intention of the artist makes the piece of art religious. Thus, there is no universal rule to determine a form of expression as exclusively religious. The religious experience itself is too polychromatic to be restricted to a single style of expression.[39] All great art urges us to penetrate ever more deeply into the mystery of existence.[40] In an art the visible form not only points to an invisible, unfathomable mystery but ‘it’ is the apparition of this mystery and reveals it while naturally at the same time protecting and veiling it. In a piece of art the content does not lie behind the form but within it.[41]

3.1 Art and Symbol of Transcendence

There are no symbols that are naturally religious. Religious art tends to display the inadequacy of the aesthetic form with respect to its transcendent content. This inadequacy may be conveyed in many ways Eg. Outsized proportions, fragmentary character of the work, unfinished work etc., Inadequacy is also conveyed by the distorted figures. Even indeterminateness and ambiguity may be religiously expressive.[42] Apart from the negative way there are also the positive symbols of the divine e.g. light. There are also other devices like frontal position of figures, immobility and lack of perspective, the absence of individual resemblance etc., actually the very idea of absolute transcendence creates a constant tension in the development of religious art. Some religions prefer abstract forms of music and architecture because they are apprehensive of expressing the invisible in visible forms.[43]

3.2 New Meaning of Religious Art

The secularization of our age makes it very difficult to affirm if art is religious even in the least sense. Modern art is characterized by absence of any reference beyond the artistic image.[44] Only by imposing his own religious attitude on the artist’s work can the viewer perceive contemporary expressionist art as religious. The contemporary artist leaves the initiative to the spectator whether to view the piece of art as religious or not. The ambiguity of modern art with respect to the sacred is significant for a situation in which many have lost the direct experience of the sacred. Language is indispensible but not sufficient for the creation of religious art.[45]

Chapter: Four

The Myth

Myths are verbally developed symbols or an exegesis of the symbols. Symbols are exegesis of myths as well; they are dialectically related Religious symbol need the interpretation of myth. Myths bring order meaning and structure to the world of the religious symbol. Myth is the language of the symbol and originally it was the only language.[46] Symbols grow out of myths as much as myths grow out of symbols. Myths make reflective what before was only lived. But myth participate so much in the lived reality that its meaning must be felt rather than rationally understood.[47]

Psychologists and sociologists have their own opinions about the importance of myth. However, there is a certain truth in myth for which critical reflection can never substitute. Myths are more emotional than rational, they respond to existential problems. Myth sets up a model for existence in its entirety. It aims primarily at restoring the primeval wholeness that has been lost through reflection. Mythical stories convey a dramatic character to the ritual action. Temporality is an essential character of myth. It reunites person with the primeval events. The experience of sacred precedes myth.[48]

4.2 Survival of Myth

One of the common questions about myth today is, ‘Can myth survive rational reflection?’ This is not a new question because it was asked in the third century B.C already; when some groups of intellectuals tried to interpret myth as allegory. The turning point in myth came at the end of 18^th century when some philosophers and phenomenologists affirmed myth an essential mode of thinking in the infancy stage of a culture. However, till today we have lot of conflicting opinions about myths. Myth is meaningful but if it is not subjected to reason it could be dangerous; for instance, mythical interpretation of the history can be dangerous. In the modern culture myth is fully recognized and openly welcomed in the world of art and particularly literary arts.[49]

4.3 The Religious Survival of the Myth

Myth establishes beliefs as well as rites and even moral practices. Of course, rationalized theological theories cannot be equated with primitive myth. However, mythical element persists throughout their development. Belief in myth cannot survive the awareness that it is a myth. Believer feels that myth contains important message yet he/she is seldom able to give it a precise sense. As the birth place of the gods myth initiates a movement toward transcendence that becomes completed in formal religion. However, myth itself initiates a dynamism that leads the mind beyond the mythical.[50] In the case of Israel, their sacred history is encased in a mythic framework of time. Christianity has lot of mythical elements too.[51] In the gospel narratives we see how History and myth are integrated. To separate these two elements have proved futile and such distinction has been found superfluous for the believer. The fact that myth survives within the religious attitude is an indication of the possibility that it might be indispensible. If anti-mythical drive were to be completely successful it would drain the lifeblood out of religion itself. Some aspects of the myths may not survive religious, philosophical or scientific reflection but myth possesses certain qualities that make it irreplaceable in religious symbolization.[52]

5. Conclusion

In this article I have tried to portray how Louis Dupré understands symbols. Dupré deals with deeds as symbols; deeds like rituals, sacraments and sacrifices. Speaking of language as symbols we see how language is a symbol par excellence and how it can substitute almost all other symbols. It also has a great role in making other symbols meaningful. For instance it is language that makes rituals, sacraments, sacrifices and art meaningful. Art is also one of the important symbols in a religion. Art and religion is closely intertwined. In fact, earlier, art and religion was used synonymously. However, today secularization has made it extremely difficult to see art as connected to religion. Today the viewer is left to himself/herself whether to view a piece of art as religious or not. Myths too form an important part of religious symbols. Though many question the validity of myth today, it continues to survive and this fact of the survival of myth itself indicates how important it is to a religion; myths cannot be neglected. However, myths require rational guidance otherwise it could lead to disastrous consequences as in the case of mythical interpretation of history.

Thus we see how important symbols are to a religion; they form an important part of religion. Religious symbols are unavoidable for any religion. A study on religious symbols is indeed a very rich area of study. It is rich because symbols are one of the primary means that is available to us for the study and analysis of a religion. Symbols convey profound meanings regarding the religion. They represent the transcendental elements of the religion. In fact, symbols are the medium that facilitate expression and understanding of transcendental concepts of a religion.

Bibliography:

Dupré, Louis. The Other Dimension. New York: The Seabury Press, 1979.

Dupré, Louis. Metaphysics and Culture. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994.

Dupré, Louis. Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Dupré, Louis. Symbols of the Sacred. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

[1] Louis Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994), 1.

[2] Louis Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 1-2. See also: Louis Dupré, The Other Dimension (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979), 105.

[3] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 9.

[4] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 2-3. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 108.

[5] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 11.

[6] Louis Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 71.

[7] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 6-7. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 121-122.

[8] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 8. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 123.

[9] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 10. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 125.

[10] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 12.

[11] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 13. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 81; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 127-128.

[12] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 77.

[13] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 15-16. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 77; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 130-131.

[14] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 18-19. See also Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 81.

[15] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 79. Dupré, The Other Dimension, 133-134.

[16] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 80.

[17] Dupré, The Other Dimension, 141.

[18]Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 20- 23. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 136,139.

[19] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 24. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 141.

[20] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 27. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 143-144.

[21] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 28-29. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 144,146.

[22] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 30-34. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 147,149,151.

[23] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 38.

[24] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 43-44. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 114-115.

[25] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 4-5.

[26] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 6.

[27] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 46. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 154-155.

[28] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 48-49. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 155.

[29] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 83.

[30] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 51-52. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 120,162.

[31] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 52-53. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 162.

[32] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 54-56. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 164-166.

[33] In the Bible (Exodus: 3), we read how God reveals his name. The situation has lot of familiar elements like the desert, the bush, a voice and a name revealed. But the familiar is mixed with the unfamiliar so much so that no one could mistake it for an ordinary event. For instance, the bush is burning yet it is not consumed, the voice does not belong to a body and the name is no name at all but the speaker declaring himself to be above all names. Thus we see here how normal occurrence takes a strange turn. Cf Dupré, The Other Dimension, 167-168.

[34] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 57-61. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 72; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 168-171.

[35] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 62-65. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 174.

[36] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 66-68. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 179-180.

[37] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 69-70. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 181-182.

[38] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 72.

[39] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 76.

[40] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 9.

[41] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 76.

[42] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 77-79.

[43] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 80-81.

[44] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 84.

[45] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 88-89.

[46] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 91. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 195-196.

[47] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 93. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 197.

[48] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 97-100. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 198-204.

[49] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 103-107. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 209.

[50] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 110-112. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 217-219.

[51] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 114. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 220-221.

[52] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 115-117. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 222-225, 228-229.

RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS

2012-12-20T09:18:00.001-08:00

1.0 Introduction

Chapter: One

Signs and Symbols

1.1 Rites

1.2 Sacraments

1.3 Sacrifice

Chapter: Two

Language as Symbol

2.1 The Paradoxicality of Religious Language

2.2 The Symbolic Nature of Religious Language

Chapter: Three

Religious Art

3.1 Art and Symbol of Transcendence

3.2 New Meaning of Religious Art

Chapter: Four

The Myth

4.2 Survival of Myth

4.3 The Religious Survival of the Myth

5. Conclusion

Bibliography:

Dupré, Louis. The Other Dimension. New York: The Seabury Press, 1979.

Dupré, Louis. Metaphysics and Culture. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994.

Dupré, Louis. Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

Dupré, Louis. Symbols of the Sacred. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

[1] Louis Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994), 1.

[2] Louis Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 1-2. See also: Louis Dupré, The Other Dimension (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979), 105.

[3] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 9.

[4] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 2-3. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 108.

[5] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 11.

[6] Louis Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 71.

[7] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 6-7. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 121-122.

[8] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 8. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 123.

[9] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 10. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 125.

[10] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 12.

[11] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 13. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 81; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 127-128.

[12] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 77.

[13] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 15-16. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 77; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 130-131.

[14] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 18-19. See also Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 81.

[15] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 79. Dupré, The Other Dimension, 133-134.

[16] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 80.

[17] Dupré, The Other Dimension, 141.

[18]Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 20- 23. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 136,139.

[19] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 24. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 141.

[20] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 27. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 143-144.

[21] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 28-29. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 144,146.

[22] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 30-34. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 147,149,151.

[23] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 38.

[24] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 43-44. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 114-115.

[25] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 4-5.

[26] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 6.

[27] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 46. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 154-155.

[28] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 48-49. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 155.

[29] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 83.

[30] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 51-52. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 120,162.

[31] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 52-53. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 162.

[32] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 54-56. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 164-166.

[34] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 57-61. See also: Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 72; Dupré, The Other Dimension, 168-171.

[35] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 62-65. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 174.

[36] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 66-68. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 179-180.

[37] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 69-70. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 181-182.

[38] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 72.

[39] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 76.

[40] Dupré, Metaphysics and Culture, 9.

[41] Dupré, Religious Mystery and Rational Reflection, 76.

[42] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 77-79.

[43] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 80-81.

[44] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 84.

[45] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 88-89.

[46] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 91. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 195-196.

[47] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 93. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 197.

[48] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 97-100. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 198-204.

[49] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 103-107. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 209.

[50] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 110-112. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 217-219.

[51] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 114. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 220-221.

[52] Dupré, Symbols of the Sacred, 115-117. See also: Dupré, The Other Dimension, 222-225, 228-229.

A Class Presentation on Symbols of the Sacred

2012-12-20T09:10:00.000-08:00

SYMBOLS OF THE SACRED

By Louis Dupré

1. OF HOLY SIGNS

1.1 Symbols and Process of Representation

· Signs may merely point to the signified but symbols represent it.

· Symbols are exclusive property of man. It truly presents what it represents.

· All symbols reveal a reality beyond their sensuous appearance. It also points beyond itself.

· The fundamental function of the symbol then is to enable this mind to express itself.

· Symbol is by its very nature self-transcending.

1.2 Religious Symbols

· All symbols surpass our ordinary perception of the objects they represent; though not in the same way.

· Aesthetic symbol maintain a tight unity between what appears and what is signified. In religious symbol the signified remains forever beyond our reach; they conceal more than revealing.

· What we now call religious symbols grew out of our ancestor’s first attempt to articulate reality.

· Religious symbols remain elusive and polyvalent.

· The less specific a symbol is the richer its symbolic meaning becomes. Though its function may be negative the imagination contributes to the religious symbolization process positive images.

1.3 Rites

· First among religious symbols are the ceremonial deeds of worship; rite.

· The purpose of a ritual act is not to respect the ordinary action which it symbolizes, but to bestow meaning upon it by placing it in a higher perspective; its purpose is to transform life and not to imitate it.

· Rites are also related to play acting. Rite is not a mere reenactment of historical event it recreates beyond historical limits and gives it a permanent and universal significance.

1.4 Sacraments

· Mysteries or sacraments are particular rites; not every rite is sacramental.

· In a sacramental rite a common function of life obtains a salvific effect; Sacrament is distinct from magic rites.

· The rite partakes in a transcendent reality from which it derives an efficacy surpassing its ordinary power.

· Sacraments symbolize a reality which can in no way be directly approached. Sacraments are symbolic in their very essence.

· It must be recognized as intrinsically connected with the sacred.

· The sacramental word is very important in a sacrament. The “word” is like “form” to sacrament.

1.5 Sacrifice: Communion, Gift and Expiation

· Sacrifice is almost as common as sacraments. It has always occupied privileged place among ritual ceremonies.

· Usually sacrifices are considered either as gifts or as communion rites.

· The essence of sacrifice has itself shifted from archaic to more recent types: to feed the spirits or gods, to connect itself to another non-human group etc.,

· Union is considered to be the original objective of sacrifice. Later the notion of property and gift emerged.

· Offering is the only common characteristic which all sacrifices have.

· Another important point is expiatory sacrifices/substitution. In a sense every sacrifice is substitutional.

2. THE SYMBOLISM OF WORDS

2.1 Religious Language

· Language is the symbol par excellence. It is able to embody concepts not only of things but of things in combination. But words have to be in context.

· All symbols cannot be reduced to language. Language can do everything other symbols do; though less perfectly.

· Symbols can be religious in many ways but only words can name the sacred directly. Language alone is sufficiently flexible to refer explicitly to a reality other than the one to which its symbols normally refer.

· The purpose of religious language is to assert the transcendent as real.

· It is the overflow of the religious person’s most basic belief namely that he/she is speaking about ‘what is,’ for him religious statements not only meaningful but truth.

· The problem with religious language is whether language is able to deal with reality and most importantly with reality as it transcends the empirical world.

· Religious language is basically thetic i.e., positing a reality beyond the subjective experience of the speaker and objective reality of the world.

2.2 Oddity of Religious Language

· Religious language originates in a more intimate relation between the speaker and the spoken than the ordinary language.

· It refers to this reality as transcendent therefore it differs from aesthetic language.

· How can religious speech avoid being objective while still doing full justice to God’s transcendence. The oldest way of dealing with it is analogy of predication; the univocal and equivocal terms.

· God-language takes as its model a familiar situation but then qualifies it in such a way that the familiar suddenly turns highly unfamiliar. Thus, Religious language is an odd language.

· Divine truth appears only through the inner lines or contradictions of reason. The language of Christian revelation is absolute paradox or the “absurd.”

· Without the ordinary language the religious language would have no content whatever. The relation between them is unilateral.

2.3 The Symbolic Nature of Religious Language

· Religious language and poetry are both symbolic. In typology an event comes to mean more than its actual occurrence directly implied.

· Later allegorical method of Philo became popular. Some objections to allegory came from renaissance humanists and the Protestants but later on it was realized that scripture itself was symbolic.

· Only symbols can provide religious language with the two essential conditions- subjective involvement of the religious speaker and the transcendent nature of the referent. The believer cannot despise religious language because of the ability of the symbols to express transcendental.

· No statement about God is entirely nonsymbolic not even the primary one (God is the Supreme Being) but that all discourse about God contains also a primary nonsymbolic affirmation without the nonsymbolic the mind would be unable affirm God at all.

3. THE SYMBOLISM OF RELIGIOUS ART

3.1 Sacred Art: A Meaningful Concept?

· For the longest part of human history art was “symbol” of religion. One could not be discussed without the other: art was religious art.

· Direct link between art and faith was dissolved only in our own secular culture.

· Attitude with respect to art differs according to religions; according to the mode of envisioning the infinite in the finite.

· Art expands the expressive power of religious symbolism.

· Neither the effect of the art nor the intention of the artist makes the piece of art religious. Thus, no universal rule could determine a form of expression as exclusively religious. The religious experience itself is too polychromatic to be restricted to a single style of expression.

3.2 Symbols of Transcendence

· Symbols that are by their very nature religious do not exist.

· Religious art tends to display the inadequacy of the aesthetic form with respect to its transcendent content. Eg. Outsized proportions, fragmentary character of the work, unfinished work.

· Apart from the negative way (emphasis on the inadequacy of the form), there are also the positive symbols of the divine e.g. light. other devices are like frontal position of figures, immobility and lack of perspective, the absence of individual resemblance etc.,

· The very idea of absolute transcendence creates a constant tension in the development of religious art. Some religions prefer abstract forms of music and architecture because they are apprehensive of expressing the invisible in visible forms.

· Symbol of the transcendental are by their very nature obscure therefore, language alone can be clearly metaphorical. All arts are symbolic yet language alone can do justice to the concern for religious purity in the expression.

3.3 New Meaning of Religious Art

· The secularization of our age makes it very difficult to affirm if art is religious even in the least sense. Modern art is characterized by absence of any reference beyond the artistic image.

· Only by imposing his own religious attitude on the artist’s work can the viewer perceive contemporary expressionist art as religious.

· The contemporary artist leaves the initiative to the spectator. The ambiguity of modern art with respect to the sacred is significant for a situation in which many have lost the direct experience of the sacred. Language is indispensible but not sufficient for the creation of religious art.

Symbols of the Sacred

2012-12-20T09:03:00.000-08:00

SUMMARY OF THE BOOK

SYMBOLS OF THE SACRED

By Nobin Narzary

1.0 Introduction

The book Symbols of the Sacred by Louis Dupré is a masterpiece that elucidates the importance of symbols. In this book the author mainly deals with religious symbols. In the four chapters of the book he explains four broad topics the holy signs, language as signs, religious art and myths. The author beautiful expounds the richness of symbols and indicates how important the symbols are in religion. He also shows the vital role that symbols play in religion even today. In this short summary I intend to present the major concerns of the author regarding symbols, especially the religious symbols.

Chapter: 1 OF HOLY SIGNS

1.1 Symbols and Process of Representation

Signs may merely point to the signified but symbols represent it. The mediating function of the symbol grants it an independence which signs do not possess. Symbols are exclusive property of man. They carry meaning in themselves which allows them to articulate the signified. A symbol truly presents what it represents. (1-2). All symbols reveal a reality beyond their sensuous appearance. A symbol never simply refers to a pre-existing reality; it opens up a new one. In the process of symbolization the real is negated by the mind and elevated onto a higher level. Symbol points forward not backward; it also points beyond itself. The fundamental function of the symbol is to enable the mind to express itself. Plurality of symbolic structures is due to the mind’s protean nature which requires multiform expression. (2-3).

1.2 Religious Symbols

All symbols surpass our ordinary perception of the objects they represent; but not in the same way. Aesthetic symbol maintain a tight unity between what appears and what is signified. In a religious symbol the signified remains forever beyond our reach. Religious symbols present their noumena in such a manner that they not only signify more than they represent but also fail to disclose the nature of what they signify; they conceal more than revealing. What we now call religious symbols grew out of our ancestor’s first attempt to articulate reality. The people of the past differentiated within the one sphere of the real that which is sacred and that which is profane. (6-7). Religious symbols remain elusive. As other symbols they are polyvalent and no single rational interpretation can ever exhaust their meaning. In fact, the less specific a symbol is the richer its symbolic meaning becomes. (8) Religious man has recourse to images because he cannot say directly what he wants to say. Images play only subordinate role in the representation; although necessary. (10).

1.3 Rites

The first among religious symbols are the ceremonial deeds of worship; rite. Till today religions have maintained the priority of deed over word. Rites articulate real life, they mold it into their restrictive forms but they never fully merge with it. (12). The purpose of a ritual act is not to respect the ordinary action which it symbolizes, but to bestow meaning upon it by placing it in a higher perspective. Its purpose is to transform life and not to imitate it. Rites are also related to play acting. (13) There is a close similarity between play time and religious celebration. To celebrate means to have a good time. Certain playfulness is inherent in all ceremonial worship. Play and ritual celebration have always belonged together. For instance the Olympic Games were part of ritual celebration. Dramatization is also common to both. (15). However, the outcome of the two are different; in games there results disjunctive effect and in ritual, equilibrium. (16). Ritual celebrations are meant to make past present not to commemorate it. Rites are social activities; private rites could even be interpreted as neurotic behavior. (18). Rite is not a mere reenactment of historical event it recreates beyond historical limits and gives it a permanent and universal significance. (19)

1.4 Sacraments

Sacraments are particular rites. (20). Not every rite is sacramental. (22). In a sacramental rite a common function of life obtains a salvific effect. This is also the Christian understanding of the sacrament. Sacrament is distinct from magic rites. The salvific influence of the sacramental action does not originate in the nature of the rite considered in itself as is the case in magic rather, the rite partakes in a transcendent reality from which it derives an efficacy surpassing its ordinary power. (23). Sacraments symbolize a reality which can in no way be directly approached. Sacraments are symbolic in their very essence; it must be recognized as intrinsically connected with the sacred. (24). The sacramental word is very important in a sacrament. In uttering the word the transcendent and physical act unites and gains meaning. The “word” is like “form” to sacrament. (27).

1.5 Sacrifice: Communion, Gift and Expiation

Sacrifice is almost as common as sacraments. It has always occupied privileged place among ritual ceremonies. (28). Usually sacrifices are considered either as gifts or as communion rites. Some say that rites were believed to feed the spirits or to connect itself to another non-human group. (29). Union is considered to be the original objective of sacrifice. Later the notion of property came into existence and consequently the notion of gift. (30). The essence of sacrifice has itself shifted from archaic to more recent types. (32). Offering is the only common characteristic which all sacrifices have in common. (33). Another important element is expiatory sacrifices/substitution. In a sense every sacrifice is substitutional. (34). Sacrifice continues to have central place in the thinking of most faiths. (38).

Chapter: 2 THE SYMBOLISM OF WORDS

2.1 Religious Language

Language is the symbol par excellence. However, all symbols cannot be reduced to language (43). Language can do everything other symbols do; though less perfectly. (44). Symbols can be religious in many ways but only words can name the sacred directly. Language alone is sufficiently flexible to refer explicitly to a reality other than the one to which its symbols normally refer. In fact any religious symbol needs language to be explicitly religious. (46). The purpose of religious language is to assert the transcendent as real. It facilitates the expression of the religious person’s most basic belief namely that he/she is speaking about ‘what is.’ For him religious statements are not only meaningful but truth. (48-49). Some philosophers question whether language is able to deal with reality that transcends the empirical world. Naturalists too, question the meaningfulness of religious language on this ground. (51). Religious language is basically thetic i.e., positing a reality beyond the subjective experience of the speaker and objective reality of the world. (52).

2.2 Oddity of Religious Language

Religious language originates in an intimate relation between the speaker and the spoken. (52-53). Religious language does not refer to an object but to a more fundamental reality in which the speaker is deeply involved with. It refers to this reality as transcendent therefore it differs from aesthetic language. (53). To the question how religious language could avoid being objective while still doing full justice to God’s transcendence? The oldest solution is analogy of predication; the univocal and equivocal terms. (54). To learn analogically about God one must first know something about him literally. Analogy is nothing but rule of logic which helps us define the limits of speech about God. It reminds us that all expressions about God have been derived from a human source. (55-56).

God-language takes as its model a familiar situation but then qualifies it in such a way that the familiar suddenly turns highly unfamiliar. Thus, Religious language is an odd language. (57). Hamann speaks of religious language as contradictions of reason and Kierkegaard speaks of it as paradoxical. (58). However, religious paradox does not go against reason; it uses contradictory expressions to draw attention to its attempt to go beyond rational expression not to destroy the laws of reason. (59-60). Paradoxical/ religious language can only be understood through the nonparadoxical. (60). But the basic religious proposition cannot be reduced to ordinary language. The relation between them is unilateral i.e., religious language need the ordinary but not the vice versa. (61).

2.3 The Symbolic Nature of Religious Language

Symbolic could also be understood as the typological interpretation of the text or even as allegorical. In typology an event comes to mean more than its actual occurrence directly implied as is also the case in allegory. (62-63). Some objections to allegory came from renaissance humanists and the Protestants but later on it was realized that scripture itself was symbolic. (64). Only symbols can provide religious language with the two essential conditions- subjective involvement of the religious speaker and the transcendent nature of the referent. (65). The believer cannot despise religious language because of the ability of the symbols to express transcendental. Symbolic representations are less misleading because in spite of the physical concreteness they are less determinate in their meanings. (66). No statement about God is entirely nonsymbolic not even the primary one (God is the Supreme Being) but that all discourse about God contains also a primary nonsymbolic affirmation without the nonsymbolic the mind would be unable affirm God at all. (67-68).

Chapter: 3 THE SYMBOLISM OF RELIGIOUS ART

3.1 Sacred Art: A Meaningful Concept?

For the longest part of human history art symbolized religion; one could not be discussed without the other. Art was religious art. Direct link between art and faith was dissolved only in our own secular culture. (69). Attitude with respect to art differs according to religions; according to the mode of envisioning the infinite in the finite. (70). Art expands the expressive power of religious symbolism. (72). Neither the effect of the art nor the intention of the artist makes the piece of art religious. Thus, there is no universal rule to determine a form of expression as exclusively religious. The religious experience itself is too polychromatic to be restricted to a single style of expression. (76).

3.2 Symbols of Transcendence

There are no symbols that are naturally religious. (77). Religious art tends to display the inadequacy of the aesthetic form with respect to its transcendent content. This inadequacy may be conveyed in many ways Eg. Outsized proportions, fragmentary character of the work, unfinished work etc., (78). Inadequacy is also conveyed by the distorted figures. Even indeterminateness and ambiguity may be religiously expressive. (79). Apart from the negative way there are also the positive symbols of the divine e.g. light. There are also other devices like frontal position of figures, immobility and lack of perspective, the absence of individual resemblance etc., actually the very idea of absolute transcendence creates a constant tension in the development of religious art. Some religions prefer abstract forms of music and architecture because they are apprehensive of expressing the invisible in visible forms. (80-81). Literary expression is considered indispensable to an advanced faith. All advanced religious symbols are either linguistic or based upon language. Symbol of the transcendental are by their very nature obscure therefore, language alone can be clearly metaphorical. All arts are symbolic yet language alone can do justice to the concern for religious purity in the expression. Thus, language plays a very vital role as a symbol. (83).

3.4 New Meaning of Religious Art

The secularization of our age makes it very difficult to affirm if art is religious even in the least sense. Modern art is characterized by absence of any reference beyond the artistic image. (84). Only by imposing his own religious attitude on the artist’s work can the viewer perceive contemporary expressionist art as religious. The contemporary artist leaves the initiative to the spectator. The ambiguity of modern art with respect to the sacred is significant for a situation in which many have lost the direct experience of the sacred. (88). Language is indispensible but not sufficient for the creation of religious art. (89).

Chapter: 4 THE MYTH AND ITS SURVIVAL

4.1 The Myth and Its Truth

Myths are verbally developed symbols or an exegesis of the symbol. Religious symbol need the interpretation of myth. Myths bring order meaning and structure to the world of the religious symbol. Myth is the language of the symbol and originally it was the only language. Also symbol is exegesis of myth; they are dialectically related. (91). Symbols grow out of myths as much as myths grow out of symbols. Myths make reflective what before was only “lived.” But myth participate so much in the lived reality that its meaning must be felt rather than rationally understood. (93).

Psychologists and sociologists have their own opinions about the importance of myth. However, there is a certain truth in myth for which critical reflection can never substitute. (97). Myths are more emotional than rational, they respond to existential problems. (98). Myth sets up a model for existence in its entirety. It aims primarily at restoring the primeval wholeness lost through reflection. (99). Mythical stories convey a dramatic character to the ritual action. Temporality is an essential character of myth. It reunites person with the primeval events. The experience of sacred precedes myth. (100).

4.2 Survival of Myth

Can myth survive rational reflection? This is not a new question because it was asked in the third century B.C already; when some groups tried to interpret myth as allegory. (103-104). The turning point in myth came at the end of 18^th century when some philosophers and phenomenologists affirmed myth an essential mode of thinking in the infancy stage of a culture. However, till today we have lot of conflicting opinions about myths. (104). Myth is meaningful but if it is not subjected to reason it could be dangerous; for instance, mythical interpretation of the history can be dangerous. (106). In only one area of modern culture is the myth fully recognized and openly welcomed that is the art and particularly the literary arts. (107).

4.3 The Religious Survival of the Myth

Myth establishes beliefs as well as rites and even moral practices. (110). Of course, rationalized theological theories cannot be equated with primitive myth. However, mythical element persists throughout their development. Belief in myth cannot survive the awareness that it is a myth. Believer feels that myth contains important message yet he/she is seldom able to give it a precise sense. As the birth place of the gods myth initiates a movement toward transcendence that becomes completed in formal religion. (111). Myth itself initiates a dynamism that leads the mind beyond the mythical. (112). In the case of Israel, their sacred history is encased in a mythic framework of time. Christianity has lot of mythical elements too. (114). In the gospel narratives we see how History and myth are integrated. To separate these two elements have proved futile and such distinction is not essential for the believer. The question is ‘whether the myth is still needed after the sacred has been rationally defined. (115). The fact that myth survives within the religious attitude is an indication of the possibility that it might be indispensible. (116). If anti-mythical drive were to be completely successful it would drain the lifeblood out of religion itself. Some aspects of the myths may not survive religious, philosophical or scientific reflection but myth possesses certain qualities that make it irreplaceable in religious symbolization. (117).

5. Conclusion

A study on religious symbols is indeed a very rich area of study. It is rich because symbols are one of the primary means that is available to us for the study and analysis of a religion. Symbols are the external manifestations of religion. They convey profound meanings regarding the religion. They represent the transcendental elements of the religion. In fact, symbols are the medium that facilitate expression and understanding of transcendental concepts on religion. Ordinary language and means of communication help us understand religion; however, they have a very limited capacity to express the transcendental experiences and realities. While we use symbols and symbolic language the ordinary expressions are very vital in the understanding of religious symbols. Religious symbols/language makes sense only in the context of ordinary symbols/language.

Bibliography:

Dupré, Louis. Symbols of the Sacred. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.

Paradox or Mystery

2012-11-30T00:09:00.001-08:00

Some one said, ‘a worker never grumbles and a grumbler never works,’ how true. We also find people who go about bashing up other people without realizing that they could die at any moment. There are some people who are very strict with others and very lenient with themselves. There are some who are very pious and religious in the society and in the public but at the personal level... The word ‘paradox’ really fascinates me; not because it is word used rarely in our circles or a rare experience that happens once in a blue moon, but because it is one of the most common experiences in life. These are some paradoxical experiences of life and they are not mere paradoxes of life rather they are events in the mystery of life. I believe what Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) a French philosopher makes sense here, for him life is a mystery that needs to be understood and not a problem that can be solved.

“Wrong Number”

2012-11-30T00:08:00.002-08:00

Before I write anything about the “wrong number phenomenon” let me explain what I mean by “wrong number.” There is a very interesting phenomenon that I heard of or is rather came across recently. It is popular in some parts of the world and in some parts of our country even. It is an interesting phenomenon that has emerged in the world or telecommunication with the coming of cellphones. “Wrong number phenomenon” refers to the phenomenon of talking to the persons unknown to the individual. This phenomenon has caught very fast among the youth. Here, when a youth gets a call from an unknown number instead of admitting that it is a “wrong number” and telling the person concerned, the truth; the person begins to “befriend” and talk to the other party. This happens faster among the youth of complementary sex. This regular/chronic talking to each other over the time develops further into an infatuation and may lead to meeting each other and even to the point of deciding to settle in marriage. However, in most cases the relationship does not flower or at least is seen not to flower into marriage; because most of these individuals discover that the “partner” is “defective” or not unto the expectation.

This is a phenomenon seems to be a very simple, funny and insignificant phenomenon. However, it tells us a lot of things about our societies or the tendencies in our societies. One of the very vivid implications of this perverted behaviour is the “objectification of the other” and the tendency to hide from the facts/truths of life. The question that such people need to answer to is, why are you afraid of life? If you are shy of doing something in public does it not indicate that what you are doing is not ok? If it is not ok why do it?

The Problem with “Communication” Today

2012-11-30T00:06:00.002-08:00

Many people speak of communication today. In fact, “communication” has become a cliché today. We have numerous branches of study that can be termed as communication. We live in an era of communication. Be it T.V, internet, mobile phones. However, today many parents, authorities and moralists discuss on the demerits of communication rather than on its merits. Thus, we have youth on the one hand who long for gadgets for communication; and having one makes them fell good. However, I would like to express my concern with the parents and elders of today; because communication or the means of communication has indeed brought about lot of evils.

What has gone wrong in this whole process? Where is the problem? I believe the issue of concern is what is communicated. The problem in the world of media today is, truth is not communicated. What is communicated most are “projected truths,” not “truths.” There could be various reasons why truth is not communicated one of the main reasons is probably because it is challenging. But the sad part is this hiding oneself from the truth will never improve our situation it will only worsen our situation.

Reality

2012-11-30T00:05:00.001-08:00

One of the questions that many philosophers have been questioning about since ages (though some philosophers don’t do it now) is, “what is Real?” I feel this question is valid even today; precisely because it’s an extremely important question. The problem is we often don’t think of such simple yet profound questions of life. The issue of reality is, ‘who has the right to claim what is real?’ The point to be noted here is: what I think, believe and “know” to be real many not be Real because there will be another person who will have completely opposite view on the same issue and he too might believe it and “know” it to be real. So then, what exactly is Reality? One thing needs to be noted here, my “knowing” of the reality to be Real or other person’s “knowing” of real to be Real does not in any way affect the Reality; Reality remains Real, irrespective of my affirming it. One of the reasons of the possibility of these three possibilities of knowing the Real is precisely the consequence of our historicity. By the way we cannot get out of our historicity. Thus, to have the inkling of the Real we need humility; a realization that I may not be able to “know” or grasp the Real. This also means that unless the Real reveals “Itself” to me I may not have the inkling of Real. The Real requires of me a humility without which I live in unreality or blindness; which is not a state of perfection; not a state to which I am called to be.

I am vulnerable are You/not?

2012-11-30T00:04:00.000-08:00

Today people do not want to speak of vulnerability, mercy, forgiveness and defeat rather about power, self-confidence, victory etc., to day we live in a world that does not want to admit the truth or live in “genuinity.” However, not speaking about these do not improve the situation in any way. The facts of life remain the same. I don’t know if you believe yourself to be vulnerable, but in my case, when I sit back and reflect over my life I arrive at a conviction that ‘I am vulnerable.’ This realization does not lead me to despair rather, it is how I find myself; it is the fact of life. Therefore, it is part of ‘me,’ being human. This realization helps me to be more human, to be more humble, to be more understanding and kind; which are but human (or also divine) qualities. It just helps me really to be ‘me.’ The spiritual qualities we find in humans are all founded on vulnerability. Let us consider love, and hope. In the experience of love and hope we are not sure whether the other will respond to us. In hoping for something (obviously something good) we are not sure if our hope will be fulfilled. Even in the commitment of marriage (a commitment of love) the bond is built on vulnerability. The longevity and the quality of fidelity cannot be guaranteed. Thus, for me I won’t mind to claim that to be is to be vulnerable. Remember, Jesus knowingly, willingly and out of gratuitous love for humankind made himself vulnerable to redeem vulnerable humanity through being vulnerable.

Philosophy of Religion and Phenomenology of Religion

2012-11-23T08:41:00.001-08:00

Philosophy of Religion

Religion is as old as humanity itself, philosophy was a later development and philosophy of religion appeared later still. Philosophy critics all major human practices including the practice of religion. Thus philosophy of religion is basically a critic of religion. It is comparatively a recent field of study, it developed only last two to three hundred years back.[1] Philosophy of Religion is a normative enterprise, it reflects on the truths of religious beliefs. Thus, proof of the existence of God is offered in the attempt to establish the truth of various theistic claims while existence of evil is offered as evidence against such claims.[2] “Philosophy of Religion is an attempt to discover by rational interpretation of religion and its relations to other types of experience, the truth of religious beliefs and the value of religious attitudes and practices.”[3] It is a branch of metaphysics which interprets the relation of man’s experience of religious values to the rest of his experiences; thus, it seeks both to contribute concrete religious values to the interpretation of experience as a whole and to criticize those values in the light of rational view.[4]

The philosophers of Religion have been concerned with seeking explanations and justifications for the kind of thing that a religious believer believes. For some, the aim of Philosophy of Religion is to provide rational basis for religious belief for others it is to show that such a basis is not possible.[5] Philosophy of Religion is nothing but philosophical thinking about religion. It is not an organ of religious teaching. Indeed, it need not be undertaken from a religious stand point at all. The atheist, the agnostic and the person of faith all can and do philosophize about religion. It is not a branch of theology but of philosophy.[6]

While various attempts have been made to define and elucidate what Philosophy of Religion is, it is a difficult discipline to define. Perhaps, then, this is one of the reasons why this subject is often embarked upon without being defined by its practitioners. One of the reasons why it is difficult to define Philosophy of Religion is because this term is traditionally used and the traditional usage differs according to place. However, the topics in Philosophy of Religion centre on the following: the different ways in which the existence of God can apparently be proved, the attributes of God, the question of divine action, miracles, evil, life after death etc., [7]

Phenomenology of Religion

The phenomenological approach to the study of religion was conceptualized and developed by Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye, William Brede Kristensen and Gerardus van der Leeuw. It deals with the experiential aspect of Religion. It views religion as composed of different elements and analyses them across different religious traditions so that a comprehensive understanding of it may be reached.[8] The phenomenology of Religion has emerged as both a major field of study and an extremely influential approach to religion during the 20^th century. The term has become popular and has been utilized by numerous scholars who seem to share little if anything in common. There are four major groups of scholars who use the term phenomenology of religion: The first group consists of scholars who use Phenomenology of Religion in the vaguest, broadest and most uncritical of ways. Often the term seems to mean nothing more than an investigation of the phenomena of religion. The second group speaks of Phenomenology of Religion as the comparative study and the classification of different types of religious phenomena. The third group of scholars have identified the Phenomenology of Religion as a specific discipline or method within religionswissenschaft.[9] This is where the most significant contribution of the phenomenology of religion to the study of religion have been made. The fourth group of scholars consists of those whose Phenomenology of Religion has been influenced by philosophical phenomenology.[10] The modern scholarly study of religion probably had its beginning in the late 18^th century largely as a product of the rational and scientific attitude of the enlightenment. The first major figure in this discipline was F. Max Müller (1823-1900).[11]

The Phenomenology of Religion is a descriptive approach to the Philosophy of Religion. Instead of debating whether certain religious beliefs are true it asks the question ‘what is religion?’ it seeks to deepen our understanding of the religious life by asking what (if anything) the phenomena we normally take to be religious have in common that distinguishes them from art, ethics, magic or science. It also studies the differences between the different religious groups. Sometimes the Phenomenology of Religion is motivated by a desire for quasi scientific objectivity at other times it has a more existential orientation. Phenomenology of Religion considers the fact that religion is an observable phenomenon of human life, and its task is to help us better understand what religion is by giving descriptive analysis of that aspect of human experience.[12]

[1] Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, Philosophy of Religion An Historical Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007), 1.

[2] Merold Westphal, “Phenomenology of Religion,” Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, gen. ed. Edward Craig (London: Routledge, 1998) 7: 353.

[3] Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion (New York: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1969), 22.

[4] Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, 22.

[5] Clack and Clack, The Philosophy of Religion A Critical Introduction, 7.

[6] John H. Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4^th edn. (New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, 2003), 1.

[7] Beverley Clack and Brian R. Clack, The Philosophy of Religion A Critical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 6. See also: Anne Jordan Neil Lockyer and Edwin Tate, Philosophy of Religion for A Level (Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes Ltd. 1999), vii.

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_of_religion, accessed on 20/11/12.

[9] For Max Müller, religionswissenschaft is a descriptive, objective science that was free from the normative nature of theological and philosophical studies of religion. Cf Douglas Allen, “Phenomenology of Religion,” The Encyclopaedia of Religion, ed. in chief Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company) 11: 276.

[10] Allen, “Phenomenology of Religion,” The Encyclopaedia of Religion, 273.

[11] Allen, “Phenomenology of Religion,” The Encyclopaedia of Religion, 276.

[12] Merold Westphal, “Phenomenology of Religion,” Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy gen ed. Edward Craig (London: Routledge, 1998) 7: 352.

Gabriel Marcel and Communication

2012-10-12T09:58:00.002-07:00

1.0 Introduction

The word ‘communication’ is a very widely used term today. It is a word that catches the attention of everyone; a word that has gained popularity and acceptance in the recent times. One of the reasons why this word has gained so much of popularity is also the growth in the field of communication in the recent years. Due to its wide usage, the word ‘communication’ has also come to acquire wide range of meanings. One of the common understandings of the word ‘communication’ today, is the mass communication or the mass media communication. However, ‘communication’ is not merely mass media communication; as understood by some. It actually refers to the whole process of communicating a message, and this could happen at personal, social and global level. Communication could also happen at the realm of the ‘non-verbal.’ The process of communication involves the subject who communicates the object (another subject) to whom the message is communicated and the message that is communicated between the two parties. This process could involve even more minute steps like receptivity, reciprocity, biases etc., However, the basic elements in communication are “subject,” “another subject” and the message.

In this article I would like to expound Gabriel Marcel’s philosophy of communication. Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973), a French existentialist philosopher proposes Intersubjectivity as a model for communication. For him the problem in meaningful communication lies in the misconception of ‘being;’ a ‘being’ “who” is essentially Intersubjective. He realized how important it was to communicate, and to communicate in a personal one-to-one level. This kind of communication, he says, demands an openness, availability, fidelity and faith from the individuals involved in communication. It demands love and co-operation.

1.1 Clarification of Terms

Marcel, in his exposition of the notion of the human person as communicative beings, uses some particular terms. Some of these terms he uses, may not be very clear to us, because some of those terms are coined by him and others, used differently. Before I present his philosophy of communication I would like to clarify some of these terms.

1.1.1 Problem and Mystery

By mystery, Marcel does not refer to the realm of the unknowable. But he sees it as approachable by a type of rational thought which he calls secondary reflection. Unlike in the case of “problems,” in the realm of mystery there are no generalized or objective solutions, only communion, testimony and witness.[1]

Problems can be discussed completely and objectively; without involving in any manner the “persons” of the ones studying it. In the world of problem the investigator is dispassionate and uninvolved. This is the technique employed by the sciences.[2] A mystery on the other hand is a problem which encroaches upon its own data, invading them, as it were, and thereby transcending itself as a simple problem.[3] In mystery the distinction between what is in me and what is before me breaks down. Mystery is a reality rooted in what is beyond the domain of problematical. [4]

Mystery is something that I am involved in or find myself in; actually, I am inside it. Mystery envelops and comprehends me.[5] The mysterious always eludes the full grasp of man. A mystery is a meta-problematical state of affairs. It is not given to a thinker, rather it tends to include the thinker as a participant. It is a reality in which I find myself engaged; it is not a part of myself but the total “me” which is engaged in it. Mystery transcends definition and it cannot be objectified, the mystery is in me and in you and not before me or you.[6] This is what Marcel means by mystery.

1.1.2 Primary and Secondary Reflection

Reflection according to Marcel operates on more than one level. While primary reflection seeks to gain clarity about the world of abstraction, objectification and verification, secondary reflection seeks to wonder at richer understanding of the meaning of human existence by a return to, reflection on, the experiences such as appreciation, fidelity and faith. It is only within the secondary reflection that the mystery of being is apprehended. When I ask myself ‘what is the significance of my faith in God?’ by primary reflection I may try to search for clarity, explanation, study the environment etc., whereas, secondary reflection will question ‘what meaning does it have for me.’[7] Thus the secondary reflection challenges me at a personal level.

Recollection is a kind of secondary reflection, it is the process by which I look for some meaning which is not immediately visible. In recollection, I am able to weigh the actual life I am living and the potential life within me. Recollection involves a deeper participation in the mysterious fullness and complexity which can be appreciated but never clearly presented to the observing mind.[8]

1.2 Misconception of Being as the Problem in the World of Communication

According to Marcel, the basic problem in communication is the ignorance of the true ‘nature’ of being.[9] The basic problem being the inability of the subject/communicator to recognize the worth of the other subject/human person; misconception of ‘being.’ Marcel, in his writings vehemently criticizes the functional and technocratic world that has lost the sense of being.[10] One of the questions that could arise is, ‘what is the connection between misconception of being and communication?’ well, the issue here is, for Marcel, the human person (in communication) are persons[11] and if the “other” in communication is not recognized as person a meaningful communication cannot happen. Now let us see what Marcel meant by misconception of being.

The ‘subject’/‘being’ is essentially Intersubjective and communicative.[12] In communication, what is most important is the “other”/“subject” to whom the message is communicated. If we fail to recognize the ‘other’ as ‘subject,’ how can meaningful communications take place? For Marcel, the concrete experiences of life are foundational in understanding our being. The question of being, in fact, focuses mainly upon that which is eternal within human experience.[13] Being is a mystery approachable only through individual beings; and individual beings can be known in their true reality only as they are approached in love/Intersubjective communication. Hence the search for being must begin by a phenomenological analysis of love/ Intersubjective communication and proceed to examine those experiences, such as availability, fidelity, faith and hope which are modalities of love.[14] Thus we see very clearly that the tendency to isolate oneself is the result of misconception of being. Being is fundamentally communicative subject with dignity and eternal intrinsic value. However, the main problem in communication lies in the inability or ignorance of the communicating subject to recognize the other as ‘being’ and this has come about due to various reasons one of the reasons being the “growth” of technology.

1.2.1 Being and Having

Let us further explain the misconception of being by analyzing the notion of ‘being’ and ‘having.’ The way we look at the world and the people around us influence the formation of our self a great deal. It is worth noting how Marcel distinguishes two attitudes that we could have in communication. Our attitude could either be that of ‘being’ or ‘having.’ We could treat the other as a ‘person’ or as an ‘object.’ ‘Being’ implies participation, mystery, presence, I-thou relationships, thought which stands in the presence of, concrete thinking and secondary reflection. On the other hand having implies objectification, problem, object, I-It relationships, thought which proceeds by interrogation, abstraction and primary reflection. Both of these views are important but the problem in communication today is the preoccupation with the possessive (‘having’) attitude.[15] The modern communication tends to treat the other as ‘having’ i.e., as objects or possessions.[16]

We also see having mentality at the personal level. In the case of suicide we have people disposing their bodies as though the body is something that we “have;” as though body is a thing.[17] In the field of communication ‘having’ mentality could lead to a disaster because the man who remains in the realm of ‘having’ is centred either on himself or on another treated as “another.”[18] At the root of ‘having’ there lies a certain specialization or better, specification of the self and this is connected with the partial alienation of the self.[19]

The problem with communication today is that, the other is treated as ‘having’ and not as ‘being.’ In communication, the concern today is, ‘what I can get from the other;’ the ‘person’ or the ‘being’ is forgotten. The whole problem of communication takes place when the subject that communicates treats the other/subject as ‘having’ i.e., and anonymous entity, an object, a possession.

1.2.2 Functionalism

Functionalism is the identification of the person with his/her function/role. The problem of functionalism in the world of Communication is, ‘I communicate to you as long as you are useful to me.’[20] We clearly see here how dignity and sacredness of the subject is replaced with the function the other performs; whatever the function may be. Intersubjective communication should be the hallmark of being human but it is sad to see the rampart “growth” of functionalism. The attitude of functionalism is a proof that Man in one way or another have moved away from what he truly is; being. Modern man has lost the ontological weight of human experience; dignity and sacredness of being is replaced with functionality.[21]

Functionalism is a perilous trend that could lead to superficiality in communication, cover-ups and pretension.[22] The consequences of functionalism are grave. Functionalism has aggravated the degradation human dignity. Life in a functionalized world becomes a process without purpose, utilization of means with no clearly defined end, a journey without goal. This no doubt is a road to despair and nihilism.[23]

1.3 Proper Understanding of Being

Marcel after having identified the problem of communication suggests a very practical solution. The problem being, the misconception of being/person. Thus, his solution is, a proper understanding of ‘being.’ In this section we shall see how he suggests reflection[24] on the ordinary events of life like love, fidelity, faith, and hope in order to understand ‘being.’ His solution may seem very ordinary, however, his insights are very profound.

Being could be defined as that which does not allow itself to be dissolved by the dialectics of experience; being is that which resists the corrosive acids of primary reflection’s attempt to reduce experience to the level of the objective and the problematic.[25] When he calls a ‘subject’ or ‘person’ a ‘being,’ he means that it possesses intrinsic value or dignity; a value or dignity that is not limited in time but rather eternal. The experience of fidelity and love he says, reveal the presence of such value in persons. He brings to our notice that people do receive unconditional commitments;[26] which is an indication that they do possess eternal intrinsic value. Hence, unconditional fidelity and love between human beings is meaningless if the individual making such commitment does not experience the other as participating in an imperishable, eternal value that is intrinsic. Absence of such value would make all such pledges absurd.[27]

Now this being which participates in an eternal intrinsic value is essentially communicative; human persons are ontologically Intersubjective. Human beings long for meaningful communication and find fullness of being only in interpersonal communication. A person experiences interpersonal communication through his experience of love (agape).[28] Marcel insists that structurally my being is a being-with-others and at no time of my existence am I self sufficient, isolated monad.[29] Our own self knowledge and self-love is dependent on others and their knowledge and love of us. Our self-fulfillment comes only through availability to other persons and union with them in Intersubjective communication such as love and fidelity.[30] For Marcel, just as a concrete individual is inseparable from his incarnation in a body and his immersion in a situation, he is likewise inseparable from his Intersubjective communication with other persons. Quoting Marcel, Sam Keen insists that,

Philosophy begins with ‘we are’ rather than ‘think,’ with co-esse rather than esse, with intentional consciousness rather than self-consciousness, with inter-subjectivity rather than subjectivity. The individual cannot be conceived as an isolated atom to whom relations are somehow added. Relationship is creative of being. The ability of a child to use language and to have a sense of personal identity is dependent upon his being nurtured in a human community. Like an island that arises out of an encompassing sea, the individual ego emerges from an Intersubjective nexus.[31]

Thus, we see that according to Marcel, the human person establishes oneself as a person only in Intersubjective communication. But we see some people who may consciously wants to cut themselves off from others and live within the confines of their own ego. In Marcel’s view such subjective isolation is a denial of the communion within which the mystery of being is known. In one of his plays, Les coeurs des autres he writes, ‘there is only one suffering: to be alone.’ He does not deny that self could become a kind of hellish prison from which all hope and love have been barred, but he refuses to admit that this is the condition of authentic human life. The imprisoned and hermetic ego results from a refusal to heed the appeal for communion which arises from other persons. For Marcel, Intersubjectivity is the precondition of human consciousness, and communion the mode of authentic life; he says philosophy can be characterized as a series of meditations on the meaning of ‘with.’[32]

1.3.1 Love

Love issues forth from the whole being of a person and involves him in something which transcends him. It is an active refusal to treat itself as “subjective” i.e., it is an affirmation of the value of the other. True love is full of unconditional quality which is the sign of presence; a presence which is incarnated in the “us.”[33] To say that one loves a being is to affirm that ‘thou shall not die.’ This would mean, because I love you, because I affirm you as being, there is something in you which can bridge that abyss that I call death. From the moment my affirmation becomes love, it resigns in favour of that which is affirmed, of the thing which is asserted in its substantial value. This is precisely what love is; it cannot be divorced from this resignation. Love cannot be separated from faith; in fact it is faith.[34]

The mysterious quality which is aimed at in love is, “whatever changes may intervene in what I see before me, you and I will persist as one: the event that has occurred, and which belongs to the order of accident, cannot nullify the promise of eternity which is enclosed in our love, in our mutual pledge.”[35] We can understand the God of faith as spirit only in the context of Intersubjectivity i.e., of love. If human love is centered on itself, if it sinks into a mutually shared narcissism, it turns into idolatry and pronounces its own death sentence.[36]

1.3.2 Availability

If love is so essential in the realization of our being, our approach to being must first deal with that attitude which is a pre-condition of love. The spirit of abstraction and possession are the foundation stones of the prison which the ego builds for itself. In order to make the approaches to being concrete and practical we must first find ways by which the ego may break out of its self-inflicted imprisonment and enter into fully personal relationships. The first requirement for such relationships is the availability.

An unavailable person is locked up in one’s small circle of private experience and judges others only by the way they fit into one’s preconceived desires and plans. Life is like a possession which the unavailable man hoards. A person in order to participate in and Intersubjective communication needs to be available. [37]

The available person is not encumbered with his own possessions, self-image, or a priori categories into which other persons must fit. Hence, he has the capacity to listen and respond to the appeal made by others to him. This openness is never an assured disposition but is a conquest which must be made again and again. One has to battle constantly with “oneself” as well as with the environment that influences one to be a “self-sufficient” monad. There is also a certain quality of prodigality and abandon about the way the available man gives of oneself. This prodigality is not an evidence of lack of responsibility but is the result of a refusal to calculate the possibilities and the limits within which it is rational to hope and within which love may be creative. It is inevitably the person who is most consecrated and faithful who is most available. Availability and fidelity go hand in hand.[38]

1.3.3 Fidelity and Faith

A ‘being’ possesses value or dignity that is not limited in time but rather eternal. This can be seen in the experience of fidelity. People who give themselves in unconditional commitment or fidelity recognize in the other, the eternal intrinsic value. Thus, unconditional fidelity and love between human beings is meaningless if the individual making such commitment does not experience the other as participating in an imperishable, eternal value that is intrinsic. Absence of such value would make all such pledges absurd.[39]

Fidelity is the foundation on which a community is built. It refers to our faithfulness to the engagements we have taken upon ourselves. The idea of fidelity is very close to that of loyalty. Fidelity always implies an unconditional vow to another person, in other words, commitment to the other. It is an unimposed presence of an ‘I’ to a ‘thou.’[40] Fidelity helps the self to achieve some identity, some unity, some triumph over the corrosive acids of time. It is not a stubborn adherence to one’s duty neither is it mere constancy. It is not even the preservation of a status quo. But it is creative and seeks to cooperate with the other person’s efforts to become free. Fidelity does not calculate rather it is a leap into the dark. In swearing fidelity I am uncertain of the future. I cannot assure that my feelings will not change tomorrow, next month, or next year? However, beauty of fidelity lies in this very fact of unknownness or uncertainty of the future. It is this element in fidelity that gives weightage to our fidelity.[41] It also a sign of the recognition of the other as ‘being.’ Only when I recognize the other as being will I be able to commit myself in fidelity.

Experience tells us that human beings are radically contingent, frequently fickle, and generally weak to make a commitment that is unconditional, thus prone to infidelity and Marcel is aware of it, in fact, Fidelity can never be unconditional except where it is Faith. This is how fidelity and faith is connected. Having said this, it is also important to note that fidelity aspires to unconditionality.[42] Fidelity is always directed to the person and it is always a response to a person; it is the response to an appeal which recognizes in the other person something of lasting value.[43] Fidelity is an act of the total person taking responsibility for another. In pledging faithfulness to another person we recognize the being of the other; we recognize him/her as ‘Thou’ and not as an ‘It,’ as ‘Presence’ and not as an ‘Object.’ Fidelity involves the unconditional and it has its justification when it becomes faith in God.[44]

When fidelity reaches its highest point, it becomes faith in God, here the unconditional vow implied in human love receives its most complete justification. Now, one might ask what is the connection between fidelity to a ‘thou’ and the faith in ‘Absolute Thou?’ The hint to this is the factor of unconditionality in fidelity. Fidelity demands an unconditional vow, an absolute commitment to the other person.[45] Now the question here is, does absolute commitment demand that one be committed to an absolute personal being? Marcel is of the opinion that it does. Unconditionality is the true sign of God’s presence. On this point even Sartre agrees with Marcel. For him, fidelity aspires to an unconditionality which can only be fulfilled when it is joined with faith.[46]

1.3.4 Hope

Hope can be considered as a continuation and expansion of availability. It is indeed openness in the face of the ultimate mystery of being. There is also a parallel between the structures of fidelity and hope. Just as faith is the model of fidelity, so also the unconditional hope in God; the Absolute Thou, alone reveals the true nature of hope. As the reality to which faith is a testimony is not absent from any genuine fidelity, likewise the presence creating in the believer that hope for salvation is never wholly absent where authentic human life strives to transcend the broken world in which it exists. The exigence of transcendence which is the driving force behind all authentic human life is nothing other than hope that does not yet recognize itself as such. A phenomenology of hope reveals an unconditional element at the heart of human existence. Thus, suggesting that the exigence of transcendence is only veiled exigence of God. The most conditioned hope points beyond itself to an Absolute Thou who is the foundation of, and the presence immanent within unconditional hope.[47]

As fidelity can arise only where there is the possibility of betrayal, so hope can arise only where there is the possibility of despair. Hope is directed toward salvation; it involves coming out of the darkness of illness, separation, exile or slavery. To despair is to affirm the faithlessness of reality, to proclaim that the future can never break away from the tyranny of the past. It is to measure the possible by pre-established categories and to establish limits beyond which the rational man must cease to hope. Only where there is the temptation to despair can hope arise as the self, in freedom, refusing to absolutise those categories which promise only extinction to the human spirit. The task of a person therefore is to guard against despair by showing the limits of the categories of primary reflection and by pointing to the mysterious reality upon which hope rests.[48]

To affirm that man is utterly alone and dependent only on his own resources is to condemn him to act without hope. Sartre very strongly propagates this. He advocated despair rather than hope. Hope rests with Intersubjectivity, with love, and ultimately with faith. Hope involves the refusal to calculate the limits of the possible. The absolute openness of unconditional hope is inseparable from faith. It appears as a response of the creature to the infinite being to whom it is conscious of owing everything that it has. The openness of hope indicates that it is of the nature of hope to be unverifiable. There is no logical limit to hope. To hope is to trust in the final triumph of the love of God.[49] Hope does not foresee or imagine its end, but trusts on the basis of an established relationship that the loved one does not, and will not betray love. It is only on the level of Intersubjectivity that hope is possible. Hope is only possible to the degree that the self overcomes the egocentrism of possession which is manifest in desire.[50]

1.4 Implications of Marcel’s Philosophy of Communication

Marcel’s philosophy, I believe, have a lot to contribute to the world of communication. First and foremost Marcel’s understanding of a human person is that of a ‘being’ who is ontologically communicative/Intersubjective. This fundamental assertion I suppose conveys how important the process of communication is for Marcel. He does not use the word ‘communication’ as much as ‘Intersubjectivity’ to express this notion. However, Intersubjectivity could be understood as a process of communication; in fact it is a very rich experience of communication. In this regard he could be considered a philosopher of communication par excellence. He views human persons are beings constantly longing for meaningful communication.[51]

1.4.1 Human Person as Essentially Communicative

As we cannot think of ourselves as separable from our bodies, we cannot think of separating ourselves from the concrete situations[52] in which we find ourselves. Marcel says, “I am my habitual surroundings in the same way that I am my body.”[53] For him, I am inseparable from the family, the nation, the professional and religious groups in which I participate. I cannot think of my self apart from my situation. There is a mysterious bond that unites us to our situations in the same way that the child is united in the womb to the mother.

As far as I do not enter into an I- Thou relationship; which my being always invites me to participate in, I remain an isolated ego, always a prey to loneliness and despair. Apart from the relationship of mutual intersubjective communication I remain an incomplete ‘being’/‘im-person.’[54] Human life is a mixture of both I-he as well as I-thou relationships. Sometimes the situation is such that the society becomes a hindrance in our striving towards an I- thou relationship. Sometimes in spite of our efforts we still fall in the trap of objectifying the other. This is because complete communion is a rare flower of love, not the normal atmosphere we generally live in. However, the creative interchange of communication gradually transforms isolated and possessive egos into persons.[55] Marcel’s concrete philosophy of the human person as an incarnate being who is inseparable from his situation leads forward to concrete ontology. For him, the way to meaningful communication is through our participation. Thus, for him, interpersonal relationship forms the doorway to the knowledge of the mystery of being.[56]

1.4.2 Intersubjectivity as a Model for Communication

Marcel through his notion of the human person as being; who is essentially intersubjective, tries to show us a way out of the problems of communication today. The problem being, ignorance of ‘being.’ The absence of respect for the ‘other’ in communication, or irresponsible behaviour in communication are all consequences of such ignorance. What Marcel suggests is that all people begin to reflect on experiences of life and be aware of ‘being.’ This realization will gradually enable one to enter into a deep relationship with one another in a one to one co-presence. What the world need today is the deep realization that we are after all Intersubjective beings in need of meaningful relationships. This realization and the consequent execution of the realization could solve the problem of communication today. The ‘communicating subject’ needs to realize that people they are communicating their messages to; whatever the message be, are subjects/individuals. The other is a subject who desire and deserve respect, love and the care that we are so particular in showering ourselves with. Applying the same principle to mass media communication, Marcel’s suggestion would be that, media persons and the mass communication today keep in mind that people to whom they are communicating their message to, are “persons.”[57]

1.5 Conclusion

In this article my effort has been to present Marcel’s philosophy of communication. It has been a great experience studying Marcel’s philosophy and applying it to communication. Marcel indeed has a lot to contribute to the world of communication. I began this article by clarifying some Marcellian terms and then went on to state the problem that Marcel sees in the field of communication; which is basically the misconception of being.[58] I then, proceeded to explain Marcel’s solution to the problem, i.e., proper understanding of ‘being,’ which can be achieved through reflection on some of the profound experiences of life like love, fidelity, faith and hope.

Reflection indeed shows, that human person is essentially Intersubjective/communicative being; a being with eternal intrinsic value. This realization of ‘being,’ taken seriously will change us and facilitate a different approach towards the ‘other.’ Once we become aware of ‘being’/‘other,’ the other no longer become ‘he’/‘she’ but a ‘Thou.’[59] This then helps the communicating subject to enter into a meaningful communication; an “I- Thou communication.” As explained earlier, for Marcel, to exist is to communicate; in fact, his notion of incarnation is a way of saying that we are born in communication or rather we “find” ourselves in communication.[60] For him ‘to exist is to co-exist,’ and ‘to live is to live with.’[61]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. PRIMARY SOURCES

Marcel, Gabriel. Mystery of Being, Vol. 1: Reflection and Mystery. Tr. by G.S. Fraser. Indiana: Gateway Editions, 1950.

-----. Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality. Chicago: Gateway Edition Henry Regnery Company, 1960.

-----. The Philosophy of Existentialism. Tr. by Manya Harari. New York: The Citadel Press, 1967.

-----. Being and Having. Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1976.

B. SECONDARY SOURCES

Keen, Sam. Gabriel Marcel. Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967.

Manimala, J. Varghese. Being, Person and Community. New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1991.

C. ARTICLES

Anderson, C. Thomas. “The Nature of the Human Self According to Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy Today 29 (1985), 273-283.

Keen, Sam. “The Development of the Idea of Being in Marcel’s Thought,” The Library of Living Philosophers, ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin Hahn. vol. 17. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1987.

Luther, Arthur. “Marcel’s Metaphysics of We Are,” Philosophy Today 10 (1966), 191-203.

O’ Hara, M. Kevin. “Person in the Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy Today 8 (1964), 147-153.

Straus, W. Erwin. and Machado, A. Michael. “Gabriel Marcel’s Notion of Incarnate Being,” The Library of Living Philosophers ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin Hahn. vol. 17. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1987.

D. INTERNET ARTICLES

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/#1, accessed on 28/3/12.

https://20th-centuryphilosophy.wikispaces.com/Marcel+on+Presence+and+Intersubjectivity, accessed on 13/3/2012.

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Clarification of Terms

1.1.1 Problem and Mystery

1.1.2 Primary and Secondary Reflection

1.2 Misconception of Being as the Problem in the World of Communication

1.2.1 Being and Having

1.2.2 Functionalism

1.3 Proper Understanding of Being

1.3.1 Love

1.3.2 Availability

1.3.3 Fidelity and Faith

1.3.4 Hope

1.4 Implications of Marcel’s Philosophy of Communication

1.4.1 Human Person as Essentially Communicative

1.4.2 Intersubjectivity as a Model for Communication

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Sam Keen, Gabriel Marcel (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1967), 21-22.

[2] Varghese J. Manimala, Being, Person and Community (New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1991), 146.

[3] Gabriel Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism. Tr. by Manya Harari (New York: The Citadel Press, 1967), 19. See also Gabriel Marcel, Being and Having (Gloucester, Mass: Peter Smith, 1976), 171.

[4] Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism, 20-21.

[5] Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism, 20-21.

[6] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 146.

[7] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 22.

[8] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 23-24.

[9] Here what Marcel means by true nature of being is that it is an ontologically communicative being. Cf Gabriel Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality (Chicago: Gateway Edition Henry Regnery Company, 1960), 179.

[10] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 9.

[11] What Marcel means by “person” is persons who possess eternal intrinsic value and persons who are essentially communicative. Cf Thomas C. Anderson, “The Nature of the Human Self According to Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy Today 29 (1985), 280.

[12] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 179.

[13] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 31.

[14] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 31-32.

[15] To possess is to have a thing or an object in one’s control. It is to have the power to retain, conserve, protect and dispose of. Cf Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 14-15. See also Marcel, Being and Having, 155.

[16] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 14-15.

[17] Marcel, Being and Having, 156.

[18] Marcel, Being and Having, 166.

[19] Marcel, Being and Having, 172.

[20] An attitude that is totally utilitarian and materialistic.

[21] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 9.

[22] One of the examples of superficiality in communication is, an Air hostess trying to pretend to be very welcoming to the passengers. She does not do it because she wants to do it but because her function requires it. In fact she is trained to “pretend” to be welcoming.

[23] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 10.

[24] If one applies upon love, faith and hope the logic of primary reflections and rejects them as subjective illusions, there can be no affirmation of being. It is only as secondary reflection explores the richest of human experiences that we can get an adequate philosophy of life. Cf Sam keen, Gabriel Marcel, 32-33.

[25] Sam Keen, “The Development of the Idea of Being in Marcel’s Thought,” in The Library of Living Philosophers, ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin Hahn (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1987) 17: 100.

[26] The unconditional commitments one receives could be from a parent, lover, friend etc., in other words from others. These unconditional commitments, for instance, are manifested in the commitment of marriage or in the taking of the religious vows.

[27] Anderson, “The Nature of the Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 275.

[28] M. Kevin O’ Hara, “Person in the Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel,” Philosophy Today 8 (1964), 151.

[29] Anderson, “The Nature of the Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 274.

[30] Anderson, “The Nature of the Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 274.

[31] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 28.

[32] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 28.

[33]Arthur Luther, “Marcel’s Metaphysics of We Are,” Philosophy Today 10 (1966), 199. See also Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 68-69.

[34] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 68-69.

[35] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 172-173.

[36] Marcel, Mystery of Being Vol. 2: Faith and Reality, 174-175.

[37] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 33-34.

[38] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 34.

[39] Anderson, “The Nature of the Human Self according to Gabriel Marcel,” 280.

[40] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 160.

[41] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 162. See also Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 35.

[42] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcel/#1, accessed on 28/3/12.

[43] That is recognition of the other as ‘being.’

[44] Manimala, Being, Person and Community, 163.

[45] One of the best examples of unconditional fidelity is marriage vow the partners in marriage make to each other.

[46] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 36-37.

[47] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 40-41. See also Gabriel Marcel, Mystery of Being, Vol. 1: Reflection and Mystery. Tr. by G.S. Fraser. (Indiana: Gateway Editions, 1950), 52.

[48] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 41.

[49] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 41-43.

[50] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 43-44.

[51] Marcel calls this innate longing for communication as ‘nostalgia for being,’ or ‘exigence for transcendence.’ Cf. Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 40-41.

[52] It also refers to the ‘persons’ in the society and God at the transcendental level.

[53] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 26.

[54] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 29.

[55] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 29-30.

[56] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 30.

[57] Marcel uses the term “person” to refer to a whole person. This understanding takes us back to his notion of being which I believe is very holistic. Here implies being who is incarnate and a being who is transcendent and a fully realized being.

[58] Being, here understood as ontologically intersubjecitive.

[59] https://20th-centuryphilosophy.wikispaces.com/Marcel+on+Presence+and+Intersubjectivity, accessed on 13/3/2012.

[60] Cf Erwin W. Straus and Michael A. Machado, “Gabriel Marcel’s Notion of Incarnate Being,” in The Library of Living Philosophers ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp and Lewis Edwin Hahn (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1987) 17: 123.

[61] Keen, Gabriel Marcel, 28.

WHAT IS “AMEN”

2012-10-09T01:21:00.003-07:00

“AMEN”

The reflection that I have undertaken to write is on the book “Amen;” written by a lapsed nun in Kerala (India). The reflections that I have written does not in any way intend to hurt the nun who out of her existential frustration has written the so called “autobiography.” However, my views may not be very pleasant to read, for it will mostly be critical and cynical at times. The article comes as result of the knowledge that I have gathered from the “autobiography” of Sr. Jesmie.

Like many people whose attention the hype the novel caught, I too was interested in exploring what the so called “shocking revelation” of this senior nun would be like. But reading through it I would say, it has to be read with a pinch of salt. The best thing to do would be not to read it at all.[1] I do not in any way intend to stop someone from gaining knowledge about the so called “secrets of religious life,” by the way there is no great secret in the so called “shocking revelation.” If some one wants to waste 200 bucks go ahead I am not stopping you. But the point I want to make is, it is not worth spending 200 bucks. Instead of that go to Mc Donald’s or a good ice-cream parlor or a Coffee stall and enjoy away your 200 bucks.

Amen is a “simplistic novel” written by a nun in Kerala who had an “irreligious” experience in a religious congregation. The summary or the cover page of the book says, “The courageous and shocking revelation of a life behind the convent walls.” Reading through the so called “autobiography” it seems there is nothing that really happened behind the walls. Most of the incidents narrated in the book happened in the college set-up where she worked as a teacher and later as the principle. The incidents narrated too do not seem to be shocking at all because some of the things narrated are normal things with a little exaggeration; probably the idea was to make the book marketable. Most of the troubles she had to undergo appear to be due to her own stubborn character. I think it was not proper from her part to cook-up so many incidents to make herself popular; she could have done so in some other way. Writing the book was a foolish choice; as the book itself proves so.

“Amen,” does not deserve the media hype that it enjoyed because it is far from reality. As it appears to me the sole aim of the nun in writing to book was for self-glorification and justification of one’s excessive egoistic desires. Above all the style of writing itself deceives the apparent cajoling from true reality of the incidents narrated in the “autobiography.” After reading through the book what you will feel is, ‘why did I waste such a lot of time and energy in going through this worthless piece of “art”?’ So you decide whether to read it or not; believing is out of question, because reading the book the impression you get is “foolishness manifested.”

[1] I know it is not from my part to stop any one from doing so but all I can say is it is not worth; a badly written "made up story;" illogical and unrealistic.

The question on TRUTH

2012-10-09T01:19:00.000-07:00

TRUTH

Truth

One of the common questions that philosophers ask is what is truth? Many people have defined truth in very many ways. As for my limited understanding, truth is something that which is what it is. I believe there is no better way to describe truth than to define it this way.[1]

Possibility of Attaining the Truth

Now the problem here would be is it possible to attain this truth? I would say, it depends, because there are truths that are concerned about simple/ordinary facts of life and questions of truths that are concerned with more complicated issues. But I am of the opinion that it is a possibility and this effort or a journey is worth undertaking. I would say that it would be a meaningful journey. From the point of view of Phenomenology the very fact that we are able to say that something is not right, that something needs to be changed and something is not ok shows the possibility of truth and objectivity. However all these are only indications to truth. Whether we can attain them objectively is a very difficult question to answer. If there was no truth we would not be able even to assert- I am standing here.

Consensus and its Relation to Truth

Consensus is a half way towards truth. Consensus taken on a positive light could be considered as a path to truth; it is a temporary attainment of a certain sort of truth. But it is certainly not a full truth. However I am tempted to say that most people are satisfied with consensus or rather function with the help of consensus.

[1] Here I would like to note that the very fact that I feel there is no better way of defining truth than (truth is something that which is what it is.) is an indication towards truth.

Media and Networking

2012-10-07T01:43:00.005-07:00

Human beings have evolved in all the fields; be it in the field of agriculture, industry, life-style, thinking pattern etc., in the field of media and networking[1] too, there has been a great evolution. First of all we need to keep in mind that the concept of networking is a very old concept or rather a very ancient practice. However, with the growth and development in the world today in all fields there has been a great leap in the field of media and network. Let us discuss some of the important issues of media and networking today:
1.Culture of Alphabet V/s Culture of Electricity: It is very visible today that there is a great movement from the culture of alphabet to the culture of electricity. It is observed that in last 300 years culture of electricity has attacked the culture of alphabet; in the last 30 years this attack has been accelerated. This culture of electricity is changing the commerce and the way of life of the people tremendously. The Culture of alphabet refers to a time when people depended solely on books for knowledge. The culture of electricity refers to a culture where information is easily available to anyone; aided by electrical appliances and latest gadgets.

2. Private V/s Public: In the culture of electricity there is no room for privacy, everything is public. Thus I cannot really say that ‘this is mine’ or ‘that belongs to me.’ What is important here is the concept of sharing. Sharing of information, ideas, insights and future dreams have become more common practice than before.

3. Within V/s Without: In the culture of alphabet everything seemed to be within; if I had knowledge about something people had to come to me and learn personally. In the past I had the right to claim something. But today in the internet world everything is exposed and I cannot exclusively claim something to be solely mine. Any one can easily take my ideas and further develop on them.

4. Dialogue and Interactivity: Connectedness and collaboration has become more and more common today. One of the great success stories of collaboration is the Wikipedia[2] which has become a common platform for people to share their ideas on innumerable topics. Like the cells that work and collaborate together to keep our body going people of today are on a lookout to network. At this point of time it is interesting to note that what we are doing in networking is the replication the structure of our body. The internet is like our nervous system. The new generation is becoming more and more relational. In a network there is no hierarchical structure only collaboration. We now live in the world of prosumers.[3] Today what people are concentrating on is the ‘power of the many’ or the ‘distributed cognition;’ it could be described as “helping one another for nothing.”

5. Words V/s Images: The world of electricity moves and works by means of images rather than words. Gone are the days when people loved reading novels and huge treatises. People these days are attracted by the way information are presented. One of the concrete reasons of the print media portraying lot of images is this. If not for the attractive images the print media would have been swallowed up by the visual media because it has lot of images.

6. Concepts V/s Experience: The electric-age generation are in search of experience and not concepts. They want something concrete something that can be seen and felt. This is why the latest technology is trying to make the electric gadgets more experiential like touch screen gadgets, 3D gadgets, and video chat. All these are an attempt to make messages and communication more experiential.

7. Digital Natives v/s Digital Immigrants: There is a great difference between the two groups of people. The digital natives are the people/kids of this generation but the immigrants are people who have learnt to adapt to the electric age. Digital natives are literate with regard to media content literacy, media grammar literacy etc., therefore there are different types of literacies today. One of the simple conflicts between the age of alphabet and electricity is the phenomenon of “sms;” the phenomenon of “sms” is really a struggle of the alphabets to live in the electric world.

8. Static v/s Dynamic: The age of electricity is very dynamic and open to change, feedback and modifications; it is very fluid in character. This makes the information and the messages very appealing and open to confrontations with regard to truth. For instance we have “Twitter” which facilitates instant exchange of messages. This was not the case in the alphabet age; then, messages were very static and slow to change and modification.

9. Archiving v/s Programming: We are moving from the era of re-claiming to re-making. Gone are the days of archiving and preserving the information. Now the trend is programming rather than preserving information in the archives.

10. Challenges: One of the great challenges today is the conflict between Doctrine and Experience. The main challenge is the balance between being a man of alphabet and electricity-native. The challenge is to be relevant in the age of electricity while not giving up the good the age of alphabet offers us. The new media culture demands that youth workers communicate with the youth through creative homilies. Culture of electricity is looking for an experience not a theory. Speed culture and utilitarian philosophy (convenience) is the order of the day. The replacements of values have hit the society very hard. For instance we find live-in relationships very common. Using people as conveniences and Commitment-less relationships are too common among the “electricity generation.”

Conclusion: The need of the hour to focus on resurrection and not crucifixion, on hope rather than despair. The good news that people are looking for is the resurrection through crucifixion. Things to be kept in mind are newness, pertinence and publicness. Can I experience freedom without discipline? E.g. violinist and a sports man. Try to give joy that is lasting to the youth of today not thrill that is momentary.

[1] I, at the very outset would like to like to acknowledge the fact that the ideas that I am going to put down in this short article is not my own. It is the fruit of the reflections shared by Mr. Conrad Saldanha (Management adviser of Kurla Don Bosco). If any of my readers are interested in knowing more about the issue you could contact him personally. I don’t claim to have understood the topic fully however, I am sharing what I was enlightened with.

[2] It is amazing to see how Wikipedia has flourished today, it started only in 2001 but the way it has grown is really tremendous. This is the clear example of the fruit of collaboration and network in the world of electricity.

[3] An example of presuming could be children taking part in the production of the computer games.

Violence in Assam 2012

2012-10-07T01:25:00.002-07:00

Violence in Assam 2012

Assam has had a very troublesome months this year one of the most recent problems being the clashes between Bodos and the Muslim settlers in the month of July-August 2012. The violence caught the attention of the national media and it was so bad that certain internet sites were blocked by the Indian government. The causes of the violence are many the immediate cause being the killing of the four Bodo youth in Kokrajhar district. One of the main causes of the violence I believe is the illegal immigration of the Bengali speaking Muslims who have settled all over Assam including B.T.A.D area. This has caused a feeling of insecurity among the local Bodos. It is also the failure of the Assam government to check the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. It should not be looked at as a micro issue however it is a national issue. The failure of the Indian government to protect the rights of the citizens and failure to check illegal immigration.

Unity of the Bodos Need of the Hour

2012-10-07T01:19:00.002-07:00

Bodos are an indigenous tribe settled in the plains of Assam. They are one of the oldest tribe to settle in the area. However, the Bodos form only about 5.5 % of the total population of Assam. The demand for Bodoland has been one of the aspirations of the Bodos since 1980’s. It is quite obvious that the cry for Bodoland has fallen on deaf years of the Indian government. Thus Bodos have had to wait for it for so long. The passive attitude of the government has also given rise to armed movements among the Bodos. In the past years there has also been lot of misunderstanding among the Bodo leaders. This has further aggravated the problems in the area. The differences of views among the Bodos themselves have given rise to lot of bloodshed among the Bodos themselves. This is indeed a very sorry state.

The only solution to this problem, I think is the unity of the Bodos. Indeed it is not easy to form a state especially when there are so many within the proposed Bodoland territory who are opposing it for various reasons; one of the reason being, they could be sidelined in the state of Bodoland; whatever their fears may be. I believe if Bodos are united and start demanding for the state of Bodoland probably the dream of Bodoland will become a reality soon. The problem I see is there is lot of division and differences of opinions among the Bodos. If the Bodos (who form only 5.5% of the total population of Assam) are divided among themselves how do you expect the government to grant Bodoland? Surely the need of the hour is unity of all Bodos.

THE INNER STRUGGLE

2012-10-05T09:41:00.002-07:00

THE INNER STRUGGLE

1. Introduction

Every person goes through an inner struggle in one’s life. We have children who struggle to strike a balance between obedience to their parents and fulfilling their own whims and fancies. As the child grows up to be a teenager, this struggle becomes even more acute. On the one hand there is the urge to do what one wants to do and on the other the societal norms. This constant conflict goes on within oneself. The knack of balancing between the two forces demands great courage and prudence. The “right” and “wrong,” the “proper” and “improper” consciousness develops within the child that grows up to be an adult. By the time the child becomes an adult he/she will have formed certain convictions based on the experiences of inner struggle. All these experiences of inner struggle come from the fact that human beings are social and more especially dramatic beings. The society demands lot of “dos” and “don’ts” and each person picks up some of these and personalize them. Thus, establishing oneself as dramatic person in the society one lives in.

2. Human Person in the Drama of Life

Human beings have different patterns of experiences; one of them being, the Dramatic pattern of experience. For humans apart from the mere biological functions we have what is known as dramatic functions. Unlike other patterns it is special and specific to humans. For the human person more than eating and drinking, there is what is known as a ‘dignified way of eating and drinking.’ We often hear elders in the families insisting on good manners, etiquettes and table manners. Even when it comes to work human beings don’t just work but they are concerned about the dignity of work. Humans are also concerned about their style of grooming (fashionable clothes, hair-style etc.,) and this again emerges from the fact that humans are dramatic beings. Sex for humans is not merely biological activity, but it is shrouded with meaning. Biological experience cannot be ignored in man but it can be transformed in man. Therefore the approval of the society and culture has a great role in the life of human being.

In the human person as insights accumulate the dramatic insights too accumulate. The society, family, parents, friends teach the person a lot of things; a person learns many things from them. They influence the formation of one’s conscience. This is how the psychic censor develops in the person which helps one to monitor one’s instinctual or neural demands. In the drama of life each one discovers, selects and develops the roles one will play in interaction with others and the character one will carry through life. In the human person it is usually the psychic level that controls instincts or the neural demands. Inversely the neural process too demands for expression on the psychic level; the demand for entry into consciousness. The neural demands can be met in a variety of ways: biologically, aesthetically, intellectually, dramatically; but there are limits to their flexibility, and to violate these is to run the risk of abnormality.

3. Dramatic Bias

In the drama of life as the insight can be desired so too it can be unwanted. It is possible that one does not wish to understand certain things because one is fearful of making discoveries. This leads to bias, bias comes due to exclusion of an insight which again leads to exclusion of further questions that would arise from it and the complementary insights that would lead one to a balanced viewpoint. As a result of bias, behaviour is affected, and this leads to misunderstanding in ourselves and in others. As a result of bias there arises introversion, a withdrawal from the outer drama of human living to the inner drama of fantasy. A split appears in the person between a persona which is mask or appearance maintained before others and an ego which is myself as I appear to me.

4. Consequences of Dramatic Bias

Dramatic bias could have serious consequences on the individual. As described above it is basically the result of a flight from insight which gives rise to psychic trouble. Let us see what could be some of the consequences of Dramatic bias.

4.1 Scotosis

Scotosis is an aberration of understanding. It leads to scotoma or a blind spot. It is a disease of censorship. Scotosis arises in the censorship that governs the emergence of psychic contents. It is anti-understanding; it blocks understanding. It refuses to accept insights and build on the insights. Scotosis is an aberration not only of understanding but also of censorship. It is usually an unconscious process but sometimes it could also emerge in our consciousness in different ways. Scotosis comes in the form of unwanted questions, images, and insights.

4.2 Repression

Just as wanting insight brings forth schematic images that give rise to insight, not wanting has an opposite effect of repressing from consciousness; repressing a scheme that would suggest the insight. It is an exercise of the aberrant censorship that is engaged in preventing insight. Usually censorship is constructive, but in scotosis the primary activity of the censorship is repressive. It is basically preconscious activity and must be distinguished from suppression or conscious refusal to behave in a particular fashion.

4.3 Inhibition

The effect of repression is an inhibition imposed upon the neural demand functions. When affects gets dislodged from images, and attach themselves to other objects, strange behaviours arise. For instance we see some people getting sexually aroused on seeing a tree.

4.4 Performance

Scotosis affects the smooth performance of the dramatic actor. This is seen in the slip of the tongue. Sometimes things that are repressed deep within oneself comes out involuntarily.

4.5 Dreams

The dream is a psychic flexibility that complements the flexibility of neural demands. Dream is essential for securing a balance between neural demands and psychic events. In dreams the neural demands rejected by the censor during the day find expression; in dreams censorship is relaxed. It is a way of giving expression to unsatisfied neural demands. It is a means of restoring equilibrium; it functions as a safety valve.

4.7 Sexual Aberrations

The sexual development in a person is one of the materials for scotosis. Sexual development includes both physical changes as well as psychological. Thus, it has a lot of room for waywardness. Random mistakes can be balanced by dreams, healthy environment, adequate instruction, timely guidance etc., however, if there arises a chain of such mistakes, it could lead to scotosis. When such a situation of a chain of mistakes arises, proper development of affective attitudes are hindered. Eventually, the conscious dramatic pattern/censor can no longer integrate and give adequate representation to the distorted demand functions. Then neural demands assert themselves and one loses control over one’s life.

5. Cure to Dramatic Bias

Psychic illness is closely associated with the flight from insight, recovery from it is connected with intellectual illumination. Refusal to understand can be cured only by insight. Cure consists in a series of insights or flashes of illumination. Insights should happen in the dramatic pattern of experience for a person to recover from a dramatic bias. A psychoanalyst could be of great help for the person to recover.

6. Conclusion

The inner struggle of life basically comes from having to live up to certain ideals of the society. While we uphold the social norms, we also find difficult to integrate it with our neural or physical urges. There is a constant struggle in human beings the struggle between keeping the social norms and doing what one feels like doing. The issue of dignity, good name, and social norms can be considered all within the context of dramatic pattern of experience. The secret of living a good life as a dramatic person lies in proper handling of the inner struggle. To be a well balanced human being in society one needs to be open to insights especially insights related to dramatic pattern of experience. A good human life also demands openness to guidance and the strength to fight the inner battle that one constantly experiences in one’s life.

Bibliography

Lonergan, Bernard. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, 5^th ed. In Friedrich. E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran eds., Collected works of Bernard Lonergan, Vol. 3 Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992.

Pen, Robert. Communication for Communion. New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 2011.