The Joy Unto Life

Earlier this week I had the chance to spend some time in good discussion with friends. The topic of discussion, spurred on by the burgeoning spring season, was the seed. And both in our discussion and my personal reflection on the seed it became clear that the essence of the seed is potential. Within the seed is so much potential… but that potential is yet to be realized. And that potential (seed) may or may not be realized, depending on what is done with it. This is one important theme of Jesus’s parable of the soils (or parable of the sower) in Mathew 13 (and other places). In reflecting on potential as the essence of the seed and what it means for the self, I recalled:

…the self is just as much possible as necessary; although it is indeed itself, it has to become itself. To the extent that it is itself, it is necessary; and to the extent that it must become itself, it is a possibility [or potential]…. Surely what the self now lacks is actuality…. [Yet] it is not the case… that necessity is a unity of possibility and actuality; no, actuality is the unity of possibility [potential] and necessity.
Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death, p. 66

So in understanding the self, there are three concepts here to grasp: potential, necessity, and actuality. Who one is in actuality is a synthesis of one’s potential self, or what one could be, with one’s necessary self, or who one is now. Another way to put this is that one’s essence in actuality is the marriage of what one could be (potential) with what one is doing now (necessity), because what one is doing now either brings into being that potential (making it actual), or it does not… in which case the seed (one’s potential) is wasted. So the essence of one’s self is not only who one is today, but it is also that self that one is becoming… which depends upon one’s actions and decisions today. The self that clings to possibility but does not yield to the necessary steps it takes to realize that possibility, loses itself.

Here the self becomes an abstract possibility; it exhausts itself floundering about in possibility, yet it never moves from where it is nor gets anywhere, for necessity is just that ‘where’.
Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death, p. 66

So it is the synthesis of possibility and necessity that is the essence of the self as it unfolds within the dimension of time.

But what if we consider the self from another dimension, one of a higher order… that of consciousness? For a self cannot possess the will to synthesize one’s potential in the future with one’s actions and decisions in the present apart from consciousness. Here within the dimension of consciousness, the self in actuality is the synthesis of the infinite with the finite.

The self is the conscious synthesis of infinitude and finitude, which relates to itself, whose task is to become itself, which can only be done in the relationship with God. To become oneself, however, is to become something concrete. But to become something concrete is neither to become finite nor to become infinite, for that which is to become concrete is indeed a synthesis.
Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death, p. 60

These two dimensions of the self are isomorphic: Just as the self in time is a synthesis of one’s potential with one’s necessary actions and decisions today, the self in consciousness is a synthesis of the infinite (soul… and its potential) with the finite (body… as the necessary element). But necessary for what?… The body (finitude) is necessary for the soul’s (infinitude) expression of its potential. And that expression is the self.

Just as it is true that the ripe tomato on the vine is a synthesis of the seed (potential) and the (necessary) elements [soil, water, sunlight], the self too is a synthesis of the seed from the infinite (soul… and its potential) and the necessary (finite) element [the body]. Our language expressions of Father God and mother earth are no accident, though we seldom consciously reflect on their meaning. There is a clear sexual image here, a marriage of the infinite with the finite in which their union produces oneself. And oneself is created when the seed of “the One” from the infinite (soul) is implanted within the soil of the earth (body).

In the synthesis between the soul (infinite) and the body (finite), that infinite potential works within the necessary finite to formulate the best possible expression of itself that it can. And the first task in necessity is to develop that vehicle by which one’s potential may be expressed. And that’s exactly what happens! That breathe of life (spirit) in us, which is conceived at the synthesis, moves to organize and formulate the body utilizing the material it is given to work with.

That breath of life unpacks the genetic material passed down in the finite and begins to utilize it as the blueprint for constructing the body. And that genetic material is a significant part of the expression of other selves passed down from generation to generation, streamlining and improving on past designs within the finite in order to maximize that potential expression of this self in development now. So each individual has an expression (self) to make, but the collective human race is likewise contributing to ever clearer, culminating, maximized, and diverse expressions of the infinite over time too. Why diverse? Well because the infinite cannot be grasped or contained by the finite… the material is too limiting, and so the unity that is the infinite must find unique and diverse expressions in the material world to maximize the potential in those expressions (selves). And together, the many diverse expressions find harmony and unity in their song of the infinite (God, or “the One”).

And so that breath of life (spirit) unpacks the genetic material and gets to work, developing that body by which it is to find its expression. As the spirit moves to construct the body it finds necessary the addition of material to work with (food, etc.) by which it constructs the body for its expression. And yet even now, in constructing that body, the spirit finds an expression. And that expression is the self now in necessity, but synthesized with the potential of what it could be in the future. And it is this synthesis of necessity and potential, of the now and the not yet, it is this spirit which is conceived in the union, which pushes the self within an infant forward in development (motor development, cognitive development, emotional development, moral development, language development, psychosocial development) up through childhood and in to early adulthood.

Kierkegaard presented us with three stages along life’s way: The aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. And he was right that the aesthetic is necessarily the first stage in life by which the self finds its expression in the developmental process. In order for the spirit to develop that self by which it will maximize its potential expression in the future, it makes the body its primary focus during childhood. In childhood, it is the development of the body which is necessary for maximizing the future self’s potential expression. And so, the aesthetic is the means by which the body maximizes in development. And as that development occurs the potential of the soul (infinite) regenerates itself in the body (finite), for it creates potential within the body itself as a vehicle by which it may maximize its expression (self) in the world.

Still, that potential now generated within the body must be harnessed by necessity in order to actualize its infinite expression (and not be hijacked for merely finite expressions). And so the self enters a new stage intended to harness the potential within the body, the ethical. And this is exactly what happens! As a child grows and enters adolescence and then young adulthood, gradually more and more emphasis and energy is directed toward moral and ethical responsibilities in order to harness the potential within the body and steer it in the right direction. More energy is given to self-discipline in order to maximize the potential which has been generated in the body.

And the last and final stage is that ultimate expression in which the body with all its potential aligns properly with the soul in all its potential, which aligns properly with the One in all His potential (which is infinity itself), unifying the infinite with the finite in so powerful a way that its euphoric expression (which is worship) generates ever more life. How does this happen? It occurs as one’s self reaches the culmination of its expression, the limits of its capacity and comes to recognize that it is not enough, and can never possibly be enough. For how could the finite possibly capture and contain the infinite? And so the self recognizes its empty state and lays itself before “the One”, yielding to that which is beyond itself. And by laying itself down, it receives life freely.

Again, a clear sexual image emerges here, as the One fills one’s self with His Holy Spirit. And that Holy Spirit produces fruit within the self, what is called the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control) [Galatians 5: 22-23]. And that union, that worship, is both expressive and submissive without limits in its infinity, but limited only by the capacity of the finite within the self. So in time, the finite within the self gives way, fully yielding to the power of the infinite within, and in death lays itself down in full submission to that greater power which cannot be contained.

When my feeble life is o’er
Time for me will be no more
Guide me gently, safely o’er
To Thy kingdom’s shore, to Thy shore

*Accompanying music for this post is Just a Closer Walk with Thee, performed by the Avett Brothers at Virginia Tech in 2012. I attended this show with two good friends and this song was the highlight. You can have a listen by finding it at the following youtube link (and you get to watch the performance of this song too).

Avett Brothers- Closer Walk with Thee

The Moment

An important distinction is to be made between living in the moment and living for the moment. One living for the moment seeks one thing, that which gratifies the needs and desires of the self, the aesthetic. It is the way of the opportunist, each moment seeking one’s own.

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
The moment is all we have, we are not guaranteed another, so we must make the most of it.

In living for the moment one moves through life from pleasure to pleasure with increasing despair in the gaps. The absence of pleasure is despair and meaninglessness, it is suffering, it is pain, it is everything that one must escape. Desperate for escape, one living for the moment settles for easy, short term pleasures at a cost to the good of the self. Dependent on and needy of pleasure, this one takes pornography at the expense of intimacy, control at the expense of trust and hope, certainty at the expense of truth, distraction at the expense of discipline. Here there is no growth, one who lives for the moment seeks to escape what is for the pleasures that might be.

In contrast, living in the moment involves fully accepting what is (be it the greatest joy or the deepest pain) and working within it for life, beauty, love, and redemption. Living in the moment requires discipline and intentionality. It is a full commitment to the good in the face of the many distractions, escapes, and easy ways that constantly present themselves to an individual. It is a commitment to the good for its own sake, for one who lives in the moment does not know whether he/she will have tomorrow to enjoy its rewards. It gives no care for tomorrow, for its worries and endless considerations… not because it avoids responsibility, but because it knows that its only real responsibility is what it has been given this day to work with.

*Accompanying music for this post is Awake My Soul, by Mumford and Sons. Check it out at the top right side of the screen.
Mumford and Sons, Awake My Soul, Sigh No More

In His Image

A while back I posted A system for Approaching the World, my first philosophically oriented post that outlined my view of human nature, how to live a good life, and how I understand our drives, needs, pain and suffering in the world. In that post I shared the metaphysical grounding of this approach which is rooted in tenants of the Christian faith, particularly in a) its articulation of God (the creator) as triune in nature: God as One, but in three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit); and b) that human beings are made in His image (which I take, among other things, to indicate a triune nature in human beings: soul, spirit, body). I’d like to here expand on how I’ve come to view the structure of human beings as isomorphic to that of God.

The key passage that has led me to this understanding is found in the beginning…

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gensis 1: 26-27

A number of years ago I was reflecting on this passage and was struck by the realization that it is the trinity talking here with and within itself. In the decision to make man, and to make man in His image, there is clear intention to draw the reader to the triune nature of God in the use of plural language when referencing Him (“Us,” “Our image,” and “Our likeness”). And it is wholly consistent that if this triune nature of God is centralized and highlighted in the stated intention to make man in that image, that this triune nature would be centralized and highlighted in man (who was made in that triune image). This truth I see with a clear and distinct perception in relation to the passage.

Simultaneously, while reading this passage I was very much aware of the different aspects of human nature articulated as soul, spirit, and body in scripture/ and the distinction between soul and body in philosophy:

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Thessalonians 5: 23

Plato’s distinctions between soul and body: The Republic, X, 608ff; Phaedrus (the chariot allegory of the soul).

Descartes distinction between soul and body: Discourse on Method (Part 4); Meditation II (Of the Nature of the Human Mind; and that it is more easily known than the Body).

The distinction between the human soul and body I felt I had clarity on, but the distinction between soul and spirit was more confusing to me. This is in large part due to the manner in which both scripture and philosophy often utilize the two terms interchangeably. Still, I quickly recognized three leads on this front (distinguishing soul from spirit): the first being to look to the relation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the trinity, the second being found in Hebrews 4:12, and the third being to examine the words (as used in Hebrews 4:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23) in their Greek roots.

In examining the relation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there are a number of passages that can be examined, yet the most helpful passages to me are:

Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
John 5: 19

For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
John 12: 49

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me…”
John 15: 26

In each of these passages Jesus (the Son) makes clear that he is the manifestation here on earth of the will of His Father. The Father is the one who wills, and He (the Son) is the expression of that will in the finite, temporal world. We also see that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet even as the Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son sends the Spirit from the Father. There is an order of authority here which Jesus is careful to follow: The Father wills, and sends the Spirit with that will to the Son, who empowers the Son to express that will in the finite, temporal world. And then as Jesus obeys he likewise sends the spirit back to the Father in adoration and love. And in John 15:26 He (the Son) sends the Spirit back to the Father with His (the Son’s) will as a request… that the Father send the Spirit to His (the Son’s) followers to testify to Him (the Son). As such, the Spirit is the mediating entity between the Father and the Son. As such, I took the relation between the human soul, spirit, body to be the same. The soul is the seat of human will, intellect, authority; the body is the expression of the soul’s will in the finite, temporal world; the spirit is the mediating force which proceeds from the soul to the body and then back again to the soul.

Following the second lead about the distinction between soul and spirit I examined the passage in Hebrews:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Hebrews 4: 12

Here I found parallels to follow: soul/joints and spirit/marrow. Considering these relations further I recognized the joint as a hinge that connects one bone to the next, as the soul is that hinge that connects the finite to the infinite, the temporal to the eternal, the physical to the spiritual. And likewise I recognized the marrow of the bone to be that internal place in which blood cells (the lifeblood of the body) are produced, as the spirit is the lifeblood of the body empowering it towards its culminating expression.

Following the third lead in distinguishing the soul from the spirit (and what the heck, the body too) I looked up definitions for each term. It appears to me that each definition speaks for itself and generally corresponds to (or at least does not negate) those distinctions already discovered in the previous 2 leads:

Psuché (psyché): the soul, life, self, breath/ a) the vital breath, breath of life, b) the human soul, c) the soul as the seat of affections and will, d) the self, e) a human person, an individual. (ψυχή, ῆς, ἡ) [Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine]

Pneuma: wind, breath, spirit/ the vital principle by which the body is animated/ the spirit is that which animates and gives life, the body is of no profit (for the spirit imparts life to it, not the body in turn to the spirit; cf. Chr. Frid. Fritzsche, Nova opuscc., p. 239) (πνεῦμα, ατος, τό) [Part of speech: Noun, Neuter]

Sóma: body, flesh, the physical body; the body of the church.( σῶμα, ατος, τό) [Part of speech: Noun, Neuter]
These are the Greek terms used in Hebrews 4:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 for soul, spirit, and body respectively

One question that might be raised is in relation to the feminine part of speech for the soul (Psuché). The key point in addressing this apparent confusion is in recognizing that the soul is not feminine in relation to the human spirit and body, but rather it is feminine in relation to that which created it (God). This adoption of a feminine part of speech for the human soul highlights the ontological distinction between the two (God and human), and likewise highlights that God’s is a necessary existence while human beings exist in an contingent existence.

So taking all of this into consideration I’ve continued pondering the interrelation of these three aspects of the human being (soul, spirit, body), understanding them from the Genesis passage to be isomorphic to the triune God. And as I pondered their interrelations I began to read Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death, and I found immediate confirmation and alignment of my considerations of the soul, spirit, body relations as Kierkegaard described the human spirit:

The human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates to itself, or that in the relation which is its relating to itself. The self is not the relation but the relation’s relating to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite [soul] and the finite [body], of the temporal [body] and the eternal [soul], of freedom and necessity. In short a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two terms. Looked at in this way a human being is not yet a self.
In a relation between two things the relation is the third term in the form of a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation, and in the relation to that relation; this is what it is from the point of view of soul for soul and body to be in relation. If, on the other hand, the relation relates to itself, then this relation [spirit] is the positive third, and this is the self.
Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death, p. 43-44

This is a potent and powerful expression of the relation between the soul, spirit, and body. The soul and body are distinct, and the spirit is found in the synthesis between the two.

An example: Much like when a husband and wife get married they create a third entity, the relationship itself, and they are both in relationship to one another and both in relationship to the relationship itself. And the relationship is more than the sum of its parts, you cannot simply add the qualities or strengths of each individual together and generate this… it is rather multiplied and not added. The two together create a third entity that is altogether different. And that third synthesizes the relation of the two, binding them together intensely. Each individual will often act for the good of the relationship (even if it is not what either individual wants), which in turn rewards them with its own benefits. And we call this a spiritual connection between the two, rightfully so… because as the relationship grows it becomes more itself, that is, its spirit is manifest in its relating to itself… and in so doing it unifies the two.

This is how I came to understand the relation between the human soul, spirit, and body. It is by design isomorphic to the triune God and as such, the interrelation of its parts mirror the interrelation among the components of the trinity (Father, Son, Spirit). The human soul is the seat of the will, the intellect, the immortal aspect of humankind that acts as a hinge between the finite and infinite realm, pondering that which is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable of “the One” and willing that these wonders be expressed in the finite world. The human spirit emanates from the soul as that breath of life in the body, moving it towards that culminating expression. The body, moved by the spirit, works toward the expression of that will (and vision) cast by the soul. And as the body moves as that expression it sends the spirit back to the soul in love and obedience, seeking further clarity and direction in honing that expression. At least that is the design…

*Accompanying music for this post is “Lost in My Mind” by The Head and the Heart. Give this song a listen by scrolling to the top right side of the blog to find it in the accompanying music.
The Head and the Heart, Lost in My Mind

The Natures of Hate and Love

What is it that is never changed even though everything is changed? It is love. And only that which never becomes something else is love, that which gives away everything and for that reason demands nothing, that which demands nothing and therefore has nothing to lose, that which blesses and blesses when it is cursed, that which loves its neighbor but whose enemy is also its neighbor, that which leaves revenge to the Lord because it takes comfort in the thought that he is even more merciful.
Kierkegaard, Three Upbuilding Discourses, III 275, 1843

There is an oddly intimate relationship between self and hate. While the two are not the same thing, the insistence on the self produces hate. It is here that hate originates. Is it not so? Let us follow the path. For in insisting on the self, one finds oneself at odds with a world of other selves which likewise insist on the self, but not that self which belongs to me. Rather it is their own selves which they insist on. And so, one divides the world between that which is “for me” and that which is “against me.” Of course, in natural human relations those who are “for me” are not truly “for me” but are for themselves, yet our “selves” share a common interest or cause and so they are considered “for me.” And still it is inevitable, one’s self crosses paths with another self which does not share the common interest or cause, and it is here that one feels the struggle, the tension. Here in the presence of this other self, one experiences that horrific possibility, that unthinkable prospect of the “not self.” For when the two selves are at odds the struggle for power and dominance ensues, and only one can stand in the end. This other self’ dares to not acknowledge or recognize “my” self, this other seems to dismiss “my” self altogether. So one must now insist on the self again. But that obstinate other, that other which will not see the importance, the value, of “my” self must be convinced.

…Ah, but did you see it? How elusive, how subtle it was. Just that quick the pocket was picked and all was stolen away. One is now looking to the external for validation of the self, and those who are “against me” have been given all the power needed to invalidate one’s personhood. They need only to withhold and the self is lost. And that shadow of a self that remains fumes in hatred, either toward those “others” who withhold, or towards the self that so easily lost itself. But the battle for the self was lost in the first step, it was lost in even going to battle. For in going to battle one insists on the self, and in insisting on the self, one conceives of the possibility of not self and the self is negated. Hatred is born and replaces the self that is lost, in proportion to that which has been lost.

This hatred stands justified by that shadow of the self that remains, and the two become intimately acquainted. When the shadow of the self which remains despairs, it is hatred which consoles it and casts the blame outward to those “others” who would dare to not acknowledge and validate my “self.” And when that shadow of the self’ doubts hatred, begins to consider that perhaps there is another way, a way without hatred; well hatred turns on the self with all its force berating and belittling the self which remains, abusing and accusing it for losing its chance at happiness in this life. In so doing, hatred keeps the self subservient and dependent. It convinces the self that without it, the self would be lost altogether and die alone, without validation of existence. It offers instead a half-life, an abusive relationship but one in which the self feels justified in its bitterness.

But perhaps there is another way, one in which this “hatred” does not follow from one’s insistence on the self. Perhaps when one’s self crosses paths with that other self, and the two are at odds, perhaps here one can hold to the self in inwardness without relying on the external for validation. Would this not then thwart hatred? One could stand strong in oneself, insisting on the self in inwardness, clinging to that self and self-soothing when the external dares to not acknowledge it. When that obstinate other will not recognize one’s “self” then one can pull back from that other, keeping for oneself the power to validate that self. One could not put so much stock in the other, even ignore them all together. Yes, that’s it, one retains for oneself the power to validate the self and gives none of it away. Not one bit of it goes to that obstinate other! And not just him/her, but no other is really safe to entrust with such power to validate one’s self because there will inevitably be a time when the two find their selves at odds. One must be very careful then to not rely too much on any other, to not give them such power over the self to wield as they may. This is far too dangerous, for eventually some other will withhold that power and deny one’s self. And then all will be lost and one will find him/herself steeped in hatred once more. But is this too not a form of hatred? It is true, one does not rage with hatred in the same way the one who has been robbed of the self by another does, but is this one not him/herself withholding from others now? Is this not the road to indifference and apathy in relation to the other? And what is more hateful than to withhold oneself from another in need, to pretend as though they do not even exist? Alas, this too is hatred, and of a stronger and more devastating form. For when one rages against another for not acknowledging one’s self atleast he/she cares, but this latter form of hatred, this indifference, there is no care, no hope, no desire in it. The other has no effect on one’s self, and it is as if he/she doesn’t even exist at all.

And isn’t this clinging to the self in inwardness not something like masturbation? Yes, as masturbation takes what is designed to be shared with another in the physical/sensual realm and turns in inward on itself, this self-soothing, inner self-validation is a form of spiritual masturbation. A soul turned inward on itself in order to keep itself assured of itself. Such is the way of the modern existentialist, making meaning for oneself, clinging to oneself in inwardness. In the world this path has strength, it remains unaffected by others, but does it not also deceive itself by losing all that is worth living for? Does it not loose love itself?

… as conceited sagacity, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing that we cannot see with our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love. If we were to do so and do it out of fear lest we be deceived, would we not then be deceived? We can, of course, be deceived in many ways. We can be deceived by believing what is untrue, but we certainly are also deceived by not believing what is true. We can be deceived by appearances, but we certainly are also deceived by the sagacious appearance, by the flattering conceit that considers itself absolutely secure against being deceived. Which deception is more dangerous? Whose recovery is more doubtful, that of the one who does not see, or that of the person who sees and yet does not see? What is more difficult—to awaken someone who is sleeping or to awaken someone who, awake, is dreaming that he is awake?….To defraud oneself of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss, for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity.
Kierkegaard, Works of Love, p. 5-6

But let us now follow a different path. The one who loves, who “gives away everything and for that reason demands nothing,” what comes of this one? This one gives no care to the self, but rather uses that self in earnestness to live, to love, to serve and care for others. There is a simplicity about this one, this one who simply accepts that the self is and immediately puts it to use. This one receives the self from The One in inwardness, and since it is there secured it requires no validation in the external. It is simply and immediately put to use. This one does not conceive of the possibility of the not self, and would find it laughable if he/she could. And in not conceiving of the possibility of the not self, the self is actually held secure in inwardness. But not just in inwardness but in relation to Love Himself in that inwardness. And this love is fully trustworthy, for it is in His nature alone to constantly give of Himself, all of Himself, to any who will have Him. And those who will have Him will likewise manifest Him. And here now, the one who loves has her/his task, to make use of the self to manifest the eternal within the temporal. Moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day, the self is to be the conduit by which that which is eternal bursts forth into temporal time. “And only that which never becomes something else is love.” Love is that which is eternal, never resting and always seeking its incarnation in the temporal/external world. It is never wasted, but always “accomplishes that which it desires, and achieves that for which it is sent.” Love binds up the hate within oneself and then plunders his house, rescuing the self that was enslaved therein. Where the light of love is shone the darkness of hate flees, for it knows that it cannot stand in the presence of that consuming fire.

What a beautiful paradox! The self is eternally secured where no one can snatch it away only when one readily gives that self to others in love. And in contrast, one loses the self at the very moment he/she begins insisting on the self.

But what does this mean? In love should one allow the self to be run over and dominated by those around him/her? Does love insist that one just go along with whatever others want or desire, always at one’s own expense? And what of other’s wants and desires that are destructive and harmful?… should one just go along with these?

Quite right! This is NOT the way of love. Love does not merely serve our whimsical wants but serves our deepest needs. And in love one does not abandon the self to the other, but abandons the self to love… which yields love for the other. Loving the other is then seeking the good of the other (not just what he/she wants), and while the good of the other takes many forms, it is ultimately found in their learning to likewise yield to love (and not to oneself). Loving others is to want for them what love itself has for them, and to risk or give away all in making room for love to address them. It is to prepare the way for love to take root in the world and to then get out of its way.

Yes we live in desperate times, with fading words and shaking rhymes… there’s only one thing here worth hoping for.
With Lucifer beneath you and God above, If either one of them asks you what you’re living of… say Love, say for me Love, say Love.
The Avett Brothers, Living of Love, Emotionalism

*Listen to this song by finding it in the accompanying music at the top right of the blog.

A System for Approaching the World

I like to think a lot about life. I don’t know why exactly, other than that I feel compelled to do so. I want to understand it, I want to organize it, I want to conceptualize a way of living it… “well.” I want to strive for something worthy of me, my energy, and my life. And I don’t want that energy and life going to something unworthy of it. I want a meaningful life. So this post is a rough outline of what I’ve come up with. It is an outline of my approach to life (or my life philosophy). By the way, hidden within this post you will find the origin and meaning of the blog title (life existante).

My ideas in this post are driven by three questions:

What is the nature of human life?
How does one live the good life?
How does one conceptualize our drives, needs, pain and suffering?

So what is the nature of human life? As one who strives to be a Christian, I believe very much in the metaphysical. This entails a creator that is ontologically distinct from human kind, not like Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” who was understood to exist within nature, but more akin to Plato’s “the One” or “the Good” which has His being outside of the natural realm. In Christianity, this creator is understood to be triune in nature (Augustine, On the Trinity, AD 416). This conceptualization of God (the creator) as a trinity maintains that God is One, but in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I fully accept this view of God and I believe that as our creator He made us in His image. So, being made in His image, I understand human beings to also be triune in nature: soul, spirit, body (though please note: ontologically distinct from God). I have a number of theological reasons for this view, and for how I organize and understand the interrelation of these three components of the human being, but perhaps these reasons should be the subject of a another post. What is important here is a recognition of the three components of the human being: soul, spirit, body.

The soul is that component of mankind that does not belong to the natural/sensible realm. It is imperishable and reasonable, the hinge between the metaphysical and natural realms. It has been given to humankind to dwell in the infinite, contemplating that which is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, good, and excellent of “the One.” The soul is that part of mankind that is given authority and will, that directs the body. The body in turn is to actualize in the natural realm that which the soul wills. The body does the will of the soul. And the soul (being the hinge between the natural world and the metaphysical world) glimpses into the mysteries of heaven. It cannot comprehend these mysteries, or take them in fully, but it ponders and reveres them. In astonishment the soul reflects on the eternal and is mystified. And as the soul dwells among the infinite, it wills that these wonders manifest in the finite. It wills to reflect the glories of God and His heavens in the natural/temporal realm, and thus the body moves accordingly, empowered by the spirit, which is its lifeblood.

While the soul has executive functioning, the human spirit moves within the material realm (the body) to manifest the soul’s will therein. So the human spirit is actually closer to Aristotle’s idea of the soul. It is the actualizing force within the material world, its lifeblood. The spirit is the breath of life in the body which moves it toward its culminating expression. It (the spirit) emanates from the soul, manifesting in the body. And so, humankind exists with this one task or purpose, to dwell on all that is infinite and manifest it within the finite; to ponder the eternal and express it within the temporal; to wonder at the mysteries of the heavens and embody them in the material world. This is the source of human creativity as it manifests in so many different ways: art, music, theatre, language and writing, mathematics, philosophy, physics, athletics, and much much more.

With this in view, I understand all of life as having a single means of fulfillment, to manifest what is eternal within the temporal, moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day. To serve as the conduit by which God manifests His fullness of life, love, joy, and beauty in the natural/sensible realm. And there is no time to loose, every moment is the opportunity to actualize this glory. Still the tools we’re given are inadequate for the task. How can one possibly embody the glory of the eternal and spiritual, reflecting it in full here in the temporal and physical? It is far too great for us, it cannot be contained and held. And this is the essence of anxiety (in the human spirit). I do not mean the debilitating anxiety that is destructive, but that necessary and driving force that arouses one to act, to be, to do. It is the task of the human spirit to materialize in the natural realm that which cannot be collected by nature. This constant task, which never ceases, of actualizing the full glory of the eternal in a single moment, and moment after moment; it cannot be done, and yet it must be done, it is the very glory and fulfillment of mankind to spend all in pursuit of this task. It is our fulfillment as we seek its fulfillment, and it is our emptiness and despair as we neglect it.

Perhaps the last sentence begins to hint at my conceptualization of the human pain and suffering that we experience. If this is the means of our fulfillment, or the means by which we live the “good life,” to dwell on the infinite and to each moment manifest in this temporal space that which is eternal in nature, then that source of fulfillment, fullness, joy, and life is severed when we neglect this task. And here we find another dimension of the difficulty of the human condition; though the soul is given executive functioning it must also tend to the body, which has actual physical needs to be sustained in the finite realm so that it can carry out its task. Things like food, water, warmth and shelter, etc. In order for a human being to perform his/her task of pondering the infinite and manifesting it in the finite, it must also sustain the body which is its expression in the finite/natural/sensory realm. So there exists an interrelationship between the soul, spirit, and body in which each component’s function must be valued and nurtured, but in which taken as a whole the collective goal/function is far greater than itself. The collective goal/function requires that the human being turn away from itself and focus its attention on “the One” in that infinite, eternal realm. So the human condition is such that we must tend to ourselves (due primarily to the limitations of the body) and simultaneously turn away from ourselves and give our attention and focus to “the One,” who is our very source of life, love, hope, joy, and peace. It is a difficult predicament.

Faced with the reality of this paradoxical condition, humanity has collectively fallen prey to an error; we have sought to become our own source of life and fulfillment. Rather than looking to “The One” and receiving life, love, hope, joy, and peace (or collectively…fulfillment) from Him, our souls have turned inward and become insular, seeking these sources of fulfillment within themselves. And the soul by nature must dwell on, consider, and wonder at something, so it makes the body and the natural/sensing realm its object of praise and adoration. For here in and through the body, the soul can will to manifest itself and find pleasure in these manifestations. And so it does, and they are real pleasures.

As real as these pleasures are, with repetition and time they fade, and the soul begins to seek variety (see Kierkegaard’s works: Part 1 of Either/Or, 1843; Repetition, 1843). However, the soul has turned away from the infinite source of life and joy, which would manifest itself in an infinite variety of ways, and is therefore left only with the finite. To avoid boredom, the soul continually strives for variety within the finite, but with limited success. It continually recycles its expressions within the finite, taking pleasure in them, but with time (which belongs to the finite) these expressions and pleasures begin to fade and lose their appeal. The sense of emptiness ensues and slowly the reality of our condition sets in (see The Sickness unto Death, Kierkegaard). The meaninglessness of such a life becomes an ever-present cloud that only lingers in the back of the mind at first, but with time this cloud grows darker and more prominent. And there are two primary responses to this developing dread, we call them depression and anxiety (that detrimental and debilitating kind). Depression being the tendency to give up and fall into despair, anxiety being the tendency to run from the dread. This anxiety seeks escape, and can be characterized as a need to always keep busy and/or surrounded by others because one can’t stand to be still or in solitude (because in these times the dread sets in). An Avett Brothers song captures the nature of this anxiety well (Give it a listen by finding it on the right side of the screen):

Will I ever know silence without mental violence, will the ringing in my head go away?
The Avett Brothers, Incomplete and Insecure, I and Love and You

*Give this song a listen by finding it on the right side of the screen

This is how I see it, this is our collective human condition. And by way of my Christian faith, this is what I believe Jesus the Christ came to save us from. To restore us into a right relationship with “the One,” to restore our very purpose and means of fulfillment in our existence. This is my firm hope and trust.

Now with this universal human condition established, we can begin to examine the differences among us. The differences among us have to do with how we approach our lives (this universal condition described above) and the ramifications for the respective approaches we use. There are three life positions possible for a given human being to adopt. The aesthetic approach clings to the external/temporal/finite and seek fulfillment therein (a life dedicated to and feeding on the senses and the aesthetic); the ascendant approach clings to the self in inwardness for seeking fulfillment (a life dedicated to the self, one’s own identity, one’s own ideas, thoughts, values); and the existante approach clings to “the One” in inwardness for seeking fulfillment (a life restored to its intended place and dedicated to “the One,” in whom it receives its fulfillment from).

The aesthetic life described above, which clings to the external/ temporal/finite, makes the body its primary and central focus. Those in this position seek pleasure with little or no regulation from the soul. Here, the soul has willed to will what the body demands. And the body is like a child that is unable to differentiate between what it needs and what it wants. Its demands are constant, and the more of its way that it gets the more of its way that it wants. And the more the body screams and cries and complains the more the soul seeks to pacify it (for just a little peace and quiet!). The soul here tells itself that it has no choice, it has no “authority,” the body needs what the body needs, so it must just give it what it wants. And just as it occurs within an enmeshed family, when the parents neglect their role as parents, to teach and guide their child regarding the difference between what is needed and what is wanted, to help him/her learn the task of self-discipline, when parents neglect this responsibility then a chaotic environment emerges. The child, who doesn’t know what is best for him/her ends up making his/her own decisions and the parents simply comply to pacify. Here develops confusion about who calls the shots, the child gets an inflated sense of entitlement, and when he/she doesn’t get his/her way there is a meltdown, since the child has never learned to self-regulate. Anxiety skyrockets in the family and cannot be soothed until the child gets what he/she wants… but then as soon as he/she gets the object of desire it then becomes boring and he/she immediately moves on to the next demand. The heightened state of anxiety within such a family becomes chronic and sets the tone for the child’s life course. And just as it occurs in this kind of chaotic family, it likewise occurs within the interrelation of the human soul, spirit, and body. The soul is the executive, the “parent” in the relation, while the body is the “child.” The soul is tasked with the responsibility of providing for needs but also teaching discipline and self-regulation. When this task is neglected, a chronic internal anxiety (of the detrimental kind) results. The more the body demands the more the soul complies.

The sensualist, I’ll allow ye, begins by pursuing a real pleasure, though a small one. His sin is the less. But the time comes on when, though the pleasure becomes less and less and the craving fiercer and fiercer, and though he knows that joy can never come that way, yet he prefers to joy the mere fondling of unappeasable lust and would not have it taken from him. He’d fight to the death to keep it. He’d like well to be able to scratch: but even when he can scratch no more he’d rather itch than not.
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, 1945

The ascendant life described above, which clings to the self in the internal, makes the soul the primary and central focus. Here, the soul tends to its tasks in executive functioning, yet it does so for its own pleasure and good. Here, it seeks to squeeze as much out of life in the body as possible, and it therefore recognizes the importance of discipline so that the body has longevity and vitality to serve the desires of the soul. Through discipline of the body, the soul acquires power not just over the self, but through the body it acquires power in the social and material realm. This is where it’s real pleasure is acquired, exercising its wit, power, and authority through social and psychological dominance of both itself and others. In this position, the soul takes pride in mastering itself (unlike those others who cling to the external and have no self-mastery or control). But mastering itself is soon not enough (it gets boring), and by means of that mastered self the soul seeks to master and control others. It takes pleasure in its ability to sway opinion and convince others, to control, to exercise its own will even beyond itself. But this too, is ultimately a recast of the first position. It too is grounded in the pleasures of the aesthetic. Here, the ultimate goal of the human being is dedicated only to that which is pleasurable and feels good to the soul. It is self-focused and therefore any “love” it seeks in relation to others is more accurately a need to be loved. That is, one only loves in another what is pleasurable to the self, and when that pleasure fades such a love fades with it. Consequently, when one does have the opportunity for love its expression ends up being more akin to masturbation than actual love (which is other focused). From this position, the inner self is emphasized and comes first, and that which crosses this self or gets in the way of what it seeks for itself is despised and hated. For this reason, the idea of a God who one must put above the self is despised and hated, along with those people who represent such an idea. This position tends to view all interactions outside of itself in terms of power. All that stands in the way of fulfilling oneself is considered oppressive and thus is rejected and despised.

The existante life described, which clings to “the One” in the internal, makes “the One” and His infinite and eternal realm its primary/central focus. It receives life freely and takes joy in reflecting it as best it can in the temporal/ finite world. This one gives no care to the self, but rather uses that self in earnestness to live, to love, and to care for others. There is a simplicity about this one, this one who simply accepts that the self is and immediately puts it to use. This one receives the self from God in inwardness, and since it is there secured it requires no validation in the external. It is simply and immediately put to use. This one does not conceive of the possibility of the “not self,” and would find it laughable if it could. And in not conceiving of the possibility of the not self, the self is actually held secure in inwardness. But not just in inwardness but in relation to love Himself in that inwardness. And this love is fully trustworthy, for it is in His nature alone to constantly give of Himself, all of Himself, to any who will have Him. And those who will have Him will likewise manifest Him. And here now, the one who loves has her/his task, to make use of the self to manifest the eternal within the temporal. Moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day, the self is to be the conduit by which that which is eternal bursts forth into temporal time. “And only that which never becomes something else is love.” This Love is that very thing which is eternal, never resting and always seeking its incarnation in the temporal/external world. It is never wasted, but always “accomplishes that which it desires, and achieves that for which it is sent.” Love binds up the hate within oneself, rescuing the self that was enslaved therein. Where the light of Love is shone the darkness of hate flees, for it knows that it cannot stand in the presence of that “consuming fire.”

I think it important to say that none of us operates entirely within the bounds of a single life position. I believe that we all find ourselves at times (even regularly) operating from the first and second positions (clinging to the external, and clinging to the self in the internal). In this, we are all very similar, it is part of the universal human condition. The difference between us though, is in which position we place our hope for fulfillment, joy, life, and love. I myself strive for and place my hope in the third position (existante), where I receive from “the One” and seek to reflect and manifest His Love, life, peace, and joy in this material world. I believe this is “the way” of the Good Life. I believe it is the course toward a fulfilling and meaningful life that has eternal and infinite value, which cannot ever fade or diminish or become boring and old. It is freedom from anxiety and depression, from the pains of life even in the midst of experiencing those pains in temporality. But I see many who place their hope for fulfillment and meaning in the first two positions (aesthetic & ascendant), which are fleeting and leave one thirstier than when they first started drinking from them. They are like wells of salt water, which in the end are a poison to us. I grieve within myself when I drink from them, and I know very well that they can’t fulfill me… even as I drink. Likewise, I grieve for others when I see them drinking from these wells with the full hope of assurance that they will satisfy. This is how I conceptualize those who are different from me. Not that we are really so different, but that we place our hope in different life positions for fulfillment, life, love, peace, and joy. And this is the difference that makes all the difference in the world.