Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:34:39 -0600 From: Mary Murphy&Salstrand <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: A religion for cyborgs Hugh, In your recent posts you have been discussing both self-interest and the sublime. I want to respond here in a way that attempts to connect both of these concepts. The classic problem of self is simply that it does not appear to be a unity. This fact led Plato in his Republic to propose a tripartite theory of the soul which was a kind of miniaturization of the ideal Greek city-state. Aristotle opposed this and argued that the soul is a unity, but even he recognized there was a distinction between reason and the appetites. The problem he identified in his ethics is sometimes referred to as the problem of incontinence. A simple example will illustrate what I mean. Suppose in terms of your self-interest, you have decided to quit smoking. However, after a long and stressful day, you found yourself in a bar with a drink in your hand and you're dying for a smoke. The ethical question then becomes; "what is my self-interest?" Do I have the momentary pleasure of a cigarette (which I truly need right now, I can still quit tomorrow) or do I endure the pain for the sake of a somewhat idealized notion of my self-interest beyond the moment? In Lyotard's terminology, this might even be construed as a case of the differend. Now, consider the sublime. I recognize that in Kant this terminology becomes rather abstract as it supports the rather complex machinery of his philosophical doctrine of the faculties. However, if we focus upon the sublime as a state in which an initial state of pain gives way to a state of negative pleasure (or what Burke referred to as delight) it is possible to provide some simple illustration. Imagine you are in a boat in the middle of the lake and it capsized. As you find yourself in the water, you fear you will drown. Your entire life flashes before your eyes as your hang unto the boat for dear life. Then a motor boast appears in the distance. You wave and shout. It sees you. You are saved. Coming to shore, you are aware of a different feel. While in the water, you knew only fear, panic and terror. Now we know a kind of quiet joy. I is a very different pleasure than those found in eating and drinking and making love, but it is complete and whole and perfectly satisfying. Through the grace of chance, you are alive. It is said that when Epicurus was young and survived a shipwreck and some have speculated that this is the source of his sublime and ethical notion of happiness. For in the ethics of Epicurus, it is stated that all pleasure is a good, but not all pleasure is desirable because it may merely lead to greater pain and suffering (consider the case of smoking above). Instead it is possible to achieve another state in which the pleasure is abiding and constant and it is sublime condition we should seek. He called it Ataraxia or tranquillity and it is characterized by absence of pain in the body and absence of anxiety in the mind. What I also find interesting about this is that the state is exactly like the one identified in various religions as the state of the blessed. It is typically realized by various means such as prayer and fasting, yoga and meditation, contemplation. What is so intriguing about Epicurus is that he deconstructs the supernatural base of religion and state a way in which these religious ideals can be realized in purely materialist terms. As we search for a way to confront politically the commodity nature of our current society, a way must be found to make alternatives viable. The promise of Epicurus for me is that his ethics point the way to a new hedonistic society in which individuals remain responsible for their actions without having to fortify themselves with conspicuous consumption. If there was a cultural movement that began to live on these terms and made an exodus from the current society, perhaps this would provide one of the foundations for a political movement. Beyond this, there is also a mystical dimension. As many have pointed out, in every religion there is a more esoteric component which provide what Eliade once referred to as the technology of ecstasy. History from time to time has thrown up mysterious individuals such as Meister Eckhart, Rumi, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi etc. What if such individuals were harbingers of a future state in which which work do longer defined existence or the very notion of self. Then, perhaps a different self could be realized, one that is perhaps more sublime. The foundations of this society would be created politically, perhaps, but in this new society, the political might no longer predominate. Such a society might be described as religious, perhaps, but not in the conventional way we mean it today. For there the old god and goddesses would be recognized as components of the psyche, facets of the diamond self. The goal of life would be found in ecstasy as all the various conventions and form of social life were outshined in a a greater bliss. This would truly be a religion for cyborgs. eric
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005