I have read all of this of course. What I miss here, with regard to my previous comments, is your relationship to these ideas, in the manner in which you have shared your relationship with the ideas of Stephen Braude and others.
Just be patient and wait for my next post. (I limit the length of my posts to what Gmail can show in its entirety, without truncation and redirection to a web link.)
Sure. While waiting I would like to add that I think the chapter of LD titled Reality and the Integral knowledge, which was added later, in 1940, along with those on the objectivity of the subtle planes, as a kind of introduction to much that was added, seems to dispose of much of what Braude has to say. Just as ontological pluralism falls into that kind of Humean sceptical thinking about the nature of mind, Sri Aurobindo's metaphysical realism can fall easily into their categories of cultural context and purposive interest.
Indeed, Sri Aurobindo’s integral idealism can easily be subsumed under some category of cultural or social context or need or interest by those who have made up their skeptical minds. Let them think as they please. What I resist and resent is attempts to present Sri Aurobindo’s philosophical writings as dogma. His writings are not only interest-motivated, as he affirms when he writes that he follows the Vedic and Vedantic arrangement of the higher worlds “especially because it was from the beginning envisaged from the point of view of the utility of these various planes to the supreme object of our liberation.” He is also writing for ordinary human beings, not gnostic supermen or superwomen. This obviously limits if not distorts the Truth he is trying to express through a rather imperfect medium. As he wrote:
“I use the language of the mind because there is no other which human beings can understand, —even though most of them understand it badly. If I were to use a supramental language like Joyce, you would not even have the illusion of understanding it; so, not being an Irishman, I don’t make the attempt. But of course anyone who wants to change earth-nature must first accept it in order to change it.”
What is this if not a specific interest or motive? Let’s hear it from the Mother:
“things have value only if they realise that for which they have been made, and the most beautiful philosophies of the world are of no use to those who do not understand them. The most beautiful works of art in the world are quite useless to those whom they do not put on the path of the Truth. And the most perfect yoga in the world is useless to those whom it does not lead to the Realisation. And if you have this sense of relativity, you have finished with all dogmatism, all sectarianism, all that kind of absolutism which leads one always to think that all that has done us good is “the truth”—it is the truth for us, it is not necessarily the truth for our neighbour. And what our neighbour thinks is the truth for him, and when you say, “It is idiotic, it is quite useless”, if it helps him to realise the truth, it is excellent, it is the best thing possible for him. And everything, everything on earth is like that. And if you do not want to be altogether narrow, to put on visors and not see farther than the tip of your nose, you must first of all understand this. You must understand that all things in the universe tend towards a goal and that *it is to the extent they help to realise this goal that they have a value*, and that this value is quite relative; and what is good for one may not be so for another, what is good at one moment may not be so at another and, consequently, every kind of dogmatism is an absurdity.
“It is very easy to say, “That, that’s true, now I know that it is true and I shall not think otherwise”; this is very easy, and in fact something has suddenly put you in touch with a light, you have had an experience, you have become conscious of yourself, conscious of something which transcends you and is the reality of your being, so for you it is perfect. But do not imagine that you must go from door to door, from city to city, country to country, telling people, “I proclaim the Truth”, because what is true for you may not be at all good for another. What you have seen has its truth in itself—everything has its truth in itself—but the true raison d’être of this truth is that it has helped you to find yourself, to find the truth of your being, and it may quite possibly not help your neighbour, unless you have a considerable power of persuasion and oblige him to see things as you have seen them yourself, but this has not much value.” [Q&A 1950–51, 284–85]
The immense merit of Braude’s work lies in disposing the deep (essentially realist) nonsense that stands in the way of being receptive to a vaster kind of thought such as Sri Aurobindo’s. He has done more than anyone within academic philosophy to take genuinely paranormal phenomena seriously and try to understand their implications. In fact, he’s done the utmost that is possible under the academic constraints he chose to work. Any step further into the realm of spiritual or supraphysical experience, which is accessible neither to him nor his intended audience, would have defeated his purpose. To pit him against Sri Aurobindo, as if they were arguing on the same level, is absurd.
I certainly appreciate your concern about the tendency toward dogmatism, which I think is inherent in both the analytical and spiritual schools of philosophy, due to the limitations of the respective types of mind as well as to institutional constraints. With Sri Aurobindo it is a harder shell to crack because his work is inherently and eloquently dogmatic, in the classical sense. The statement that Braude has "done the most that is possible under the constraints he has chosen" also seems to lean toward the kind of dogmatism that characterizes much of institutional "scientific"thinking. The limitations come to be considered necessities and generally accepted truths. Bergson tried to push the boundaries in his day and there are signs of a similar tendency in the neuroscience of McGilchrist and others today. But it takes more shakti than is as yet available to most. I have a friend named Alex Gomez Marin who is working very actively to bridge the boundaries of science and spirituality, whose work at the Pari Center in Milano might be of interest to you. He recently did a series on The Future Human.
What according to you is the classical sense of dogmatic? My understanding is that “dogma” is related to “doxa,” and that the ancient Greeks distinguished between truth (aletheia or episteme) and opinion (doxa). Parmenides distinguished between a way of truth (how reality is) and a way of opinion (how it falsely appears to us).
I am referring to a system of precepts, axioms, principles that are logically consistent and interdependent in such a way that all the statements are necessarily true, for example Leibnitz's Monadology or Spinoza's Ethics. Its authority is based on its internal consistency. From deknuo, to show, it is logical in the sense of a revealing or showing in such a way that its truth is seen. Thus "authoritative". I would consider Sri Aurobindo's very elaborate explanation of "the Many" as an exclusive concentration of Brahman by its "tapas" to be such a dogma. It can be believed as such. This as I understand it is how scholasticism understood the term, prior to the authoritarian imposition of a belief.
Let me add that this understanding of 'dogma' was extant at the time of Plato as well. The views of Pyrrho, the earliest sceptic, who was critical of the Platonists, were elaborated by Sextus Empiricus in the 2nd century, who wrote, for example, "While, however, the Dogmatics are conceited enough to think that they should be preferred to other men in the judgment of things, we know that their claim is absurd, for they themselves form a part of the disagreement; and if they give themselves preference in this way in the judgment of phenomena, they beg the question before they begin the judgment, as they trust the judgment to themselves. Nevertheless, in order that we should reach the result of the suspension of judgment by limiting the argument to one man, one who for example they deem to be wise, let us take up the third trope. The third trope is the one based upon differences in perception." Sri Aurobindo was of course, a Platonist through and through.
The supraphysical worlds are in reach of a select 'lucky few'. Let us hope they in turn share with us their knowledge and experience as the author does here. Thank you for this wonderful post.
I have read all of this of course. What I miss here, with regard to my previous comments, is your relationship to these ideas, in the manner in which you have shared your relationship with the ideas of Stephen Braude and others.
Just be patient and wait for my next post. (I limit the length of my posts to what Gmail can show in its entirety, without truncation and redirection to a web link.)
Sure. While waiting I would like to add that I think the chapter of LD titled Reality and the Integral knowledge, which was added later, in 1940, along with those on the objectivity of the subtle planes, as a kind of introduction to much that was added, seems to dispose of much of what Braude has to say. Just as ontological pluralism falls into that kind of Humean sceptical thinking about the nature of mind, Sri Aurobindo's metaphysical realism can fall easily into their categories of cultural context and purposive interest.
Indeed, Sri Aurobindo’s integral idealism can easily be subsumed under some category of cultural or social context or need or interest by those who have made up their skeptical minds. Let them think as they please. What I resist and resent is attempts to present Sri Aurobindo’s philosophical writings as dogma. His writings are not only interest-motivated, as he affirms when he writes that he follows the Vedic and Vedantic arrangement of the higher worlds “especially because it was from the beginning envisaged from the point of view of the utility of these various planes to the supreme object of our liberation.” He is also writing for ordinary human beings, not gnostic supermen or superwomen. This obviously limits if not distorts the Truth he is trying to express through a rather imperfect medium. As he wrote:
“I use the language of the mind because there is no other which human beings can understand, —even though most of them understand it badly. If I were to use a supramental language like Joyce, you would not even have the illusion of understanding it; so, not being an Irishman, I don’t make the attempt. But of course anyone who wants to change earth-nature must first accept it in order to change it.”
What is this if not a specific interest or motive? Let’s hear it from the Mother:
“things have value only if they realise that for which they have been made, and the most beautiful philosophies of the world are of no use to those who do not understand them. The most beautiful works of art in the world are quite useless to those whom they do not put on the path of the Truth. And the most perfect yoga in the world is useless to those whom it does not lead to the Realisation. And if you have this sense of relativity, you have finished with all dogmatism, all sectarianism, all that kind of absolutism which leads one always to think that all that has done us good is “the truth”—it is the truth for us, it is not necessarily the truth for our neighbour. And what our neighbour thinks is the truth for him, and when you say, “It is idiotic, it is quite useless”, if it helps him to realise the truth, it is excellent, it is the best thing possible for him. And everything, everything on earth is like that. And if you do not want to be altogether narrow, to put on visors and not see farther than the tip of your nose, you must first of all understand this. You must understand that all things in the universe tend towards a goal and that *it is to the extent they help to realise this goal that they have a value*, and that this value is quite relative; and what is good for one may not be so for another, what is good at one moment may not be so at another and, consequently, every kind of dogmatism is an absurdity.
“It is very easy to say, “That, that’s true, now I know that it is true and I shall not think otherwise”; this is very easy, and in fact something has suddenly put you in touch with a light, you have had an experience, you have become conscious of yourself, conscious of something which transcends you and is the reality of your being, so for you it is perfect. But do not imagine that you must go from door to door, from city to city, country to country, telling people, “I proclaim the Truth”, because what is true for you may not be at all good for another. What you have seen has its truth in itself—everything has its truth in itself—but the true raison d’être of this truth is that it has helped you to find yourself, to find the truth of your being, and it may quite possibly not help your neighbour, unless you have a considerable power of persuasion and oblige him to see things as you have seen them yourself, but this has not much value.” [Q&A 1950–51, 284–85]
The immense merit of Braude’s work lies in disposing the deep (essentially realist) nonsense that stands in the way of being receptive to a vaster kind of thought such as Sri Aurobindo’s. He has done more than anyone within academic philosophy to take genuinely paranormal phenomena seriously and try to understand their implications. In fact, he’s done the utmost that is possible under the academic constraints he chose to work. Any step further into the realm of spiritual or supraphysical experience, which is accessible neither to him nor his intended audience, would have defeated his purpose. To pit him against Sri Aurobindo, as if they were arguing on the same level, is absurd.
I certainly appreciate your concern about the tendency toward dogmatism, which I think is inherent in both the analytical and spiritual schools of philosophy, due to the limitations of the respective types of mind as well as to institutional constraints. With Sri Aurobindo it is a harder shell to crack because his work is inherently and eloquently dogmatic, in the classical sense. The statement that Braude has "done the most that is possible under the constraints he has chosen" also seems to lean toward the kind of dogmatism that characterizes much of institutional "scientific"thinking. The limitations come to be considered necessities and generally accepted truths. Bergson tried to push the boundaries in his day and there are signs of a similar tendency in the neuroscience of McGilchrist and others today. But it takes more shakti than is as yet available to most. I have a friend named Alex Gomez Marin who is working very actively to bridge the boundaries of science and spirituality, whose work at the Pari Center in Milano might be of interest to you. He recently did a series on The Future Human.
What according to you is the classical sense of dogmatic? My understanding is that “dogma” is related to “doxa,” and that the ancient Greeks distinguished between truth (aletheia or episteme) and opinion (doxa). Parmenides distinguished between a way of truth (how reality is) and a way of opinion (how it falsely appears to us).
I am referring to a system of precepts, axioms, principles that are logically consistent and interdependent in such a way that all the statements are necessarily true, for example Leibnitz's Monadology or Spinoza's Ethics. Its authority is based on its internal consistency. From deknuo, to show, it is logical in the sense of a revealing or showing in such a way that its truth is seen. Thus "authoritative". I would consider Sri Aurobindo's very elaborate explanation of "the Many" as an exclusive concentration of Brahman by its "tapas" to be such a dogma. It can be believed as such. This as I understand it is how scholasticism understood the term, prior to the authoritarian imposition of a belief.
Let me add that this understanding of 'dogma' was extant at the time of Plato as well. The views of Pyrrho, the earliest sceptic, who was critical of the Platonists, were elaborated by Sextus Empiricus in the 2nd century, who wrote, for example, "While, however, the Dogmatics are conceited enough to think that they should be preferred to other men in the judgment of things, we know that their claim is absurd, for they themselves form a part of the disagreement; and if they give themselves preference in this way in the judgment of phenomena, they beg the question before they begin the judgment, as they trust the judgment to themselves. Nevertheless, in order that we should reach the result of the suspension of judgment by limiting the argument to one man, one who for example they deem to be wise, let us take up the third trope. The third trope is the one based upon differences in perception." Sri Aurobindo was of course, a Platonist through and through.
"Sri Aurobindo was of course, a Platonist through and through."
Amen
The supraphysical worlds are in reach of a select 'lucky few'. Let us hope they in turn share with us their knowledge and experience as the author does here. Thank you for this wonderful post.