its really long, i wouldnt read it
--------
One
Before beginning, I would like to make the following statement:
I am in no way qualified to make the statements I am about to make, I am not even sure if my thoughts to follow are valid arguments, or if they hold true when assessed logically. Furthermore, I am more than certain that if this essay were to be presented to any one of the Existentialist writers I am about to criticize and analyze, that they would without so much as batting an eyelid, be able to refute my claims and tell me that I am, in fact mistaken, and present me with a far more compelling argument than the one I am about to present. Nonetheless, I will continue with my thoughts, for they seem true and authentic, in my eyes – and it is this authenticity which gives me the courage to make these claims.
From the onset of my dealings with existentialism, there has been something that has simply seemed off about their view of existence. The primary view which did I felt counter-intuitive to what existence presents itself to be, to me, was the extreme alienation felt by these writers. More specifically, the way they viewed each person as an individual, and fail to see the eternal, infinite oneness of the universe. It seems that they, through their self-consciousness, do have the potential to see this oneness, as this potential is inherent to all beings. However it is due to the idea of existential alienation, that they feel separate from the universe, which thus hinders this ability. If able to get beyond that barrier, they would see what has been seen by countless mystics over countless years, and countless traditions – that we are all the infinite one, we are not by any means separate from each other, and any sense of isolation or alienation is merely a hallucination. For in reality, as presented by near all mystic tradition, this life we live is somewhat of a game, of which the ultimate objective is the realization of the game, and with that, seeing yourself as you truly are, as one with every existing being ever, for you are not the you, you are thinking of, you are not a separate individual, confined to your skin. You are the real you, the you you find – as Alan Watts puts it, “the inmost Self which escapes inspection because it's always the inspector”, which is God. However, in the present world this simply does not fly with most, as God is taught to us as being an all powerful king, a being in conscious control, of the universe. What one must realize is that this view of God is misguided, and it is this view that stops the Existentialists from seeing God within everything. As the Vedanta's teach, there is nothing that exists, except God, and it is upon this realization that life ceases to be a futile experience, experienced alone inside our skin.
Now that I have stated my basic point, granted without much supporting evidence, I will continue on. First we will glance at existentialism in general, so as to understand and cement basic terms and concepts, we will then turn our attentions to the mystic experience, clairvoyance, and other such related things. Although the understanding of all things I will discuss of mysticism are not essential to understanding the basic points I wish to bring forth in this essay, they are nonetheless aids in understanding my reasoning behind why I feel the way I do about existentialism, and in turn provide answers to the questions faced within this essay.
Within the existentialist writers I plan to cover (Sartre, Camus and Tillich) several themes seem essential to talk about: authenticity, alienation, absurdity and anxiety.
Authenticity, in the most basic sense, deals with ones choice to do something for one's own self, and not for any external reasons. To be authentic one must have the ability to chose to do things as such, and if, one cannot make a decision for reasons that pertain to ones personal choices, and instead must refer to, for example, propriety derived from social or religious convention, then one is being inauthentic – you must claim responsibility for your own being and your own decisions. This, along with self-consciousness (albeit, somewhat misguided), seems to be where existentialism looks in the right direction, as they understand the importance of being as ones self, free from pretensions, taking responsibility for ones actions.
Alienation, which we will discuss in more detail later through Sartre's The Look, is the essential principle which separates existentialism from it's potential convergence with mysticism. Existential alienation is the feeling of being estranged from both the world, and ones self. The world is looked at through ones being-in-itself, comprehended by the for-itself, and ultimately, through this process, we feel estranged, as we are unable to reach any sort of connection between ourselves and the surrounding world, or of other for-itself's, as we are perceiving them as separate beings and objects, not sharing any connection. It is here that, I feel, one causes oneself to be alienated from ones true self, the reason being that if you are perceiving the world as a place filled with other separate beings, you are in turn causing yourself to be alienated from yourself. For if all is one, and you feel separate from others, you are in turn separating yourself from the one, in which yourself is also held – this is not an essential condition. When looked at from mysticism, it is, rather, a condition imposed on oneself, only defeated by dissolution of the ego, in which one ceases to see things as separate, and instead, as one.
Anxiety, which is similar to fear, takes place when one feels threatened. Within fear there is a direct object which threatens ones being, however in anxiety there is no direct object, which is what distinguishes the two from each other. From this anxiety, one may find himself unengaged, and detached from the world, which brings on the feeling of absurdity of ones existence and of the world. However, through mystic experience, one may shed these feelings – as one will not feel threatened by the world, existence, or anything definite, or indefinite, as one will not be estranged from, but rather connected to the eternal oneness of everything existing.
Until now, I have spoken of eternal oneness, but I have not proven it, however as far as my knowledge goes, the oneness is inexplicable, it requires faith, but this faith is not blind. Not at all. It is, in fact, clearly visible, but only upon experiencing it. Nonetheless, I will attempt to explain it, like attempting to explain color to a blind man.
The oneness of which I speak, encapsulates everything. As we attempt to define things, we are in essence, limiting and comparing them, so as to fit a definition. As there is no limit to everything, it cannot be defined. Thus the oneness of everything escapes definition in the same way color escapes those who have not experienced sight – there is no grounds for comparison, no black to juxtapose the white. As everything escapes definition, I turn now to the limits of our perceptions, to the fact that we cannot perceive anything with our five senses which are beyond them. It is thus, impossible to refute anything which cannot be perceived by our five senses through limiting and comparison.
For example, let us look at computer programming. Assume you are a media playing software, you have the capability to play .MP3, .WAV, .FLAC, .WMA and .M4A files, and these are all you know. If then someone would attempt to open a .JPEG image within you, you would not know what to do with it, you could attempt to comprehend it using the 5 file formats you can understand, but at best you may produce some unrelated gibberish, as it is not within your capacity to understand .JPEG images. Similarly, if we rely only solely on our five senses we block out the other possible modes of perception, which as they are not in our current capacity, we have no way of judging using our physical capacities to prove whether or not anything beyond the 'physical' is possible. Thus, to refute something which is 'metaphysical', which is beyond our five senses, is an egoistic assumption that nothing may exist outside of what is possible for us to perceive. For all we know, we could only be experiencing a fraction of reality, but there is no concrete way of proving it if one only relies on these five, rather limiting senses.
To the mystic, and the clairvoyant, we are doing just this, as we are not single, individual computer programs, but the entire computer itself, we are the infinite, experiencing our Self finitely. However, these capabilities, the escape of our perceived finiteness, are not as effortless as the five which we currently employ, and in order to perceive higher planes of existence, we must hone our inert capabilities through various forms of meditation and Mind-expansion (which differs from the brain in the same way a generator differs from electricity – but this is beyond the scope of this essay).
In the book Homage to The Sun, Kyriacos Markides, a professor of sociology, studied the acts of Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis, also known as Daskalos, a Christian mystic and healer. The book is written completely objectively, as Markides, who states within the first pages of the book, that until observing Daskalos perform the marvelous acts he does, Markides was a firm believer in the Nietzschean ideal that 'God is dead', and thus a complete non-believer in mysticism and clairvoyance. He merely reports on what he sees, and what he sees is irrefutable. Within this book, Daskalos explains that what has been described as 'metaphysics' by many is actually just as physical as the world as we currently experience it, simply within higher dimensions of existence. The gross material, being the third dimension, the one we are currently experiencing, the fourth dimension to be the psychic dimension (also known as the astral plane), where space, as perceived within the third dimension, does not exist, and the fifth dimension being the noetic, where both space and time are transcended. It is claimed that each being exists simultaniously within these planes, and each is just as material as the next, simply at “different levels of vibrations”. To refuters of this claim, Daskalos very simply stated “Just because we cannot see hydrogen does not mean that there is no such thing. We employ a wider conception of reality which is beyond the senses yet it is quite tangible for purposes of research...Our difference from those who call themselves materialists is this: our laboratory is broader.”
Although what I have stated above does not constitute as a logical proof of the existence of the eternal, infinite, one, I hope that I have elucidated that it is larger than definition, and the finite rules of logic, and can only be perceived and understood through experience. With this we shall move on to critique and analysis of certain elements of the existentialist philosophy.
Within Sartre's “the Look”, it is noted that as long as I am unreflective, I rely upon the others appropriation of me as an object to become conscious of my nature – as long as I am absorbed in my actions, I will be oblivious to their nature. As for this realization of being as an object within the eyes of the other, though Sartre claims you are alienated from that dimension of your being. We must realize that your nature was always present within the world, available to your perceptions if you chose it to be. As your nature is ever-present, it is apparent that the alienation is self-imposed, and thus easy to break free from. Thus the solution to break free from existential alienation is self-consciousness and introspection, the former being stressed by most existentialists as a part of authenticity, and both being stressed by mystics as a means of understanding one's Self. Sartre comes close the mystic point of view, as he realizes that it this situation holds true only as long as one is unreflective, but sees this unreflectiveness as an essential part of our existence within the described situation. This is not so. As I have said, existentialists have been looking in the right direction, but have been misguided.
Within the writing of Albert Camus, I have always felt him as less misguided than the rest – there have been glimpses of an understanding of the eternal infinite oneness, although never explicitly stated. For example, in the short story Jonas, or The Artist at Work, the struggle of the artist, and the eventual self imposed exile within his loft leads to his discovery of the indistinguishable nature of independence and interdependence of our world. This shows us that we as human beings are similar to an ocean, as we may all be individual molecules of water, we are ultimately a large body with each molecule indistinguishable from each-other, constituting the one ocean. Furthermore, we may look at The Myth of Sisyphus as a metaphor for the eternal wavelike nature being. The uphill struggle for Sisyphus may be looked at as the crest of the wave, life on earth in which we must play the game of realization of the Self. Upon realization of the Self we reach the node of the wave, which may be looked at as the peak of the mountain, at which point the struggle is alleviated, the boulder begins to roll down, and we are able to continue our existence unencumbered by the struggles faced prior to Self-realization, this is the trough of the wave. As we are unencumbered by existence, we become lucid, and conscious (as Camus too, points out), and are able to see things as they really are – eternal, infinite and one.
We now come to Tillich, whom I find the most interesting of all cases, as he seems less misguided and more distorted. Of all the Existentialist literature I have read, he is the only one who addresses mysticism directly, whereas most others merely refuse to look at it (Within Being and Nothingness, Sartre dismisses the mystic experience as unknowable). However, this may be attributable to Tillich being the only one who views religion as a possible mode for authentic existence. Nevertheless, within addressing mysticism not only does he make statements of mysticism that seem distorted so as to fit his argument, he argues that mysticism “in its extreme positive and extreme negative aspects is a comparatively rare event”. Firstly, within my understanding of mysticism, there are no negative aspects of mysticism which I have ever come across, and such a conjecture seems almost ridiculous, as when mysticism, when truly achieved implies total and complete love and compassion for all things existing. Although my opinion may be biased, as to me mysticism seems the end all, be all solution to all of existence's issues, I simply fail to see any possible negativity coming from mysticism. Secondly, mysticism has not always been a rare event, it has simply over time become increasingly rare event with the furtherance of capitalist, materialist society, among other things, as it has simply been forgotten about by most. Thirdly, within the same sentence, Tillich claims that mystics have “the courage to take the non-being which is implied in finitude upon oneself” (The Courage To Be 159), which is a complete distortion of the fundamental belief that lies central in all mysticism – the infinite nature of our being. Mystics do not fear non-being as within mysticism, there is no non-being, as after death, though our physical bodies may no longer exist, however, the soul will live on, to reincarnate. Thus the anxiety of non-being is transcended by the mystic in seeing that 'non-being' is merely another state of being, as the mystic understands that the gross material, three dimensional world, is merely the most basic form of existence, he does not fear death, as he cannot find anything to fear within it.
Despite mysticism becoming increasingly rare in our present age, it does not mean it is any less possible, as it is an inherent ability within us all, to transcend what has been taught to us by society, that we are separate, individuals, and see the unity of the entire universe. In order to do this, the love within you must conquer all fear – and with this comes the dissolution of the ego. Even if one believes in the statement that God is dead, one cannot refute the power of true love to conquer anything. It ultimately is up to each individual to decide their own views, and if you chose, you can live a life where, as far as you are concerned, God is dead, and you can live life accordingly. It is only upon opening ones mind to the possibility that what we sense with our five senses could potentially be limiting our experience, that we may escape the solipsism presented to us within existentialism, and increasingly in our world as a whole. To think that nothing outside of what is perceivable to you through your most basic senses is a notion bound completely in egoism, and it is just this which we must attempt to escape, for it is from the ego where all negative emotions originate.
I cannot deny the extreme intelligence present in every work of Existential philosophy I have read, as they attempt to deconstruct, dissect and understand every bit of the human condition, but they have been misguided. It is as if they figured out a formula for life, understood the inner workings, and relationships between all the variables, but miscalculated the constants. As if they have looked at the leaves of a tree with great detail, and understood the leaf, but have failed to connect the leaf to the tree, and the tree to the forest, and thus misinterpreted the functioning of the leaf.
There is only one thread of all cotton.
The warp, the woof, the quill of the weaver's shuttle,
The shuttle, the texture of cloths, the cotton shoes and hanks of yarn,
All are known by their respective names,
And they all belong to their respective places
But there is only one thread of yarn.
- Bulleh Shah
Posts
