Qualitative and Quantitative Spirituality/Religion (Sunday Forum)

by Oh Yet We Trust, Brisbane, Saturday, May 16, 2009, 23:37 (1496 days ago)
edited by unknown, Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 06:10

My original post has long descended into the bowels of Catholica so I am returning to it (as promised) here.

I tell you people, being on this forum again has shown me so much: as time has passed there have been members with which I have clicked and others which I understand but with whom I don't necessarily "click" and after a while this becomes apparent with the people who respond to whom. And it is GOOD.

And it is with this in mind that I am going to write what will probably end up being a very long post, one which I think I would loved to have pursued as a thesis if I had my time over, one which incorporates all my areas of study-past.

I woke this morning (now 3 days ago) after yet another very intense session with Doc, also, another separate issue to do with the priest who won't get back to me, and, all the questions you, Old Robe, made me go to bed with.

My head is spinning with thoughts, insights, fears and confusion, conclusions and clarity, paradox and certainty, and underlying it all is the shock of people actually wanting to know what I think - it scares me and confuses me and fills me with such a sense of being appreciated that I am just not used to. It also, I just realised, triggers fear in the sense that I am returning to stuff I have shut down from because it was how I wanted to believe, but also fear based on people/men wanting something, anything from me - I get suspicious and feel I am about to be manipulated - yeah, I know, weird.

All these issues swimming around in my head relate to my whole world view, perception of faith and the spiritual life and also to the point I am about to make: my study (I did one of those ‘useless' degrees, you know a BA, 'Bugger All') left me realising I am not an analytical thinker and therefore what I say has little or less value - you know, when writing essays for marking, one was NEVER allowed to be personal/subjective; if you were, down went your marks. I will discuss this notion below but I will give an example here: The essay for which I got the worst ever results was one in which we had to respond to the following question - What is the Centre of Paul's Gospel? In my growing frustration (it was the end of my second year), I gave what "I" thought, sort of what I do on the forum here. The essay was written while I was spending time at a Cistercian Monastery (thinking of joining) and I purposely chose to write almost completely (though not without academic reference and style) using a “reflective” analysis of the reading of Paul's letters while no doubt under the influence of the monastic milieu. My answer was "hope", hope was the centre and there is not enough room here or time to elaborate but the short of it in that for the first time I felt I had written something of value because it came from me, my thinking and experience based on my reading of Paul and not from regurgitating someone else's books and thoughts. As such, I had only one books on Paul and a few articles and a book on Thomas Merton on Mysticism in my bibliography. My lecturer (an ex-Jesuit and ex-Catholic I think, from Tubigen and possibly a contemporary of Benny) pointed this out and gave me 50% to get me through but said I shouldn't have passed, not because of what I wrote (about which he did not even comment) but because of my bibliography. I still believe my answer was pretty spot on but on a university assessment level, I do now (reluctantly) agree with the mark he gave me. But I still think I learned more with that essay than any other I had written and I still think it was a good essay but I also now more objectively what my lecturer was complaining about. But there is a point to this which will come out later. Interesting to note, I met my lecturer years later and he was dressing in rather alternative clothing shall we say and had a considerably ‘softer’ tone to his nature; age and experience had mellowed him somewhat and I wonder what he would think now of my essay – probably the same, but it is also interesting to note that there has also been a shift in this absolutist objective approach to learning at university level, as far as I know anyway.

That was a long tangent - promises of things to come. Back to my original:

But I will try to combine all into some form of coherent reply. I jumped out of bed with a need to jot everything down and you should see the piece of paper on which I wrote - what a mess. Never the less, here it goes:

My first thoughts this morning were that there really seem to be two essential approaches not just to learning but to God and spirituality and the best place to be is to have both in balance and most of this post will be about that and my original music/theology post below (The Arts –another way to “know”) has been the trigger.

The two approaches I see are:

1. the perceptual, interpretive analysis which sidles with qualitative approaches, experience, the arts, the mystical, right-brain thinking, spiritual religion.
2. the logical, systematic analysis which sidles with quantitative approaches, systematic theology, the pure sciences, mathematics, left-brain thinking, religious spirituality.

I see the Catholic church as belonging solidly in the second but with a constant thread of the first annoyingly weaving its way throughout. I see Pentecostal churches (as an example) as predominantly the former with threads of the second constantly rearing its unwanted head. (A neighbour of ours had a breakdown because of the treatment he received from a well known pentecostal church when wanting to develop it theologically). Neither are ever exclusive or isolated, however. For example, within the Catholic church there has always existed an incredible life of music and art, both subliminal and crass but music and art none-the-less, and devotional/ pious and mystical streams, but ones ever controlled by ‘imprimaturs’, and always held in suspicion. But in the end it is the second approach above which dominates the Catholic church, and this has not necessarily been a bad thing at all.

I have often wondered, however, why it is that I always did very well when it came to subjects at uni which allowed for the perceptual, interpretive approach and really only just scraped through when it came to the logical, systematic. I flourished in subjects dealing with poetry, literature, anthropology and bombed when it came to philosophy, psychology and studies in religion. And yes one can see even in these two groups, subjects which one would expect could be swapped around in regards to approaches. But in all subject areas one can also have both approaches (1 and 2 above), it depends much on the time you live and the lecturers and the approach of the college. Why is it that when I started my Masters in Social Science, I went with the qualitative approach? I had to study the quantitative, mathematical approach and studied very hard and even got good marks in those areas but forgot most of the content not long after. It just wasn’t ME, I just don’t, can’t think that way and I was made to feel inferior because of that and that my way was somehow nowhere near as important, the poorer second cousin so to speak. But, I would contend that my way is the way of the majority of people, especially those who do not go onto higher education and as such, if the church’s approach for example, is that of the higher way then it is failing to really meet the majority of people where they are at and what then happens when the fear of hell, if you leave the Catholic church goes, you have a majority of people flocking to the Pentecostal church with their amazing music (well the young seem to like it) or the New Age which does cater for them and where they are at, or for all the many ways that our secular society now has on offer.

Which brings me to my next point.

Every society that has ever existed has had a religious/experiential element if not core to it. And in this there has almost always been music (or rhythm) and more often that not, some form of drug. Why, because there is a capacity within human beings for the ecstatic and not just a capacity, but a desire. Does this prove the existence of the gods that are worshipped? No, it just proves the existence of the capacity and the desire. Why is this such a universal? Why has music in some form always been present somewhere in the process? Why is it that even today, in people who are secular, atheist, agnostic, is the music and drug industry such a flourishing phenomena? It caters for the desire or suspicion of something existing higher than ourselves and is an attempt to reach that and transcend our mundane lives or a meaningless existence.

Now, as the human race evolves, reason has come into play more and more to try to explain such things and whether one believes in a supreme God or any god for that matter or not, the evolution of thought about such things has evolved, developed, improved and now even come to dominate. But the masses don’t want to be dominated by reason alone, they still want to experience.

Time for a break:

Have a listen to Albinoni’s Adagio but first a little background from Wikipedia:

Albinoni's Adagio in G minor for strings and organ continuo is a neo-baroque composition by Remo Giazotto first published in 1958. It is usually referred to as "Albinoni's Adagio", or "Adagio in G minor by Albinoni, arranged by Giazotto", but it is established to be an entirely original work by Giazzotto.[1]

It was supposedly based on a fragment of a second-movement continuo from a "Sonata in G minor" by Tomaso Albinoni purportedly found amongst the ruins of the old Saxon State Library, Dresden, after it was firebombed by the Allies during World War II, but since the Giazotto's death in 1998 it has emerged that the piece is all his composition, as no such fragment has been found or recorded to have been in possession by the Saxon State Library. (Good marketing strategy on behalf of Giazotto perhaps).

I only just now discovered that what I had thought had been true about the origins of this piece (as explained above) is in fact not so: However, as believed above, this piece become a symbol of the anguish and destruction of war for so many. Words could describe the anguish and destruction but this piece of music does it better or at least, differently. Do we need the words of history and analysis to explain the war and the affects of war? Absolutely, but music allows us to also feel what happened, to be there as it were in a sense, to identify to even a small extent what must have been such an horrific experience of the people of Dresden and any violence of war. Does it matter whether the piece was actually found in the ruins (think – the scriptures), no, not really unless you are a purist logical thinker. The music (like Christ’s crucifixion) is timeless as it echoes a timeless experience – pain, fear but even triumph through it.

______________________________

Along side the development for knowledge and understanding of life and the respective differences in cultures, music has developed. And with the rise of the intellect and even without it, music has been created which is both guide and expression of that inner desire for God. When going through the men’s movement and Tolle I spent most mornings meditating with American Indian flute music or eastern zen/shakuhachi and koto music. There is something in these two forms, in their simplicity, which assists the mind to quieten but then so does Gregorian chant and some classical western music.

Other music such as the Messiaen piece and another (a section of Monteverdi’s Marian Vespers - Claudio Monteverdi 'Vespro della Beata Vergine, 1610' - 15)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxc0qxl4Hfk&feature=related

which has a main melody and an echo line, have always been such ultimate expressions of how I see, experience my relating to God and God to me – a running parallel, echoing conversation between my spirit and the spirit of God. But is this music God? No. Is it an expression of God? Yes, in the same way a rainforest can be, or and ocean or a flower or a poem or painting, all can enlighten in the same way that logic and thinking can. Are any ultimate? No. Perhaps as DavidC alluded to, silence and blank canvases say things more about the more ultimate nature of God and this is what I am certain T S Eliot and John of the Cross where saying in the following writings:

To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way in which there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.T S Eliot

In order to arrive at having pleasure in everything, Desire to have pleasure in nothing.
In order to arrive at possessing everything, Desire to possess nothing.
In order to arrive at being everything, Desire to be nothing.
In order to arrive at knowing everything, Desire to know nothing.
In order to arrive at that point where you take no pleasure, you must go by a way that gives no pleasure.
In order to arrive at that point where you know nothing, you must go by a way you do not know.
In order to arrive at that point where you are free of possessing, you must go by a way you do not possess.
In order to arrive at that point at which you are nothing, you must go through that which you are not.
John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book I chapter 13, section 11

Truly good poetry, music, drama, art, especially in the context of the spiritual, is good because it allows for the observer to read and experience the spirit, God, human experience between the lines which are beyond words and with which the observer can identify, relate and experience along with. Systematic thought does not want to leave such gaps – it must be a logical, step by step, unambiguous journey to some provable truth and as such relegates the emotion, experience, the arts to second place.

This may sound as an attack on the logical, it isn’t. But it is a statement written to explain and ‘warn’ that real people/society consist of both, need both, must have the balance of both; if we are all head we are dead; if we are all heart, we are fart.

I keep coming back to Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Why? Because in these two I think we can find (at least in history – Thomas Merton, De Chardin, De Mello may be a good Catholic contemporaries), given their historical and cultural restrictions, were two of the best examples of how to deal with the tension between the intellect and experience; both experienced such depth and intensity of mystical experience which went way beyond the mind to comprehend, but both had a common sense about them and also always had the attitude of submitting their experience to reason and analysis.

Teresa and John saw/experienced too many examples of the extremes of both and I believe as the church today descends more and more into a siege mentality, we will see more and more an explosion of both extremes as expressed in the legalistic approach of the hierarchy and in the intensity and escapism of devotions especially those approved by the hierarchy. This will continue while the hierarchy belts out their call for obedience to themselves on behalf of the ‘little people”. And again, the role of trauma must be included into the equation if the social psychology of the whole process is to fully grasped.

I’ve had it. I think I am starting to 'wander' too much and will post this now as is because if I don’t, I won’t post it at all. I’m not in the best of spaces at present. And, come to think of it, that is why I need the analytical, logical, systematic approach. My doctor, follows closely the systematic approach of his profession but the difference with his method is that he allows, draws out, believes in the power of experience and emotion. I went to another therapist for three years and I sat in a chair in the middle of the room and talked, talked, talked but because of his far more analytical approach and direction, there was never any real emotion and as a result nothing really changed. I came to understand things better, but I did not heal. He didn’t even get to a point which allowed me to get in touch with the effects of abuse – my abuse wasn’t even discussed and I still can’t believe that. His final words to me after seeing him many years later before seeing my present therapist was “well, perhaps this is as good as it gets”. I now know that was absolutely not true.

I do want to leave you with one of my favourite poets and poems: Judith Wright’s “Five Senses”, how else can we experience life except through the senses,

FIVE SENSES

Now my five senses
gather into a meaning
all acts, all presences;
and as a lily gathers
the elements together,
in me this dark and shining,
that stillness and that moving,
these shapes that spring from nothing,
become a rhythm that dances,
a pure design.

While I'm in my five senses
they send me spinning
all sounds and silences,
all shape and colour
as thread for that weaver,
whose web within me growing
follows beyond my knowing
some pattern sprung from nothing-
a rhythm that dances
and is not mine.

But then Teresa and John also go beyond that – mysticism goes beyond even the senses, "the senses all being stilled" –

3. I was so 'whelmed,
so absorbed and withdrawn,
that my senses were left
deprived of all their sensing,
and my spirit was given
an understanding while not understanding,
transcending all knowledge.

Thomas Aquinas no doubt, experienced/understood the same when he cried how one experience of Jesus towards the end of his life far surpassed all the volumes of thought he had written, in understanding who God is, what God is like, how God relates.

And yet, both Teresa and John and indeed all of us, without our sensuality, our experience, wouldn’t have even begun to be able to think or know anything to get started on our spiritual journey in the first place. But, again, without reason, without the mind, we would be like flesh without the bones and collapse in a messy heap. Perhaps this is why Teresa always chose to submit her experiences in the end to a learned rather than holy spiritual director – she knew how easy it is for people to deceive themselves and be deceived.

Balance, balance, balance. It’s not and never should be an either/or but a unity of the two, the sensual, experiential and the intellectual/logical. Music, the arts, prayer and liturgy, when contextualised in this understanding, will then, and only then be expressions of the whole person.

I’m going to leave it here and if it’s full of errors, sweeping generalisations and inconsistencies and lack of coherence, sorry, but my head is not working the best at the moment. No, I'm not sorry, I really don't care anymore. In the words of Judith Wright when asked about what a poem of hers 'meant' she replied, "It means whatever you want it to mean".

Stephen

Oh yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill