“I had come to the conclusion that there was
nothing sacred about myself or about any human being, that we were all machines….I
no more harbored sacredness than did a Pontiac, a mousetrap, or a South Bend
Lathe.” -- Spoken by the narrator of
Kurt Vonnegut’s, Breakfast of Champions.
“Our awareness is all that is alive and maybe
sacred in any of us. Everything else
about us is dead machinery.” -- Spoken
by Rabo Karabekian, a character in Breakfast of Champions.
“…it is Rabo Karabekian who made me the serene
Earthling which I am this day.” -- Spoken by the narrator of Breakfast of
Champions.
These lines are rather interesting from the point
of view of naturalistic spirituality. In
a sense, the conclusion reached by the narrator in the first quote is the
natural conclusion of naturalism, regardless of how hard we squeeze to push out
warmer sentiments. (Karabekian may be
incorrect, though, to say that “everything else about us is dead machinery.” Our bodies are living machines by definition,
our brains are exceedingly complex living machines -- but it is machinery
none-the-less.)
There is, however, something about being aware
that simply defies any attempt at being reduced to a mechanical function. Machinery simply isn’t aware. But if this one aspect of our being is not
machinery, how does it fit into the mechanistic paradigm of science? Further, how does it effect, or even infect,
the remaining machinery?
There are some writers out there, notably
Daniel Dennett, who claim to understand awareness, and who think it can be
reduced to the common machinery of the world.
I have read these efforts and am not at all convinced that Dennett and
his ilk have the final answer. (Actually,
I don’t think they fully understand the question.)
I would suggest that before “awareness” can be
incorporated into a scientific understanding of the world, that understanding
has a least one more significant paradigm shift to move through, or maybe many,
or maybe awareness cannot be captured within any paradigm. Time will tell (but I’ll be long dead before
that telling). From where we stand
today, “awareness” is a mystery, and that which allows the universe to bring
forth such awareness is also a mystery.
If we want to talk about the sacred, or the sacred
depths of Nature, the only justification comes from awareness. That nature brings forth awareness is the
sole bases for seeing anything sacred in it.
That which brings forth awareness becomes aware of itself through that
which it brings forth. Every awareness
is a great intersection of the Creating and the created. To be that intersection completely is a
spiritual accomplishment; to see that intersection completely is to see the sacred.
One of the goals of this blog is to raise questions and put forth suggestions about how naturalistic spirituality can gain depth. I hadn't expected Kurt Vonnegut to have such a pointed insight on this topic.
* (The notion spoken by Karabekian may seem a
fairly modern idea, but virtually the same idea was put forth by the Sankhya
philosophy of ancient India, which is borrowed by Pantanjali as the
metaphysical underpinning of his Yoga Sutras.
There it forms a dualistic philosophy, where the awareness is called
purusha and the machinery is called prakriti.)
No comments:
Post a Comment