At
various places in this blog I have talked about spirit and matter but not
really defined these words in any way. I actually rather like not defining them
as a definition limits them in a way that leaving their interpretation open to
the imagination does not. For we all understand, or should do, what spirit and
matter are even if we cannot plumb the depths of what they are. We sense that
each describes a very different aspect of life. That, roughly speaking, spirit
is life and matter the garb spirit takes to express itself. An intellectual
analysis can certainly elucidate that basic idea to a degree but it can also
unnecessarily complicate it, and, worse, lock one up in theory which is
self-defeating since mind, a material thing insofar as thought is expressed in
form, can never comprehend spirit which is intuited or known directly. The
annals of philosophy are full of highly intelligent people picking over the
bones of a corpse. But still we are intellectual beings so one should make some
attempt to expand on a basic definition while stressing that words can obscure
the truth as much as they can help to uncover it.
I
am regarding spirit as the essence of life and matter as the substance through
which that essence manifests itself. The inner and outer components of being.
But while the modern world accepts matter as the stuff of which we are made
(though it's getting harder and harder to know exactly what that is), it denies
spirit, regarding it, if existing at all, as arising from material forces. This
is the basis of materialism, that matter comes before consciousness which is
secondary. Naturally I disagree with that. Of course, I do. It's wrong! So,
what is spirit?
One
way to think of spirit is as the energy of pure being which animates otherwise
inert matter thus enabling the one to become many, and the whole universe of
becoming, change, time, space and so on to appear. But the word “energy” can
mislead for spirit is not some impersonal force like a cosmic gas spread
throughout the universe, and I doubt could have been conceived of as such
before the rise of materialistic science which effectively transposed its
concepts onto the spiritual plane. Spirit is fully and gloriously personal,
though it may have a non-personal aspect. For it is life and life is
consciousness and consciousness requires one who is conscious. I AM implies an
I. And an I implies a Mind.
So
spirit and matter are the basic duality of creation. They are expressed as life
and form, subject and object, God and Nature and so on. This doesn't mean there
is an irresolvable duality at the heart of existence for ultimately these two
are one. Whether you regard things theistically or not the position is the
same. Either matter is an aspect of spirit projected out as the vehicle for its
manifestation or God creates matter from nothing as the fundamental stuff from
which he then forms everything else. Whichever way you look at it, matter
either comes from spirit or is a part of it. But it is different to it as that
which receives is different to that which gives. It is its complementary
opposite in manifestation which is necessarily dualistic or nothing could be at
all. Perfect oneness would be little different to perfect noneness.
Spirit
and matter are the two poles of existence required for existence to be known.
Matter is the mirror in which God is enabled to see his face and, as creation,
it becomes his bride. Spirit is what gives life to matter, and the two combine
to bring about all that is with spirit working through matter, which includes
time and space, to carry life onwards to unimaginable glories of ever
greater truth and beauty, making the one many and the many more and more
perfect individualised manifestations of the one. Without spirit, matter is
dead. Without matter, spirit remains in darkness and alone, unable to see its
face or express itself. They are two but they are also one and through their
interaction the universe is born.
That
is on the macrocosmic level. On the microcosmic level our task to render the
material portion of our being ever more receptive to the spiritual which we do
through the purification of mind and body, and the turning of our consciousness
both inwards and upwards, not quite the same thing and both necessary. We have
to transfer our attention from the phenomenal world and its contents to the
spiritual one, and the priorities of the latter must become ours. It is a
mistake to give too much attention to matter. It is, after all, not meant to be
the primary partner in the relationship. But it is also a mistake to reject or
ignore or downgrade it in any way since life is a relationship to which both
partners contribute just as both do to a dance. The expression of life in
matter is the expression of love.
Spirit
is the light and life of creation and matter its substance and foundation. From
their union comes soul which gives being its quality.
This is exactly how I've always felt, and I really feel the goal is to attain balance between the two - or finding the 'sweet spot'. That is, not glorifying the one over the other, and grounding oneself in the middle. I know this because I'm myself very much sunken into spirit, and therefore not very materially synchronized - and it can be equally as unproductive/harmful as materialistic "zombie-mode".
ReplyDeleteI believe the Left has idolized matter which is like staring oneself blind on effect, and from there one can only do guesswork. This leads to discrepancy between seeing and happening, since true change can only come from alignment with spirit; not by solely focusing on form and external methods. This will inevitably manifest in a false/twisted reality, where form is stretched and worked with outside the domain of spirit, meaning trying to control the world instead of joining it.
Until we get our metaphysics right, and thereby get ourselves straight, we are doomed.
/Eric
ReplyDeleteI’ve split up a quote from your piece, to help me make a point. I hope you don't mind.
“Either,
1. matter is an aspect of spirit projected out as the vehicle for its manifestation, or
2. God creates matter from nothing as the fundamental stuff from which he then forms everything else.
Whichever way you look at it, matter either comes from spirit or is a part of it.”
The first may imply a continuum of spirit/matter, the second that spirit and matter are two separate things.
If the first, this may mean that just as matter is dense energy (isn’t that what scientists say?), then spirit may be dense energy. This places spirit in the same category as matter, just in a different expression.
Doesn’t this make spirit/matter – creator/created – God/Nature one thing? It seems very theist, or pantheist/pagan. Everything becomes God, even objects made by human beings – the bus to work for example. This does not sit easily with my view of God. For God to be God, He has to be the sort of God that “creates matter from nothing as the fundamental stuff from which he then forms everything else.”
I've been sloppy,
ReplyDelete"then spirit may be dense energy."
Correction - should read,
"energy may be dense spirit".
I just gave those examples of the derivation of matter to show the two common approaches to its origin, namely emanation or creation. My view is that God creates matter but I don't know whether that is out of himself or ex nihil. In one sense everything must be part of God. What else could it be? There is nothing else. But there is a difference between what is God as God and what is created by God. So basically I agree with what you say at the end of your comment.
ReplyDelete