Dialogue ~ 43

I have been thinking about the words of Jesus, “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17 20-21)

Together with what the Dutch philosopher Baruch (de) Spinoza was referring to, some 360 years ago, when he said, “I will here only briefly state what I mean by true good, and also what is the nature of the highest good. In order that this may be rightly understood, we must bear in mind that the terms good and evil are only applied relatively, so that the same thing may be called both good and bad according to the relations in view, in the same way as it may be called perfect or imperfect. Nothing regarded in its own nature can be called perfect or imperfect; especially when we are aware that all things which come to pass, come to pass according to the eternal order and fixed laws of nature.

However, human weakness cannot attain to this order in its own thoughts, but meanwhile man conceives a human character much more stable than his own, and sees that there is no reason why he should not himself acquire such a character. Thus he is led to seek for means which will bring him to this pitch of perfection, and calls everything which will serve as such means a true good. The chief good is that he should arrive, together with other individuals if possible, at the possession of the aforesaid character. What that character is we shall show in due time, namely, that it is the knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature.”

Incidentally, Spinoza was excommunicated from his Jewish community due to his ‘abominable heresies’ and 'monstrous deeds'.

Most people would agree that knowledge about how things are (reality) comes through perception, whether this is from observation of a physical world or through contemplation of its material. We presume that knowledge is cumulative, that it can be taught and we transmit what we know through language. Further, how we experience life (based upon this knowledge) is recorded within our genetics. This is understood when we say ‘they (the next generation) shall inherit the sins (iniquities) of their fathers’.

We effectively ‘pass the baton’ of what is ‘known’ from one generation to the next, whether this is in the guise of our ‘truths’ or iniquities; it is essentially why many are inspired to leave the world in better shape than how they found it.

Knowledge has always been a prized asset of any community and as such has been carefully preserved as well as manipulated. Language has been appropriated through the ages by various authorities or self-proclaimed ‘guardians’ of the truth. This has been the cause of tyranny and considerable anguish.

Consider for instance, that if a person acted against the ruling classes or monarchy they were (are) deemed as treasonous (this includes trespass upon/break the law). If they said (say) other than the official religious or cultural narrative they were (are) heretical (hate speech). If they attempt to break out of the cultural norms, they were (are) shamed or ostracised (excommunicated or nowadays cancelled).

Clearly, it became (is) a recognisable offence, according to how one goes about challenging authority/those in power regardless of whether this is done through speech or action.

Interestingly, the etymology of the word ‘heretic’ is: from Middle English heretyk, heretike, from Old French  eretique, from Medieval Latin or Ecclesiastical Latin haereticus, from Ancient Greek αἱρετικός, (hairetikós, “able to choose, factious”), itself from Ancient Greek αἱρέω (hairéō, “I choose”).

Effectively then, what we can also recognise is that a person has been (is) judged and found guilty of exercising their individualism (freedom of choice) if done in such a way as it threatens the prevailing authorities of ‘truth’, that is to say, the cultural norm.

Occasionally a person has been martyred for having created an opportunity for change to emerge; after they’ve been sufficiently persecuted so as to deter a good many others.

The philosopher Ervin Laszlo has spoken in the past of systems change always coming from the disenfranchised or very fringes of society. This suggests that pressure builds up in a system and the ones who are less embedded in preserving the status quo of a system are the ones who are most likely to instigate or to engage with the dynamics of change.

Is this progress or simply history repeating itself? There is a difference between what constitutes systems change and what brings about a new paradigm (think ouroboros).

A new paradigm is an expression of an entirely different way of constructing and processing of information (cognitive) and of relating of oneself in relation to community; it involves one’s thoughts and behaviours.

Is there always a period of tyranny before any new paradigm can emerge? Is it that humanity is averse to change and if this is so, what is the cause of this inertia?

Spinoza suggests that ‘all things come to pass according to the eternal order and fixed laws of nature’ – effectively JUSTICE. Spinoza suggests that it is a weakness (instability) of the human mind in that it cannot attain to this order and so it conceives of a figure as outside of itself which can. Concomitant with one’s own judgment of oneself is conflict; to resolve this dichotomy which has arisen is the pursuit of virtue and of the highest good.

Is that which constitutes inertia (the will) a matter of one’s own hubris – of shame? For this to occur, one must already have perceived of oneself as being that which is other than (as Spinoza puts it) ‘the whole of nature’.

Paradoxically – time, it appears, is a representation of inertia – of what constitutes the will and of any movement of mind. In measuring time, we have found a way of diverting ourselves from recognising and attending to the fracture as it exists in our perception of being ‘other than’. Such is the human timeline, indeed of what denotes history. We cannot create what is already and always just and good; this is essentially truth.

Justice is a new paradigm in itself, in that it is as Jesus puts it, ‘the kingdom of God that is within’. How then, does one navigate when one’s world (as it appears) has been turned upside down or inside out?