Balance, Symmetry & The Fully Human Being

When I hold the image of the Renaissance in my mind's eye and consider the merit of the ideals espoused by those artisans and philosopher-kings that made the Renaissance what it is/was I am drawn to opening towards the possibility that the 'era of specialization' has as its congenital twin an inherent degree of inevitable pathology. In short, when we specialize we limit ourselves. We become imbalanced. We become assymmetrical.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there is such a devastating lack of the Feminine throughout the Age of Enlightenment. It is as if Modernity was an age of assymetrical human endeavours devoid of such qualities as emotion, feeling, intuition, sense and sensuality. It was a time when 'specialization' and its compadre' we call 'compartmentalization' held court. And I don't think we even have an inkling of how tremendous has the impact of these tendencies been on upon us and the world we have socially constructed upon their basis.

As I mentioned in the previous piece in this series (Might The Integral Be the Beginnings Of a New Renaissance?), there is sense that we as human-beings are only supposed to be 'one thing' and 'one-thing-alone.' A teacher. A auto mechanic. A drug dealer. A pharmacist. A father. The question posed to children is 'What do you wanna be?' And it is posed with a tone and tenour that suggests to a child that there is only 'one right answer!'

The foundation of such questions is established upon the basis of assumptions that tend to go unexamined. I want to look more closely at those assumtpions: what is their impact? are they tru? are they the best assumptions we can have? do we need them? might we better off without them? I would like to dig into the geological strata of such assumptions and discover what resides there. If only because my gut is telling me that we can do far better without such assumptions (and the type of existence/realtionships they lead to) than with them.


Subjective Experience, Objective Facts

I would be willing to bet (and I would even bet that it would be a safe bet!) that there are untold numbers of people just like me: people who have experienced the same difficulty in ultimately deciding and determing 'who they are?' and 'what they are meant to do?'

Again, monotheism. One god. One right way. One thing to do. One right answer.

The oneness can be paralyzing. It can be defeating. It can be crippling. I mean, shoot, where can we go in one-dimension? Who are we as a singularity? And why is diversity and difference viewed as problematic from a spiritual/religious/metaphysical perspective?

I am asking whether the whole foundational metaphysics underlying Western Civilization, which suppose that we are 'made in the image and likeness of God' are not themselves responsible for some less than benign consequences. Is the that way we both view our existence, and later come to live it, informed by a monotheistic psychology that we have not examined with a critical eye/I nearly enough? I propose that the answer is a resounding 'Yes!'--just in case you hadn't figured that much out yourself.


James Hillman & Ken Wilber

Not much, if any, discussion about a New Renaissance has included the mention of James Hillman and Ken Wilber in the same breath. And while their noticable differences from a philosophical perspective may be reason enough not to sing their praises in the same breath, I would beg to differ. Both the Archetypal Psychology of James Hillman and the Integral Philosophy of Ken Wilber point to the problematic nature of so 'singular a vision' that it becomes not just limiting, but pathological, in extremis. Hillman, in his many works has pointed to the detrimental effects of a 'monotheistic psychology' that undermines life's inherent diversity (up to and including the inherent diversity of the Psyche). Wilber, in his own inter-disciplinary way, has done much the same in contending that one of the graver issues before us is this matter of the 'flatland': the 'monochromatic' ... 'monological gaze' that has rendered many with a sense that there is only 'one-dimension' that matters in life.

While Wilber has gone his own way in naming the assailants perpetrating crimes against the human potential for a well-balanced, symmetrical existence (remember, Satan as a-symmetry?) I have drawn from his work, with much thanks, while taking a different approach in suggesting that the 'monotheistic tendency' is not locatable in a single field of human endeavour--be it Science or Spirit--as much as it is the tendency itself to bias a single dimensional perspective over all others.

In other words, monotheism is not a religious problem as much as it is a problem of consciousness. Monotheism is itself the creation of an idol in the vertical dimension (spirit) or an idol in the horizontal dimension (science).