Redemption: The Harvest of Love
1. Introduction
The human intellect is highly evolved, powerful and practical. Nevertheless, the intellectual process is that of divisions. These divisions objectify the world around us, creating artificial barriers between it and I, you and me. This separation, the cause of human suffering, is sought to be relieved through redemption. Therefore, what is redemption? How do we traditionally seek redemption? Is there a more primitive tool available to humans for the act of redemption? How is an artistic process necessary for generating this tool? These questions are the framework for my argument that by returning to Nature, our self-Nature, redemption is an artistic act and can be possible for all.
2. Defining Redemption
Once the whole is divided, the parts need names.
There are already enough names.
One must know when to stop.
Knowing when to stop averts trouble
-Lao Tsu (Gia-Feng, English, 32)
Carl Jung realized the importance of individuation just as Lao Tsu. Jung said,
the question of making opposites conscious (conversion) means reunion with the laws of life represented in the unconscious, and the purpose of this reunion is the attainment of conscious life, or, expressed in Chinese terms, the bringing of the Tao(Jung 95-96). Taoism, just like religion, philosophy, and the arts, are practiced to reconcile opposites, outer and inner entanglements, on a higher level of consciousness (122). Redemption can be defined as the process of reconciling the pieces of the whole. Ultimately, redemption is a personal process. Nevertheless, I contend it stems deeper than individualism, and its ramifications hold ontological significance.
3. Inherent Seeking of the I
Our intellectual structure is based on an egotistical, dualistic system of subject and object. It is a system that makes it able to distinguish between it and me, you and I. Nevertheless, living within a dualistic system of intellect has its consequences. Automatically we have separated, or fractured ourselves, and the world around us into an unfathomable number of pieces. These divisions, which bring us out of accord with Nature, are the cause of our pain and suffering. We seek redemption inherently based on our intellectual structures that allow us the rational, practical, pleasurable and often painful I . René Descartes proves this logic of I by displaying distrust in every aspect of existence until arriving at the one thing he could trust. Descartes writes,
I am, I exist is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind. His classic conclusion, cogito ergo sum, or I think therefore I am (Descartes 64).
4. Theology: God as Redeemer
In order to try and break the shackles of our intellect we have created theologies, varying in range and scope that attempt to navigate us in reaching the state of becoming redeemed. As Joseph Campbell points out, the myths that structure the world religions point to that which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which transcends all thought. He continues, The myth puts you there all the time, gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are (Campbell, Moyers 57).
Nevertheless, with the interruption of the I, these myths that provide us with a line to connect to that mystery which we are have evolved to be literal and exclusive, often making them a detriment to humankind and the search for redemption. Therefore, what can we learn from theology that can help us gather an understanding of a more primitive, inclusive redemptive process?
All religions have an anthropomorphic concept of the ultimate reality, or God. There are two main distinctions between the relationship of God and I. You can arrive at these distinctions by analyzing the role of sacrifice. Originally, a sacrifice was performed in order to please the Gods, which were perceived to be outside of I. For example, a sacrifice might be made in order for the Gods to give rain. Logically, humans realized that because they performed the sacrifice, which in turn elicited rain, their importance in the ritual was equal to that of the Gods. This brings God to the level of I. When the split of ideologies revolving around the sacrifice was made the East retained internal Godliness, while the West rejected this notion and God remained external. Nevertheless, we must take into account the origins of God as both within and around us. Therefore, God can be viewed as an anthropomorphic I living within complete consciousness. Joseph Campbell speaks about consciousness as other than something particular to the head, yet a consciousness of the body or the whole living world...informed by [complete] consciousness (Campbell, Moyers 14).
Generally, in the West, this complete consciousness is expressed through Jesus Christs offering of himself in the Crucifixion allowing us, as long as we believe, redemption. In the East, the ultimate reality, which varies in its name and description, is usually attained through the meditation of bringing ones self in tune with the complete consciousness of all things. Both levels of heightened consciousness result in individual redemption.
We can rationalize that God is of a greater consciousness than a normal I because God is, within our definition, omnipotent, within and outside I. In this respect, God is consoling and has helped answer many pressing intellectual questions. For example, one might credit God for being the first mover of the cosmos. Although this strain of thought is relevant, since God is anthropomorphic one may easily ask why was God moved to create? God, within religious ideologies, also gives us hope that one day we will be banished of our sorrows, redeemed, and live eternity in heaven. But if God is within us, why should we feel we do not have the capacity to create heaven on earth? These questions arrive when the literal language of our intellect rationalizes God and fails to speak to the true omnipotence of God.
Furthermore, Freud contests that the hypostatization of God is both consoling yet baleful, and argues against structuring culture, and the ideals of redemption, around it. He states, God alone is strong and good, man is weak and sinful. Immorality, no less than morality, has at all times found support in religion (Freud 67). His argument is consistent, as we know cultures do not share religions, or even Gods. Beliefs even among philosophers of the nature of God are inconsistent. This great illusion we shakily structure our lives around, according to Freud, must be banished:
He [man] will have to confess his utter helplessness and his insignificant part in the working of the universe; he will have to confess that he is no longer the centre of creation, no longer the object of the tender care of a benevolent providence
Thus by withdrawing his expectations from the other world and concentrating his liberated energies on this earthly life he will probably attain to a state of things in which life will be tolerable for all and no one will be oppressed by culture any more. Then with one of our comrades in unbelief he will be able to say without regret:
Let us leave the heavens
To the angels and the sparrows (87).
As mentioned above, the realization of redemption is ultimately personal, from the egotistical I, to the creation of mythologies within theological structures that attempt to lead us to redemption. I am compelled to stress religion is important, for numerous reasons which will not be discussed here, but mostly in seeking personal redemption. Nevertheless, the fracture between varying dogmas revolving around God (Even within religions divisions such as in Christianity: Baptist and Lutheran, or divisions within Judaism such as Jews for Jesus) provides a shaky foundation for cultures and further divides humankind. This is plainly evident in the contemporary world as humanity continually rages war in the name of God whose definition is not omnipotent beyond the cultural construct. In revisiting our definition of redemption as the process of reconciling the pieces of the whole, a fractured religious God cannot lead to redemption. Redemption, as concept, moves beyond an anthropomorphic conception, or a personal endeavor because of its cultural ramifications. We hear this echoed at the point of enlightenment by the Chinese Master As Lu Hsiang-shan (1139-1193) when he stated, All of the affairs of the universe come within the range of my duty (qtd. In Chung-yaun 83).
What substance then is our journey to redemption? Roger Lipsey best describes the journey as something spiritual, an incursion from above or deep within to which the ordinary human being in each of us can only surrender
a dramatic shift in experience and an undoing of what we take to be ourselves (Lipsey 10). Dag Hammarskjöld described this feeling stating, In the point of rest at the center of our being we encounter a world where all things are at rest the same way (Hammarskjöld 174). Both suggest an ordinary strand that runs within and between all things that fall within our duty, commitment, and faithfulness.
5. A Supremely Primitive Locus and Redeemer
At the root of all becoming is Nature. Nature is, and is not unique unto anyone or anything. It belongs to the ordinary, existing without class or culture, and is essential to all including humankind. John Sallis says, At the limits of all Nature are the elements that are unassimilable and that delimit the very expanse of self-showing of all things: earth and sky. Even when one does not see them at all, they are elementally operative, bounding all that one does see and all else that is implicated in what one sees (Sallis 172). In this sense, we are bound and elementally linked to Nature.
Our highly developed I, as subject, treats Nature as an object. The results are pollution, destruction and perversion of not only Nature, but of our very self-Nature. A turn back to Nature means the preservation of the bounties of the world, also the wellness of humankind. If Nature is the whole from which the pieces have been removed, how would a return to Nature, re-understanding it as our very self-Nature, impact our ability to transcend the I which contaminates the religious God?
Nature has a working that is largely unexplainable and uncontrollable. Nevertheless, without turning to science, we, as a part of Nature, have a role in its working and are bred into its works. Therefore, we must assume within Nature, consequently within our very self-Nature, lies a ubiquitous tool that is elemental in the process of becoming redeemed. This tool is as habitual to humans as Nature is to our essence.
6. Naming a Tool
At the limits of language we must encounter the realm of feeling. My attempts to begin to tell some of my former girlfriends, I know how you feel, is met with resistance due to the subjective inconsistency of their definition and the way in which we each perceive our feelings and their potential relation to others. Perhaps the hardest emotional state to explain, or describe, is love. Even so, love remains the working tool which makes possible compassion, affection, charity, goodwill, kindliness, unselfishness, humbleness and meekness just to name a few. Feelings such as love, in all of their indefinable complexities are nonetheless practical tools whose duties and bounties are continually revealed to humanity.
Since love is perceived as an extremely personal experience, and using a tool has a specific function, allow me to regress to remind myself of a time love was a tool in my life. When my grandfather was dying with pancreatic cancer I felt an urgency to be with him. Every weekend I traveled to be by his side, knowing the experience we shared between the earth and sky would soon subside. It was the love we fostered between us that I lost I cried.
I feel we all seek and crave the concept of love. The feeling of love is one of sharing, being one, united as a part of a redeemed whole. When we live outside the sensation of love we constantly seek to become one with it. Love for the self, and love for others.
My relationship with my grandfather harvested an unbounded tool of love. When the tool of love was engaged the action resulted in an unexplainable and indefinable, yet real, personal, and interpersonal redemption. Therefore, we can deduce that Love, through a loving exchange, is a practical tool for fulfilling our definition of redemption.
Nevertheless, if Love is a tool to redemption, is it necessary to have a concrete definition for it? I feel everyones definition will vary, and necessarily so due to Loves subjective essence. Even so, maybe we can agree that at the core of Love is unbounded emptiness or wholeness, a feeling that is free and available in and around us all, breaching cultural and manufactured boundaries created by I. Love is elemental, one of Natures tools that allows us to mystically transcend the I that divides the whole.
7. The Performance of The Act
If Love is a tool that can be utilized in the act of redemption, what would this process look like? Engaging with the tool of Love for practical purposes requires a movement from non-action to action, action to non-action. This act, which negates itself, is the art of letting go of oneself (Jung 93), healing, doing nothing, and involves allowing our self-Nature to act within us. The process of redemption, which occurs Naturally if not interfered with, begins with locating our I; an action that is necessary for human intellectual activity and inherently thrusts us to seek redemption. From there we relinquish the I to reach Godliness, a state of omnipotence within our very self-Nature. At the point of return to Nature we are able to grasp the elemental tool of Love and engage it in the act of redemption leading to an undivided whole. The performance of the act of redemption is an undulating flux within and outside I, an expansion and contraction that is constantly serving the very Nature of all things.
Furthermore, the performance requires a sacrifice of who and what we believe to be. For example, the term God is Love is often used. Nevertheless, that particular pairing may be backwards after analyzing our tendencies towards God as an entity that is fractured and rarely shared. Hegel demonstrates that a subjective feeling is necessary before any objective consciousness (Mills, Ontology of Religiosity). I propose a more proper representation of this phrase would read, Love is God. Even more precisely, in the collapse of all knowable identity, where an inexpressible identity reveals itself through Natures void, we understand Nature is Love, Love is God, God is Human, Human is God, God is Love, Love is Nature.
8. The Harvest: An Artist and Artistic Process
If Love can be named as a tool that allows us to perform the act of redemption, how then is such a transcendent tool harvested? Furthermore, can everyone perform this harvest, and how is an artistic process necessary in performing the harvest?
The harvest of Love can best be put to language through an artistic framework. The term artist, paralleling our understanding of God, refers to a person who is an originator or creator, fashioning an object/act that has never before existed. This artistic act is, and can be performed by the ordinary in all of us.
In order for the artist to create works of art, artists enter a cycle of, as stated earlier, expansion and contraction. It is a constant process of recognizing ourselves through our I, relinquishing the I through finding our Nature, in this instance, connecting with our imagination. John Sallis states, In composing artwork
the artists reenacts the drawing of [N]ature from which issues the open expanse of all self-showing. Furthermore, he goes on to tell how this process can yield poetic imagination, or can cease to merely imaging. This imaging lacks a true self-showing of the imagination (Sallis 228). Nevertheless, regardless of the resulting art object/act that is then to be or not be included into the art world and determined more or less poetic imagination or imaging through critique, theory and the history of art, the importance lays in the process of an artist. The act is one in the same as the aforementioned performance of redemption through the harvest of Love. John Dewey stated, ...Art weds man and nature
Art also renders men aware of their union with one another in origin and destiny (Dewey 271).
It is in the utilization of our imagination in an artistic act that allows the harvest of the tool of Love. Our imagination is the locus of humankinds very self-Nature: the place where becoming redeemed can be realized and achieved by and for all. Our imagination tells us the eternal story of the beginning of any knowable experience (our origin), and our fate (or destiny). As John Dewey stresses, life is art and it should be lived artfully (Dewey 3-19).
In conclusion, the act of redemption is performed by individuals, for individuals, for the necessary well being of the whole. Redemption involves sacrifices of our current states of being, and the understanding that we have the power to harvest Love from Nature, within our self-Nature of our imagination, and cultivate it in the world with as little boundaries as it was received. Joseph Campbell said, What is the kingdom? It lies in our realization of the ubiquity of the divine presence in our neighbors, in our enemies, in all of us (Campbell 107). Lastly, John Keats summarizes my argument for a harvest of Love when he stated, What the imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth-whether it existed before or not (Keats 187).
Works Cited
Campbell, Joseph. Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor. Novato, CA: New World Library, 2001. Print.
Campbell, Joseph and Moyers, Bill. The Power of Myth. New York: Betty Sue Flowers,1988. Print.
Chung-yuan, Chang. Creativity and Taoism. New York: The Julian Press, Inc., 1963. Print.
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993. Print.
Jung, C. G.. The Secret of the Golden Flower, Translated and Explained by Richard Wilhelm. New York: Hardcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1962. Print.
Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn Books, G. P. Putnams Sons. 1958. Print.
Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion. Garden City, New York.: Doubleday, 1964. Print.
Gia-Feng and English Jane. Lao Tsu; Tao Te Ching, A New Translation. New York: Vintage Books Edition, 1972. Print.
Hammarskjöld, Dag. Markings. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knoff, Inc, 1964. Print.
Mills, Jon (1999). The Ontology of Religiosity: The Oceanic Feeling and the Value of the Lived Experience. Religious Humanism, 33(3/4) 20-41. 6 October 2010. Web.
Roger Lipsey. An Art of Our Own: The Spiritual in Twentieth Century Art. Boston: Shambhala Publications Inc., 1988. Print.
Rollins, Hyder Edward, The Letters of John Keats 1814-1821, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958. Print.
Sallis, John. Force of Imagination: The Sense of the Elemental, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2000. Print.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------