Friends with God

  " Unchained from Judaism, the parent of Christianity, one easily comes to the idea that God doesn't care what you do, or what your will be..."  -- a Simple Mind

Writing with a very different understanding of the cosmos, author, Neale Donald Walsch in his book, Friendship With God, writes: "God does not care what we do because of why we are here." Some will easily argue that his conception of the universe and the cosmos is incomplete, therefore flawed by the standards of current scholarship. For example, while in Walsch's view, God acknowledges himself as the creator of life, but then he (Walsch) adds that he created us in his image so that we could be creators as well. At first this sounds possible. We are conceived and people do conceive further... However, he continues, writing: "God has no special will for us: ". . . your will for you is God's will for you . . . I have no preference in the matter . . . I do not care what you do . . ."

Whoa. Here we hit the skids. The Decalogue is shot. In many references, the Torah tells of an attentive and caring Lord.  It writes of covenants, agreements made between God and the people, Israel. Not so in Walsch: God continues on, saying that we are not here to learn lessons, but only "to remember, and re-create, who you are." This came about because God, who originally was all that existed, longed "to know what it felt like to be so magnificent" and was not satisfied unless there was a reference point through which God could know his magnificence..."

Has anyone picked up a book on philosopher and mathematician Gotfried Leibnitz's idea of the Monad lately? It's all in there. Here it is in ungarbled form: Monism most simply argues for the idea that there is unity, only unity and not dualism. Many, if not most all of the world religions address this issue. Now review the writing of Walsch once more after reading Leibnitz's ideas. It is less clear to this Simple Mind what Walsch's point really is.

 For more views on this topic, one writer's thoughts Marcia Montnegro's, and the thoughts of University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point philosophy professor, Joseph Waligore:
christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_BookreviewWalsch.html
spiritualcritiques.com/author-criticisms/neale-donald-walsch/

Imagining and the Soul

"What converts this "it" into me"?  --The Force of Character by James Hillman*

Writing about character isn't so fashionable these days; in our psychologically steeped society, we are conditioned to think more about personality, ego, identity, integrative structures, and other such rational terminology for what has been thought of in previous generations simply as "character". And despite the apparent Oneness which most religions teach, you each have your style, your set of traits both physical and emotional, and a destiny. "You are essentially different from me,' says Hillman, 'by virtue of the lasting sameness of each of our individualized characters." Hillman argues that despite all the changes in a single lifetime, all the progressions made into the future, you are the unique sum of character; character provides 'a lasting core.'

"It's refreshing to discover that some of the oldest and most basic ideas of philosophy-- Same and Different, Form and Matter-- are actually at work in our daily lives... [What] keeps us who we are and holds our body to its form? Imagine the body as an ancient philosopher, the body as a place of wisdom... character, this governing wisdom... an active force...  the hustlers of materialism [form counters materialism, advances function] who ask us to buy the idea that we are complex pieces of biotechnology, compared to computer chips... results from underlying bio-genetic impulses.'
'Form can be reduced to matter." Equally fashionable and in doubt, in Hillman's eyes, is the discipline of Cognitive Sciences. Here the temptation is overwhelming to reduce a human being to an "organ of computation," a reptilian brain and so forth. Equally fantastic is the absence of myth or reductionism in its presentation. Rather there is an air of statement or axiom, self-evident 'truth.'

In contrast Hillman, the philosopher, the scholar, turns to thinkers such as Aristotle, especially Aristotle whose idea of Form in relation to the body and soul has guided much Western thought for more than two millenia. Aristotle believed that the soul is the form of the body, the original of its movement... the interests of body and soul are the same. The soul forms the body, in this view; while without a body, a soul cannot be located. Because of this Aristotle believed that the soul's beauty was harder to detect than beauty of a bodily form. The soul is, in tradition, the element concerned with goodness and beauty, justice and courage, friendship and loyalty. The soul is also variously described by its actions, such as courageous, timid, vacillating, or kindly, loving. "Through these characteristics we come to know the nature of our soul and to assess the souls of others."

Insisting that the soul has a definite, intentional, intelligent idea, Hillman strikes against the cliche idea of soul today that concludes it "all gossamer, no fiber; a refuge, a fairytale land, a mood, a symbol... He counters these cliches, insisting "the idea of  Form gives shape and character to soul, and demands more rigor in thinking about it. Further the character in this reckoning fulfills itself "by doing what it is naturally suited to do, which is also its pleasure. Aristotle called this natural activity, energy." Thus, the character imagined is as much a product of our imagination as our experiences; this "does not mean that our images are purely personal fantasies and that imagination is a function inside each privately enclosed skull."

Imagination is more than a mental function. The creative forces in the world, as the world soul, produce the images that we perceive; some come to us in idleness, in daydreams, in sleep, in sudden, clear insights, or after long struggles in meditation. The philosopher Emmanuel Kant remarked that without imagination, we should have no knowledge whatsoever.  We do not have to visually perceive these imaginings to feel feelings, think thoughts; we do not have to optically view poems, or characters in stories or movies to 'see' them or their character in our imagination. More than anything, imagination is one of the great "archetypal principles like love, order, beauty, justice, time. We sense these principles coursing through us." Beauty and order, for example, are not placed in the world; we find them there. Thus if  "character is a complex of images, then to know you, I must imagine you."

* author James Hillman is a well known thinker, Jungian psychologist and scholar.