|
Page 5 sur 5
Thus, at dawn of the third millennium, we can have a new world's understanding.
All phenomena have a dual character, ipso facto, the beings's identity.
Consequently, recognition of a new identity, the spiritual identity, is necessary, whereas soul loses its ancestral status of "operator".
Let's quote again Plotinus :
"That is why also Plato says that in each of these elements (the reality's elements), there is a soul, and this term of soul, he does not understand it otherwise than as a soul producing really this sensible fire. So what is producing fire, here, is an ignée life, a more true fire.
Thus the transcendent fire which is much more that the fire, has to be too more in life." (cf. Treatise 38 - 11, 45).
Plato’s intuition according to which a transcendent fire (a transcendent state) and souls are associated to reality, was so a remarkable presentiment.
However this intuition rich of modernity, went out of use, giving free rein to incredible wanderings of the understanding, in particular those of Descartes :
"Although soul is joined to all body, there is nevertheless a part of this body in which soul exercises her functions more particularly than in all the others. And one believes commonly that this part is brain or can be heart ; the brain, because it is center of the sensory organs ; and the heart, because it seems that it is here that we have the passions." (cf. Passions of the Soul - First part, article 31),
"Therefore let's conceive here that soul has its principal seat in small gland which is in middle of the brain, and that her is in all the body by means of spirits, nerves and even of the blood … Let's add here that small gland which is main seat of the soul is so suspended between cavities which contain these spirits that it can be utilized by them of so many different manners that there are diversities in objects ; but also that this gland can be diversly utilized by soul." (cf. article 34),
"Because in us, there is only a soul, and this soul, herself, has no variety of part; the same who is sensory is reasonable, and all her wishes are wills." (cf. article 47),
"For me who recognize in dog no spirit, I think that there is nothing in him of similar to things which belong to spirit ... Although spirit is united with all the body, this does not show that it is spread by all the body, because it is not the own of the spirit to be spread, but only from thinking ... (cf. Metaphysical Meditations - Fifth Answer, 359 - 389),
"There is nothing more clear in my Meditations, for me only body has power to feed itself, and not spirit or this part of the man who thinks." (cf. Metaphysical Meditations - Seventh Answer, 477),
"There is only a soul in the man, that is the reasonable ; because we must recognize for human actions, only those which depend on the reason.
As for vegetative force and to active power of the body to which we give name of vegetative soul, and of sensory soul when we talk of plants and violent persons, it is also in man ; but that must not be named the soul in the man because it is not the fundamental principle of his actions, and its genus is quite different of the one of the reasonable soul." (cf. Passions of the Soul – Letter to Regius, May 1641).
Fortunately henceforth, after interpretation of credible scientific theories and by profound introspections, we can differentiate spirit of the soul and it, although both have a transcendent nature.
Thus, according to us,
in the same way that the body is receptacle of animate structures (the cells), themselves fruits of biological activities,
soul is abstract and conventional receptacle of transcendent activities which characterize us.
In other words,
the theoretical receptacle of the transcendent activities that enable us to be what we are, can be likened to a spiritual identity : the soul.
So, soul is a virtual identity of analogical character.
Curiously too, the scientists, the philosophers and theologians don't know the "realm" of this spiritual identity, of this soul, ; that is why we specified it by an original word : spacimplicatio (contraction of latin words : spatium and implicatio).
That's a different domain of the space,
a timeless and transcendent beyond the reality, by which eternally, a divine entity implicates herself in the world,
a beyond of which the abstraction's domain is singular expression.
It is true, to admit permanent implication in the world of a transcendent power and it, by means of a transcendent domain different of the space which contains reality, is leading to reject of several "truths" transmitted by generations and sometimes, recognized as religious dogmas.
We are not at epoch where people was believing, with a great certitude, that ideas which has been recognized true for a long time, are necessarily true (quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper).
Today, world's understanding leads to other truths !
Besides, with the imbrication of the knowledges, a very great opening of spirit and an extreme semantic rigour are imperative.
Let’s resume, for example, comments of J. Maritain to Jean Paul II :
"In flesh and bones of the man, there is a soul who is a spirit and who is more important than the whole universe " (cf. Complete Works of Jacques and Raïssa Maritain - Book VII).
No, soul is not a spirit,
soul, spiritual identity, is receptacle of the spirit's activities,
soul, spiritual identity is not in flesh but at the same moment distant from flesh and implicated in flesh, great nuances !
Will the monotheist theologians continue from ignoring divine entity (the Divine) implicated in man, in every being and in the world,
will they continue, wrongly, from believing that universal laws and principles govern world ?
In front of humanity that asks of the credible answers as for realism of our spiritual life,
how much time will they reject universalism of our illustrious masters Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus who have inspired Christendom's fathers ?,
by privileging only biblical tradition,
a tradition although recognized revealed, which never made an only reference to dual character of our existence.
And however, spiritual life due to activities of transcendent order which characterize it, is expressing what unites us permanently to God.
But then, being fruits of a divine implication,
some characters of the spiritual identity, of the soul, are not they subsisting after death, transfigured in timeless, transfigured in eternity ?
We are convinced of it.
*
Alas ! theologians have been always silent with regard to spiritual life on earth, even have been mutes as for spiritual identity.
But, we shall never repeat enough,
evidently body is a biophysical structure, therefore a deadly structure,
nevertheless abstraction's domain gives evidence of a transcendent life, of which we can have consciousness
,
because in abstraction's domain are memorized past experiences judged in present moment to anticipate future,
and because too, our comportments necessitate permanent taking into consideration of durations, virtual cerebral world's representations, concepts, ideas, …, presentiments and feelings.
Therefore, religions do not lead to spiritual life (transcendent life) because this one is essential constituent of our being, but religions enable from expressing it.
Actually, henceforth, numerous sciences are revealing transcendent facts and the iimplication of a divine creative entity in the world.
Regrettably, the scientists in their large majority, although "open-minded" to their numerous and often changeable theories,have an education which lead them to deny implication of an order transcendent in the reality ; they are convinced that some laws and principles govern (manage) universe.
In a research of primordial causes
, we must reject this a priori because the laws and the principles are not of operators who can recognize, judge, choose, ..., decide and do.
We also have to relativise the philosophic speeches which did not innovate with regard to consciouness state, nothingness, time, transcendence, eternity and infinity ; many reflections of great minds, judicious at their epoch, today must be reconsidered, let’s quote :
"Of these two infinities of the sciences, the one which is infinitely big is more impressive, and that is why few persons have told that they know all things ; « I am going to speak about everything », was saying Democritus.
But the infinitely small is much less visible. Philosophers believed to know it, and it is there where all has stumbled. That has enabled these titles so common : Principles and Things, Principles of the philosophy …
But as that's us who surpass the small things, we consider that we are more capable from possessing them, and however the same capacities are necessary when we must go until nothingness or until "whole universe" …
Besides, the extreme things are for us as if they were not, and we are nothing for them ; they escape us or we escape them.
Here is our real state. We can't know certainly and to ignore absolutely. We navigate on a immense environment and always are uncertain and undecided, pushed of an extremity towards the other one …
Thus let's not look for certainty and neither firmness ; our reason is always disappointed by appearances's inconstancy ; nothing can fix a finite thing between the two infinites which enclose it and avoid it …" (cf. Blaise Pascal - Thoughts - fragment 185).
A text that we must reconsider indeed, because although the extreme things escape us, even with powerful technological means, we know however that nothingness understood in strict sense of word, does not exist and that the infinitely big depends on the infinitely small ; more precisely, the "infinitely big" is composed of "infinitely small structures" which are emerging from a dimensionless domain (a domain without structure, an unitary domain) : the universal energy.
We also know that we evolve in a world where "sense" is omnipresent, a cyberworld which is fruit of ceaseless creations and of continual destructions, with ceaseless interactions.
But then, what can we say of the transcendent entity who, from time immemorial, "manages" this universal dynamics ?,
of this creative entity who although of divine character, is not omnipotent and who thus, presupposes, out of necessity, an omnipotence : God.
Nietzsche :
"The madman - Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly : "I seek God ! I seek God !". As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost ? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child ? asked another. Or is he hiding ? Is he afraid of us ? Has he gone on a voyage ? emigrated ? Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God ?" he cried. "I will tell you. We have killed him, you and I ! All of us are his murderers ! But how did we do this ? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon ? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun ? Whither is it moving now ? Whither are we moving ? Away from all suns ? Are we not plunging continually ? And backward, sideward, forward, in all directions ? Is there still any up or down ? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing ? Do we not feel the breath of empty space ? Has it not become colder ? Is not night continually closing in on us ? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning ? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God ? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition ?—Gods, too, decompose ! God is dead ! God remains dead ! And we have killed him ! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers ? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives, who will wipe this blood off us ? What water is there for us to clean ourselves ? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent ?…" (cf. The gay Science - Book III, 125),
would he approve our speech, him who looked for desperately this God ?
We think it, because the sciences, particularly biology, are these sacred games which incite to belief in God.
Paul Moyne
|
