On the Consciousness of the Oneness of Humanity
By John Taylor; 2009 April 19, Jalal 10, 166 BE
We are discussing Comenius's ideas and their impact upon the principle of the oneness of humanity. In the eighth chapter of Panorthosia, he cites stoic philosopher Epictetus, who pinpointed the origin of common consciousness in avoidance of criticism and backbiting, "Every single thing has two handles," wrote Epictetus,
"and it can be grasped by one but not by the other; and men in their dealings with one another generally make the mistake of taking hold of the one which cannot sustain them; this means both sides for ever looking back upon their differences, and observing faults in the others which give rise to mutual hatred and disaffection." (quoted in Panorthosia, p. 112)
In our relationships with individuals and groups we can either trust or distrust. We can look at mankind from one of two points of view, as either essentially the same or as essentially different. One point-of-view cannot refute the other, but it can and does block it out, for it is impossible to observe the world in both ways at the same time, or a mixture of the two. These two "handles," as Epictetus calls them, seem like an early version of the idea in physics of quanta, as illustrated in Shroedinger's Cat. When you open a box, the cat is either alive or dead; it is never both, never a gradation. Comenius offers the following thoughts on this polarity in human identity,
"This (polarity of Epictetus) is all too true, and if so, let us not persist in sin! And Since we all have our handles of similarity and difference, let us now drop the latter and grasp the former. Let us stop looking at the difference, and devote our attention to the similarity. Let us all-in-all love our common possession, the Image of God, and similarly our other various possessions generously added unto us by the gift of God." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 8, para 11, pp. 112-113)
Comenius points here to the tremendous potential practical value of belief in God. To see His image in others is to grasp the "handle" not only of our similarity but also to understand the best that we can possibly be. Belief in God, then, has to be treated as a universal belief common to all, enabling all to see the best in all.
Last year, in a presentation arguing against atheism I tried out a Venn Diagram to demonstrate these two "handles." Each of us is a circle, with part outside and unique to our experience. Our reflection of God is the intersection set of common features among all humans. In the light of this role, religions ought to show a good example by showing they can see common features in one another. In a book defending religion that I read at that time I noted the following,
"Samuel Huntington says that the major world religions have many key values in common, and recommends, in what he calls the 'commonalities rule', that people should search for and attempt to expand those values that they have in common with other civilisations." (Keith Ward, Is Religion Dangerous?, p. 188)
Whether you call it a handle or a commonalities rule, the consciousness of the oneness of mankind is a melding of the conscience of all individuals.
Fascinating evidence is emerging that consciousness, even on the physical level inside the brain, is the product of a sort of principle of universal participation working among the totality of neurons. A French team of researchers has uncovered evidence for what a "global access" theory of consciousness, as reported in the 21 March, 2009 edition of New Scientist, p. 7,
==========
Whole Brain is in the Grip of Consciousness
Electrodes implanted in the brains of people with epilepsy might just have resolved a question about the mysterious process of consciousness. Signals from the electrodes seem to show that consciousness arises from the coordinated activity of the entire brain. The signals also take us closer to finding finding an objective "consciousness signature" that could be used to probe the process in animals and people with brain damage without inserting electrodes. ... Because the activity only occurred in volunteers who were aware of the words (flashed before them), Gaillard's team argues that it constitutes a consciousness signature. As much of this activity was spread across the brain, they say that consciousness probably has no single "seat." "Consciousness is more a question of dynamics than of a local activity."
==========
Consciousness, then, is quite literally the meaning of its root words, "knowing together." When neurons firing across the whole field of the brain rather than restricted to one region, the mind is conscious.
However, although consciousness of the oneness of humanity is a kind of knowledge, it is more a kind of ethical concern. It emerges from the conscience of all individuals paying careful heed to the moral implications of the divine image within each, and within all. Hence Jesus' saying that "the Kingdom is within/among you." Since it arises from many individuals independently seeking truth, the Baha'i principle of consciousness of the oneness of humankind seems closer to the older Thomist word for consciousness, synderesis. Synderesis comes from a Latinized Greek word for "careful guarding," "watching" or "preservation." When each and all observe the good of all and sacrifice for the whole planet, then we are conscious of this principle of oneness. As Abdu'l-Baha put it,
"... in this age of lights, specific teachings have become universal, in order that the outpouring of the Merciful One environ both the East and the West, the oneness of the Kingdom of humanity become visible and the luminosity of truth enlighten the world of consciousness." (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha, Vol. 3, p. 538-539)
Each and all meet at the crux, where personal conscience joins into collective consciousness. In order that this be clear we must all be ready to grasp what is clearly true to everybody, not our own perspective or vision of universal reality. I will close with what Comenius has to say about that.
==========
"People who look at the same thing with the normal eye but through glasses of different colours do not all see the same thing. Instead, one sees it red, another green, a third blue, and so on. But let them remove the glasses and look at the thing in its natural appearance, and it will surely be the same for all.
"The same applies to other senses; we do not obtain the same impression of things because our dispositions vary. Obviously bread and water do not taste the same to a starving man as to one who is well-fed. Elegant music does not sound the same to the ear of Tmolus as to that of Midas, and honey does not taste the same to a fever-patient as to a healthy man. Therefore evil dispositions should be discarded (or prejudices which enslave the mind in one way or another) and then the dictates of nature, Scripture, and our minds will be unable to affect different sides in different ways, and there will be harmony and concord."
(Panorthosia II, Ch. 8, para 31, pp. 121-122)
--
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
::
No comments:
Post a Comment