Eupraxia

Captaincy and Eupraxia; Under the Evidence-Based Scalpel
Oneness of God Series, Part III

By John Taylor; 13 February, 2006

Yesterday we proposed that the principle of One God is a razor
principle, cutting off useless, distracting speculation. Only what is
needed and nothing more can inform our understanding and application
of the divine will and teachings. This razor is most often associated
with the medieval philosopher William of Ockham, but as we saw it goes
far back into the pre-history of divine instruction, as far back as
when Moses saw the burning bush and was told, "take off your shoes,
for you are on holy ground." The razor starts by warning against
drawing direct comparisons with the Godhead, analogies that profane
what is sacred because the holy is inherently beyond human
comprehension. It is just wrong to assume that we can meddle with
certain givens, as the parable of the tares demonstrates.

Try this thought experiment. I take your picture, or perhaps draw a
caricature of your face, and then I pass it around a Kindergarten
class. Would "you" in any sense be changed? Would the children
understand you better? Would your name and reputation be affected?
Perhaps it might ... how would you feel if I handed back the photo
later and you saw that they had drawn devil's horns on your forehead?
Or how about other insulting doodles, like a turban on your head
wrapped around a bomb? You may care about what these young ones think
about you, or you may not. However I think most people would prefer to
be known to the next generation on their own terms. They would want to
be known, but only accurately, with due respect. They would not want
just any image of them to be bandied about, to be allowed to take on a
life of its own. Nor would they allow just anything to be said about
them. So why expect that God and His Manifestation would want anything
less?

We noticed that the Bab points out why most people most of the time
err about God. They trip up because they themselves assign the proofs
and evidences for God. God insists that He do that himself. Why should
we balk? We bow to experts every moment of the day. We buy products
and hope that they will work as advertised. We go to doctors and
dentists and trust they know and care about what they are doing. We
get into our car and expect that a thousand gadgets designed by a
thousand experts will all work together as promised. We literally bet
our life on it. Similarly, we must trust in the divine. Yet none of
the experts who made the car is telling us where or how to drive it.
We learn that on our own, we do it for ourselves. Same thing for the
expertise of God. God does not do anything Himself, only a razor
before us and ask us to use it, the razor of evidence-based faith.

Before Christmas last year a friend recommended a medical cure for
migraines, not to mention just about any other illness. He even gave
me a sample for one month and insisted I try it. It was a nostrum
inspired by a genuine scientific discovery about a certain sugar
needed for synaptic activity; the finding won for a certain researcher
a Nobel Prize in 1998, I think it was. His research on sugars was real
science; our nerves really do need these sugars in order to function.
However, since 1998 a thriving cottage industry has sprung up selling
these sugars based upon the presupposition that the body cannot
produce them on its own out of other chemicals.

I had taken the medicinal sugars for about a week when I started to
feel nervous. I checked them out on the Web. Once I elbowed past the
hucksters the hard medical evidence for these sugars seemed flimsy
indeed. One Australian doctor noted that there have been no controlled
trials of these sugars and that anyone concerned for "evidence-based"
medicine should ignore them until we know whether they help or harm.
This sage advice persuaded me to give back the sample immediately. I
have no desire to ingest untested chemicals, even an ordinary sugar,
or to make myself a guinea pig in an uncontrolled shooting gallery.

But I greatly admired the turn of phrase of this good Aussie doctor.
"Evidence-based" sums up beautifully of the scientific method. That is
all science is: due attention to evidence. Every one of thousands of
diverse scientific disciplines has arrived at its own set of criteria
based upon its own limitations. A discipline is a way of testing,
proving and arriving at conclusions based upon established criteria.
This is the result of long experience, not of one thinker but of many.
Yes, their criteria do change with time, but a non-expert challenges
them all at his peril. These sciences are well described as
disciplines, for it takes discipline to learn what is cogent, and what
is not. To ignore discipline is dangerous, and most especially in
matters of health.

As the Bab taught, "evidence-based" sums up the religious method just
as well. Faith is attention to due evidence. In fact, proof is even
more indispensable in mystic matters, surely, for the well being of
the body is superficial and temporary compared to the eternal soul.
And this method starts in the Oneness of God, the discipline of God's
duly appointed Manifestations, the true Ship Captains of souls.

Plato dealt with ship captaincy in the fifth or sixth book of his
Republic, but less familiar is Zenophon's version, which I tend to
take to be closer to what Socrates himself actually thought, since
Zenophon was not a philosopher in his own right. Let us end today with
Zenophon's account in the Memorabilia. Especially interesting is the
brief mention of equality of the sexes. Abdu'l-Baha mentions it often:
expertise is the sole basis for any distinction, including those
between the sexes. The fact that Socrates taught this explains why
Plato allowed women into his Academy on an equal basis, an almost
unique case of lack of gender discrimination before modern times.

Captaincy, from Zenophon, Memorabilia III, 9

They are not kings or rulers (he said) who hold the sceptre merely, or
are chosen by Tom, Dick and Harry out of the street, or are appointed
by lot, or have stepped into office by violence or by fraud; but those
who have the special knowledge (episteme) how to rule. Thus having won
the admission that it is the function of a ruler to enjoin what ought
to be done, and of those who are ruled to obey, he proceeded to point
out by instances that in a ship the ruler or captain is the man of
special knowledge, to whom, as an expert, the ship owner himself and
all the others on board obey. So likewise, in the matter of husbandry,
the proprietor of an estate; in that of sickness, the patient; in that
of physical training of the body, the youthful athlete going through a
course; and, in general, every one directly concerned in any matter
needing attention and care will either attend to this matter
personally, if he thinks he has the special knowledge; or, if he
mistrusts his own science, will be eager to obey any expert on the
spot, or will even send and fetch one from a distance. The guidance of
this expert he will follow, and do what he has to do at his dictation.

And thus, in the art of spinning wool, he liked to point out that
women are the rulers of men--and why? because they have the knowledge
of the art, and men have not.

And if any one raised the objection that a tyrant has it in his power
not to obey good and correct advice, he would retort: "Pray, how has
he the option not to obey, considering the penalty hanging over him
who disobeys the words of wisdom? for whatever the matter be in which
he disobeys the word of good advice, he will fall into error, I
presume, and falling into error, be punished." And to the suggestion
that the tyrant could, if he liked, cut off the head of the man of
wisdom, his answer was:

"Do you think that he who destroys his best ally will go scot free, or
suffer a mere slight and passing loss? Is he more likely to secure his
salvation that way or to compass his own swift destruction? Again, is
that to choose the path of safety, think you? Is it not rather to sign
his own death-warrent?"

jet: Zenophon then proceeds from captaincy to Eupraxia, the
confounding mystery as to why the Manifestation is always outwardly
persecuted and defeated, and more broadly why in a milieu of liars a
truth teller always fails and messes up.

Eupraxia versus Eutukhia, from Zenophon, Memorabilia III, 9

When some one asked him: "What he regarded as the noblest study, the
best pursuit or business for a man?" he answered: "Successful
conduct," (translator's note: eupraxia, to do well, in the sense both
of well or right doing, and of welfare, and is accordingly opposed to
eutukhia, mere good luck or success. Cf. Plat. "Euthyd." 281 B); and
to a second question: "Did he then regard good fortune as an end to be
pursued?"--"On the contrary," he answered, "for myself, I consider
fortune (eutukhia) and conduct (eupraxia) to be diametrically opposed.
For instance, to succeed in some desirable course of action without
seeking to do so, I hold to be good fortune; but to do a thing well by
dint of learning and practice, that according to my creed is
successful conduct, and those who make this the serious business of
their life seem to me to do well."

They are at once the best, dearest and most favored in the sight of
God (he went on to say) who for instance in husbandry do well the
things of farming, or in the art of healing all that belongs to
healing, or in statecraft the affairs of state; whereas a man who does
nothing well-- nor well in anything--is (he added) neither good for
anything nor dear to God.

--
John Taylor

badijet@gmail.com