The Principles of Inclusion and Exclusion
One of my all-time great heroes is Francis Bacon, who along with Rene Descartes is credited with turning Europe towards science in its modern form (Muslim historians of science ungenerously accuse all of them of plagiarism, from Newton on down, in view of the persistent denial of Europeans of the essential contribution of Islamic civilization to modern science). Anyway, I recently read of another honor given Bacon by perhaps his most distinguished intellectual heir, Immanuel Kant. Kant dedicated his masterwork, The Critique of Pure Reason, to Bacon.
Ever since I first read Bacon's Advancement of Learning and his other works, I have lamented the fact that nobody has ever tried very hard to carry out his "nursery gardens of the mind" plan. The nursery gardens would regularize the acquisition of knowledge while at the same time systematically expunging falsity, superstitions and misconceptions in the popular mind. Bacon was surely among the first to recognize the value of an informed public opinion as both a support and an object of scientific study.
In the decades since I read the Advancement, the Internet has become ubiquitous and a tool for all, most notably for commerce and advertising. However even with this miracle of information interchange we have hardly begun to exploit the potential benefit. The disadvantages of floods of bad information accumulate unchecked simply because we do not use the Net for systematic sorting out of the wheat from the chaff, as Bacon advocated. Anyway, a few days ago I was looking for something else in the Ocean text database and stumbled across this familiar old passage in the Advancement:
"We see of the fundamental points, our Saviour penneth the league thus, HE THAT IS NOT WITH US, IS AGAINST US; but of points not fundamental, thus, HE THAT IS NOT AGAINST AS, IS WITH US."
Several times through the years I have tried to bring together the two bits of scripture that Bacon is referring to and every time my search skills failed me. This morning I was either more experienced or just luckier, but I found them both. The "whoever is not against us is for us" quote goes like this:
"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:49-50, KJV)
This we can call the principle of inclusion. The obverse of this principle comes a couple of books later in Luke and we can call it the principle of exclusion. It is phrased like this: "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." (Luke 11:23, KJV) It crowns a rather abstruse argument against those among his followers who in spite of outward allegiance, inwardly doubted and even denied Jesus. He has just discussed the need to pray, "ask and it shall be given unto you." Some deniers decry His miracle of casting out a demon in a mute that kept him from speaking. Using the logic of "it takes one to know one," they claimed that this was a product of Beelzebul, ruler of the demons (a title of the Canaanite storm and fertility god, Baal; anathema to all Jews). Other hypocrites (actors) from the same dissembling group covered up their antipathy and in a seemingly pious manner continue to pester him for a sign from heaven (as if curing a mute were not sign enough). Here is the context, from Luke 11, 16-23, in the Revised Standard Version,
"He knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself becomes a desert, and house falls on house. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? -- for you say that I cast out the demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you."
Pre-existing belief is the precondition even of miracles, outward proofs of faith. This is the first catch 22, truth must be proven first in order to prove anything. Jesus then tells a parable that we can call the parable of protection.
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
Here He establishes faith as the criterion. The reverse, hypocrisy, worldliness dressed as inquiring piety, is the root of corruption in religious affairs. He then tells another parable, that of the seven unclean spirits.
"When an unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but not finding any, says, `I will return to my house from which I came.' When it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first." (Luke 11:24-26)
So, the reason hypocrisy is so dangerous and must be excluded is this: religion is an effective purifying agent. It brings about inner probity and widespread adherence to laudable virtues. But even though the seven evil spirits wander off into the waterless desert of unbelief from whence they came, their natural ecosystem, they now know what life is. They come back home, back to the place from which they had been cast. The faith is now clean, improved, empty, ripe for takeover. The evil spirits now have what today we would call a viral quality; without substance themselves, they can infect the genetic code of faith and kill it. They make the faith just as potent an instrument for harm as it had been of good.
These seven spirits clearly symbolize the inner corruption of the soul that lead to disunity; this inner event leads to the outer horrors we witness every day on the six o'clock news. The seven valleys or cities of the soul are familiar to Baha'is, and they no doubt take the handoff more directly from the Qu'ran, which speaks of seven gates of heaven and hell.
"And verily, Hell is the promise for them one and all. It hath seven Portals; at each Portal is a separate band of them; But 'mid gardens and fountains shall the pious dwell: `Enter ye therein in peace, secure.' And all rancour will We removed from their bosoms: they shall sit as brethren, face to face, on couches: Therein no weariness shall reach them, nor forth from it shall they be cast for ever. Announce to my servants that I am the Gracious, the Merciful." (Qur'an 15, Rodwell tr.)
In another place, the Qu'ran holds up the ruins of a fallen civilization as a standing reminder of what happens without unity. Disease, as it were, attacks the roots of hollow palm trees, and the first wind blows them to the ground.
"And the 'Ad -- they were destroyed by a furious wind, exceedingly violent; He made it rage against them seven nights and eight days in succession: So that thou couldst see the (whole) people lying prostrate in its (path), as if they had been roots of hollow palm trees tumbled down!" (Qu'ran 69:6-7, Yusuf Ali)
Now this balancing of inclusion (tolerance) and exclusion (righteousness) is, or should be, obvious to everyone who has ever been exposed to the pure Teaching of God. But Bacon's insight was that this is not just a religious principle, it is the central task of science too. Science does not just collect information, sort through it and enter into disputes and controversy. It has a serious, much more difficult reason for dealing with knowledge new and old. Its mission is to balance and enact these two principles of exclusion and inclusion in every sphere of human experience. Every area of knowledge, every science and scientific discipline, works out its part of balancing them. Anything to keep the seven demons from coming home to roost.
2 comments:
"When an unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place,
The action that would cause an unclean spirit to leave, is a clear benefit the person or persons.
it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but not finding any
This part is a puzzle for me. An unclean spirit appears to have needs for some form of nourishment, That which would nourish an unclean spirit would seem to be the opposite of what would nourish a clean spirit. And that which would make a place inhospitable for the unclean would be hospitable for the clean. unless there are places and people that make conditions inhospitable to both clean and unclean spirits, and this idea I think is illogical for the Bible. If the unclean cannot find a home, this is a benefit to the waterless places. So if the unclean spirit returns, what was sufficient to cause it to leave, would seem to be a continuing condition preventing it from returning, BUT clearly not. Perhaps it was that the unclean left voluntarily for some strange reason, to see the world?? and it found the world inhospitable to its nature, so it came back home.
When it comes, it finds it swept and put in order.
So while it was out and about the chaos and grime was replaced with order.
The faith is now clean, improved, empty, ripe for takeover.
It is this leap of interpretation, which I can see as attractive, yet I am unsatisfied. The logic that says that some force which causes an unclean spirit to leave in the first place, and then cleans and organizes the place by its own effort, and yet has become weaker during the passage of time, to the returning spirit it caused to leave, this logic is beyond me at the present moment.
Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first.
The uclean can always find more unclean, but also the organizing spirit that inhabited the person while the unclean spirit was away can find others of the same opinion. Yes in the wide world there are always someone who is bigger badder than the last fellow, and if these band themselves they can take over a village, a person. That person or village would be worse off, however I am inclined to think this is a natural progression. the fall of this man, was not because he or they were overcome by a sneak attack of a a trojan horse but they had a weakness which was waiting to be exploited eventually in the course of the natural turn of social events. The signs were out there. the village or the individual bears some sort of responsibility, I think. The situation with the seven would seem dire, but what I have learned from this is a) even the unclean has to have water and a place to live, so he won't kill his host. He will keep them alive. So too would the 7. If we voluntarily restrict ourselves to the unclean and his 7 friends, and the one host, the ratio of 8:1 look grim. But when is that situation really true???? There is always a greater context, greater resources to draw upon. However 8 :1 would seem to be a real struggle and some amount of suffering to be endured probably.
Just my thoughts.
Edo River rising
Returning here, I see that I made a serious exclusion of the context of your use of this parable. Illustrating either exclusion or inclusion.
Inclusion or exclusion of unclean spirits, depends on numerous factors. so I can't say I clearly understand your use of this example. What was excluded has returned to be included. Ideas which were once rejected as being unclean, return along with even more dangerous ideas and these together overwhelm and take over the individual's judgement of right and wrong. They are part of his rationale, and they probably form a causal chain so that each one is dependent on the other's logic to exist there. It is difficult to attack or isolate any particular one segment of the chain. Probably this person also is in association with people of his own kind now. But That could be said when the first devil was cast out and things order, he would associate with recovered people of unclean spirits, much like AA, I suppose could happen. So the message could be seen as, Once a bone is broken, its strength will never recover to be enough to withstand a concerted effort focused on that point of the break. The once broken cannot be trusted, completely. For there is always a chance a stronger force will break in and inhabit them again.
Post a Comment