Beetle's Book and Word Thread

[Dougfish]

I've met @Dougfish 's wife and she is wonderful.  She let's him fish, drink beer and spend time with the likes of all of us here.

Strike 1 for @Mudwall Gatewood 3.0

Yeah, I do have a pretty sweet gig.  -0-

[Dee-Vo]

Oddly enough, I walk into one of our restrooms at home, and sure as hell, right there on the back of the toilet lies a copy of "Hillbilly Elegy." The wife picked it up. Interesting.

[sanjuanwormhatch]

We should have a book club!

[Dee-Vo]

I've sort of overextended my reading as of lately. Three books going at once.

I'm struggling to finish John Galligan's fourth and last installment of his fly-fishing mystery series.

I'm trying to find time to make meaningful headway further into Millard's "The River of Doubt."

I'm also reading intermittently, "The Passing of the Night" by Robinson Risner.

[Dougfish]

John G on the way, also.

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

[troutfanatic]

Mudwall,

I have a read for you. It will be the delight of your next theology debate with J.

I had the misfortune of having to read it for a Psychology class, and then understand it.

The Book: The Art of Loving, the author Erich Fromm. Skip most of the book. Go straight to chapter on Fromm's concept of loving God. I think you'll dig it.

Post modern secularists won't appreciate it as much, but it was written in 1956.

[sanjuanwormhatch]

Mudwall,

I have a read for you. It will be the delight of your next theology debate with J.

I had the misfortune of having to read it for a Psychology class, and then understand it.

The Book: The Art of Loving, the author Erich Fromm. Skip most of the book. Go straight to chapter on Fromm's concept of loving God. I think you'll dig it.

Post modern secularists won't appreciate it as much, but it was written in 1956.

anywhere to read that particular chapter online?

[Mudwall Gatewood 3.0]

Mudwall,

I have a read for you. It will be the delight of your next theology debate with J.

I had the misfortune of having to read it for a Psychology class, and then understand it.

The Book: The Art of Loving, the author Erich Fromm. Skip most of the book. Go straight to chapter on Fromm's concept of loving God. I think you'll dig it.

Post modern secularists won't appreciate it as much, but it was written in 1956.

anywhere to read that particular chapter online?

https://archive.org/stream/TheArtOfLoving/43799393-The-Art-of-Loving-Erich-Fromm_djvu.txt

I have not had the opportunity to read it.  Happy reading, and give us your opinion.  Many thanks. 

I can't debate J unless he also reads it, and I ain't sure a Liberty grad can comprehend any text other than the 'good book'.    Praise Gaia!!!

[Big J]

Mudwall,

I have a read for you. It will be the delight of your next theology debate with J.

I had the misfortune of having to read it for a Psychology class, and then understand it.

The Book: The Art of Loving, the author Erich Fromm. Skip most of the book. Go straight to chapter on Fromm's concept of loving God. I think you'll dig it.

Post modern secularists won't appreciate it as much, but it was written in 1956.

anywhere to read that particular chapter online?

https://archive.org/stream/TheArtOfLoving/43799393-The-Art-of-Loving-Erich-Fromm_djvu.txt

I have not had the opportunity to read it.  Happy reading, and give us your opinion.  Many thanks. 

I can't debate J unless he also reads it, and I ain't sure a Liberty grad can comprehend any text other than the 'good book'.    Praise Gaia!!!

I probably don't need to read it to counter the points in that book. 

[Native Fisher]

J,

The BEST youtube version of that song.

[sanjuanwormhatch]

fiLbve of God

It has been stated above that the basis for our need to love
lies in the experience of separateness and the resulting need
pQ overcome the anxiety of separateness by the experience of
anion. The religious form of love, that which is called the
Rove of God, is, psychologically speaking, not different. It
Bprings from the need to overcome separateness and to
Iftchieve union. In fact, the love of God has as many different
feualities and aspects as the love of man has — and to a large
f{ Extent we find the same differences.

In all theistic religions, whether they are polytheistic or
pinonotheistic, God stands for the highest value, the most de-
ll, sirable good. Hence, the specific meaning of God depends on
fcwhat is the most desirable good for a person. The under-
standing of the concept of God must, therefore, start with an
;kftalysis of the character structure of the person who wor-
ships God.

|f 15 Meister Eckhart, translated by R, B. Blakney, Harper & Brothers,
New York, 1941, p. 204.



64 THE ART OF LOVING

The development of the human race as far as we have
any knowledge of it can be characterized as the emergence
of man from nature, from mother, from the bonds of blood
and soil. In the beginning of human history man, though
thrown out of the original unity with nature, still clings to
these primary bonds. He finds his security by going back, or
holding on to these primary bonds. He still feels identified
with the world of animals and trees, and tries to find unity
by remaining one with the natural world. Many primitive
religions bear witness to this stage of development. An animal
is transformed into a totem; one wears animal masks in the
most solemn religious acts, or in war; one worships an animal
as God. At a later stage of development, when human skill
has developed to the point of artisan and arti$tic skill, when
man is not dependent any more exclusively on the gifts of
nature — the fruit he finds and the animal he kills — man
transforms the product of his own hand into a god. This is
the stage of the worship of idols made of clay, silver or gold.
Man projects his own powers and skills into the things he
makes, and thus in an alienated fashion worships his prowess,
his possessions. At a still later stage man gives his gods the
form of human beings. It seems that this can happen only
when he has become still more aware of himself, and when
he has discovered man as the highest and most dignified
"thing" in the world. In this phase of anthropomorphic god
worship we find a development in two dimensions. The one
refers to the female or male nature of the gods, the other to
the degree of maturity which man has achieved, and which
determines the nature of his gods and the nature of his love
of them.



THE THEORY OF LOVE 65

Let us first speak of the development from mother-centered
to father-centered religions. According to the great and de-
cisive discoveries of Bachofen and Morgan in the middle of
the nineteenth century, and in spite of the rejection their
findings have found in most academic circles, there can be
little doubt that there was a matriarchal phase of religion
preceding the patriarchal one, at least in many cultures. In
the matriarchal phase, the highest being is the mother. She is
the goddess, she is also the authority in family and society.
In order to understand the essence of matriarchal religion,
we have only to remember what has been said about the
essence of motherly love. Mother's love is unconditional, it
is all-protective, all-enveloping; because it is unconditional
it can also not be controlled or acquired. Its presence gives
the loved person a sense of bliss ; its absence produces a sense
of lostness and utter despair. Since mother loves her children
because they are her children, and not because they are
"good," obedient, or fulfill her wishes and commands,
[' mother's love is based on equality. All men are equal, be-
cause they all are children of a mother, because they all are
children of Mother Earth.

The next stage of human evolution, the only one of which
we have thorough knowledge and do not need to rely on in-
ferences and reconstruction, is the patriarchal phase. In this
phase the mother is dethroned from her supreme position,
and the father becomes the Supreme Being, in religion as
well as in society. The nature of fatherly love is that he makes
demands, establishes principles and laws, and that his love
for the son depends on the obedience of the latter to these
demands. He likes best the son who is most like him, who is



66 THE ART OF LOVING

most obedient and who is best fitted to become his successor,
as the inheritor of his possessions. (The development of
patriarchal society goes together with the development of
private property.) As a consequence, patriarchal society is
hierarchical; the equality of the brothers gives way to com-
petition and mutual strife. Whether we think of the Indian,
Egyptian or Greek cultures, or of the Jewish- Christian, or
Islamic religions, we are in the middle of a patriarchal world,
with its male gods, over whom one chief god reigns, or where
all gods have been eliminated with the exception of the One,
the God. However, since the wish for mother's love cannot
be eradicated from the hearts of man, it is not surprising
that the figure of the loving mother could never be fully
driven out from the pantheon. In the Jewish religion, the
mother aspects of God are reintroduced especially in the
various currents of mysticism. In the Catholic religion,
Mother is symbolized by the Church, and by the Virgin.
Even in Protestantism, the figure of Mother has not been
entirely eradicated, although she remains hidden. Luther es-
tablished as his main principle that nothing that man does
can procure God's love. God's love is Grace, the religious
attitude is to have faith in this grace, and to make oneself
small and helpless; no good works can influence God — or
make God love us, as Catholic doctrines postulated. We can
recognize here that the Catholic doctrine of good works is
part of the patriarchal picture ; I can procure father's love by
obedience and by fulfilling his demands. The Lutheran doc-
trine, on the other hand, in spite of its manifest patriarchal
character carries within it a hidden matriarchal element.
Mother's love cannot be acquired; it is there, or it is not



THE THEORY OF LOVE 67

there; all I can do is to have faith (as the Psalmist says,
"Thou hadst let me have faith into my mother's breasts. 3 ' ie )
and to transform myself into the helpless, powerless child.
But it is the peculiarity of Luther's faith that the figure of
the mother has been eliminated from the manifest picture,
and replaced by that of the father; instead of the certainty
] of being loved by mother, intense doubt, hoping against
hope for unconditional love by father, has become the para-
mount feature.

I had to discuss this difference between the matriarchal
and the patriarchal elements in religion in order to show that
the character of the love of God depends on the respective
weight of the matriarchal and the patriarchal aspects of re-
ligion. The patriarchal aspect makes me love God like a
father; I assume he is just and strict, that he punishes and
rewards; and eventually that he will elect me as his favorite
son; as God elected Abraham-Israel, as Isaac elected Jacob,
as God elects his favorite nation. In the matriarchal aspect
of religion, I love God as an all-embracing mother. I have
faith in her love, that no matter whether I am poor and
powerless, no matter whether I have sinned, she will love
me, she will not prefer any other of her children to me;
whatever happens to me, she will rescue me, will save me,
will forgive me. Needless to say, my love for God and God's
love for me cannot be separated. If God is a father, he loves
me like a son and I love him like a father. If God is mother,
her and my love are determined by this fact.
I This difference between the motherly and the fatherly
\ aspects of the love of God is, however, only one factor in

■ 16 Psalm 22:9.



68 THE ART OF LOVING

determining the nature of this love; the other factor is the
degree of maturity reached by the individual, hence in his
concept of God and in his love for God.

Since the evolution of the human race shifted from a
mother-centered to a father-centered structure of society, as
well as of religion, we can trace the development of a matur-
ing love mainly in the development of patriarchal religion. 17
In the beginning of this development we find a despotic,
jealous God, who considers man, whom he created, as his
property, and is entitled to do with him whatever he pleases.
This is the phase of religion in which God drives man out of
paradise, lest he eat from the tree of knowledge and thus
could become God himself; this is the phase in which God
decides to destroy the human race by the flood, because none
of them pleases him, with the exception of the favorite son,
Noah; this is the phase in which God demands from Abra-
ham that he kill his only, his beloved son, Isaac, to prove
his love for God by the act of ultimate obedience. But
simultaneously a new phase begins; God makes a covenant
with Noah, in which he promises never to destroy the human
race again, a covenant by which he is bound himself. Not
only is he bound by his promises, he is also bound by his
own principle, that of justice, and on this basis God must
yield to Abraham's demand to spare Sodom if there are at
least ten just men. But the development goes further than
transforming God from the figure of a despotic tribal chief

17 This holds true especially for the monotheistic religions of the
West. In Indian religions the mother figures retained a good deal of
influence, for instance in the Goddess Kali; in Buddhism and Taoism
the concept of a God — or a Goddess — was without essential signif-
icance, if not altogether eliminated.



THE THEORY OF LOVE 69

into a loving father, into a father who himself is bound by
the principles which he has postulated; it goes in the direc-
tion of transforming God from the figure of a father into a
symbol of his principles, those of justice, truth and love.
God is truth, God is justice. In this development God ceases
to be a person, a man, a father; he becomes the symbol of
the principle of unity behind the manifoldness of phenomena,
of the vision of the flower which will grow from the spir-
itual seed within man. God cannot have a name. A name
always denotes a thing, or a person, something finite. How
can God have a name, if he is not a person, not a thing?

The most striking incident of this change lies in the Bib-
lical story of God's revelation to Moses. When Moses tells
him that the Hebrews will not believe that God has sent
him, unless he can tell them God's name (how could idol
worshipers comprehend a nameless God, since the very
essence of an idol is to have a name?), God makes a con-
cession. He tells Moses that his name is "I am becoming
that which I am becoming." "I-am-becoming is my name."
The "I-am-becoming" means that God is not finite, not a
person, not a "being." The most adequate translation of the
sentence would be: tell them that "my name is nameless."
The prohibition to make any image of God, to pronounce
his name in vain, eventually to pronounce his name at all,
aims at the same goal, that of freeing man from the idea that
God is a father, that he is a person. Iri the subsequent theo-
logical development, the idea is carried further in the prin-
ciple that one must not even give God any positive attribute.
To say of God that he is wise, strong, good implies again
that he is a person; the most I can do is to say what God is



70 THE ART OF LOVING

not, to state negative attributes, to postulate that he is not
limited, not unkind, not unjust. The more I know what God
is not, the more knowledge I have of God. 18

Following the maturing idea of monotheism in its further
consequences can lead only to one conclusion: not to men-
tion God's name at all, not to speak about God. Then God
becomes what he potentially is in monotheistic theology,
the nameless One, an inexpressible stammer, referring to the
unity underlying the phenomenal universe, the ground of all
existence; God becomes truth, love, justice. God is I, inas-
much as I am human.

Quite evidently this evolution from the anthropomorphic
to the pure monotheistic principle makes all the difference to
the nature of the love of God. The God of Abraham can be
loved, or feared, as a father, sometimes his forgiveness, some-
times his anger being the dominant aspect. Inasmuch as God
is the father, I am the child. I have not emerged fully from
the autistic wish for omniscience and omnipotence. I have
not yet acquired the objectivity to realize my limitations as
a human being, my ignorance, my helplessness. I still claim,
like a child, that there must be a father who rescues me,
who watches me, who punishes me, a father who likes me
when I am obedient, who is flattered by my praise and
angry because of my disobedience. Quite obviously, the
majority of people have, in their personal development, not
overcome this infantile stage, and hence the belief in God to
most people is the belief in a helping father — a childish illu-
sion. In spite of the fact that this concept of religion has
been overcome by some of the great teachers of the human

18 Cf. Maimonides' concept of the negative attributes in The Guide
for the Perplexed.



THE THEORY OF LOVE 7 1

race, and by a minority of men, it is still the dominant form
bi religion.

Inasmuch as this is so, the criticism of the idea of God, as
it was expressed by Freud, is quite correct. The error, how-
ever, was in the fact that he ignored the other aspect of
; monotheistic religion, and its true kernel, the logic of which
leads exactly to the negation of this concept of God. The
truly religious person, if he follows the essence of the mono-
theistic idea, does not pray for anything, does not expect
anything from God; he does not love God as a child loves
his father or his mother; he has acquired the humility of
sensing his limitations, to the degree of knowing that he
knows nothing about God. God becomes to him a symbol in
which man, at an earlier stage of his evolution, has expressed
the totality of that which man is striving for, the realm of
the spiritual world, of love, truth and justice. He has faith
in the principles which "God" represents; he thinks truth,
lives love and justice, and considers all of his life only valu-
able inasmuch as it gives him the chance to arrive at an ever
fuller unfolding of his human powers — as the only reality
that matters, as the only object of "ultimate concern"; and,
| eventually, he does not speak about God — nor even mention
his name, To love God, if he were going to use this word,
would mean, then, to long for the attainment of the full
capacity to love, for the realization of that which "God"
stands for in oneself.

From this point of view, the logical consequence of
monotheistic thought is the negation of all "theo-logy," of
all "knowledge about God." Yet, there remains a difference
between such a radical non-theological view and a non-



72 THE ART OF LOVING

theistic system, as we find it, for instance in early Buddhism
or in Taoism.

In all theistic systems, even a non-theological, mystical
one, there is the assumption of the reality of the spiritual
realm, as one transcending man, giving meaning and validity
to man's spiritual powers and his striving for salvation and
inner birth. In a non-theistic system, there exists no spiritual
realm outside of man or transcending him. The realm of
love, reason and justice exists as a reality only because, and
inasmuch as, man has been able to develop these powers in
himself throughout the process of his evolution. In this view
there is no meaning to life, except the meaning man himself
gives to it; man is utterly alone except inasmuch as he helps
another.

Having spoken of the love of God, I want to make it clear
that I myself do not think in terms of a theistic concept, and
that to me the concept of God is only a historically condi-
tioned one, in which man has expressed his experience of his
higher powers, his longing for truth and for unity at a given
historical period. But I believe also that the consequences of
strict monotheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with
the spiritual reality are two views which, though different,
need not fight each other.

At this point, however, another dimension of the problem
of the love of God arises, which must be discussed in order
to fathom the complexity of the problem. I refer to a funda-
mental difference in the religious attitude between the East
(China and India) and the West; this difference can be ex-
pressed in terms of logical concepts. Since Aristotle, the
Western world has followed the logical principles of Aris-



THE THEORY OF LOVE 73

totelian philosophy. This logic is based on the law of identity
which states that A is A, the law of contradiction (A is not
non-A) and the law of the excluded middle (A cannot be
A and non-A, neither A nor non-A). Aristotle explains
his position very clearly in the following sentence: "It is im-
possible for the same thing at the same time to belong and
not to belong to the same thing and in the same respect; and
whatever other distinctions we might add to meet dialectical
objections, let them be added. This, then, is the most certain
of all principles. . . ." 19

This axiom of Aristotelian logic has so deeply imbued our
habits of thought that it is felt to be "natural" and self-
evident, while on the other hand the statement that X is A
and not A seems to be nonsensical. (Of course, the statement
refers to the subject X at a given time, not to X now and X
later, or one aspect of X as against another aspect.)

In opposition to Aristotelian logic is what one might call
paradoxical logic, which assumes that A and non-A do not
exclude each other as predicates of X. Paradoxical logic was
predominant in Chinese and Indian thinking, in the phi-
losophy of Heraclitus, and then again, under the name of
dialectics, it became the philosophy of Hegel, and of Marx.
The general principle of paradoxical logic has been clearly
described by Lao-tse. "Words that are strictly true seem to be
paradoxical" 20 And by Chuang-tzu : "That which is one is

19 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book Gamma, 1005b. 20. Quoted from
Aristotle* s Metaphysics, newly translated by Richard Hope, Columbia
University Press, New York, 1952.

20 Lao-tse, The Tdo Teh King, The Sacred Books of the East, ed.
by F. Max Mueller, Vol. XXXIX, Oxford University Press, London,
1927, p. 120.



74 THE ART OF LOVING

one. That which. is not-one, is also one." These formulations
of paradoxical logic are positive : it is and it is not. Another
formulation is negative: it is neither this nor that. The
former expression of thought we find in Taoistic thought, in
Heraclitus and again in Hegelian dialectics; the latter formu-
lation is frequent in Indian philosophy.

Although it would transcend the scope of this book to give
a more detailed description of the difference between Aris-
totelian and paradoxical logic, I shall mention a few illustra-
tions in order to make the principle more understandable.
Paradoxical logic in Western thought has its earliest philo-
sophical expression in Heraclitus 9 philosophy. He assumes
the conflict between opposites is the basis of all existence.
"They do not understand," he says, "that the all-One, con-
flicting in itself, is identical with itself: conflicting harmony
as in the bow and in the lyre." 21 Or still more clearly: "We
go into the same river, and yet not in the same; it is we and
it is not we" 22 Or "One and the same manifests itself in
things as living and dead, waking and sleeping, young and
old." 23

In Lao-tse's philosophy the same idea is expressed in a
more poetic form. A characteristic example of Taoist para-
doxical thinking is the following statement : "Gravity is the
root of lightness; stillness the ruler of movement." 24 Or "The
Tao in its regular course does nothing and so there is noth-

21 W. Capelle, Die Vorsokratiker, Alfred Kroener Verlag, Stuttgart,
1953, p. 134. (My translation. E. F.)

22 Ibid., p. 132.
™ Ibid., p. 133.

24 Mueller, op. cit., p. 69.



THE THEORY OF LOVE 75

ing which he does not do." 25 Or "My words are very easy
to know, and very easy to practice; but there is no one in
the world who is able to know and able to practice them.' 3 26
In Taoist thinking, just as in Indian and Socratic thinking,
the highest step to which thought can lead is to know that
we do not know. "To know and yet [think] we do not know
is the highest [attainment] ; not to know [and yet think] we
do know is a disease. 35 27 It is only a consequence of this
philosophy that the highest God cannot be named. The ulti-
mate reality, the ultimate One cannot be caught in words
or in thoughts. As Lao-tse puts it, "The Tao that can be
trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name
that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging
name. 33 28 Or, in a different formulation, "We look at it, and
we do not see it, and we name it the 'Equable. 3 We listen to
it, and we do not hear it, and we name it the 'Inaudible.'
We try to grasp it, and do not get hold of it, and we name
it 'the Subtle. 5 With these three qualities, it can not be made
the subject of description ; and hence we blend them together
and obtain The One. 33 29 And still another formulation of
the same idea: "He who knows [the Tao] does not [care
to] speak [about it] ; he who is [however ready to] speak
about it does not know it. 33 30

Brahmanic philosophy was concerned with the relation-
ship between manifoldness ( of phenomena ) and unity

25 Ibid., p. 79.

26 ibid., p. 112.

27 ibid., p. 113.

28 Ibid., p. 47.

29 Ibid., p. 57.
so Ibid., p. 100.



76 THE ART OF LOVING

(Brahman). But paradoxical philosophy is neither in India
nor in China to be confused with a dualistic standpoint. The
harmony (unity) consists in the conflicting position from
which it is made up. "Brahmanical thinking was centered
from the beginning around the paradox of the simultaneous
antagonisms — yet — identity of the manifest forces and forms
of the phenomenal world. . . ." 31 The ultimate power in
the Universe as well as in man transcends both the con-
ceptual and the sensual sphere. It is therefore "neither this
nor thus." But, as Zimmer remarks, "there is no antagonism
between c real and unreal' in this strictly non-dualistic realiza-
tion." 32 In their search for unity behind manifoldness, the
Brahman thinkers came to the conclusion that the perceived
pair of opposites reflects the nature not of things but of the
perceiving mind. The perceiving thought must transcend
itself if it is to attain true reality. Opposition is a category
of man's mind, not in itself an element of reality. In the
Rig- Veda the principle is expressed in this form: "I am the
two, the life force and the life material, the two at once."
The ultimate consequence of the idea that thought can only
perceive in contradictions has found an even more drastic
sequence in Vedantic thinking, which postulates that thought
— with all its fine distinction — was "only a more subtle hori-
zon of ignorance, in fact the most subtle of all the deluding
devices of maya." 33

Paradoxical logic has a significant bearing on the concept

31 H. R. Zimmer, Philosophies of India, Pantheon Books, New York,
195L

3 2 Ibid,

33 Ibid., p. 424.



THE THEORY OF LOVE 77

; of God. Inasmuch as God represents the ultimate reality,

and inasmuch as the human mind perceives reality in con-

| tradictions, no positive statement can be made of God. In

; the Vedantas the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God

!'■ is considered the ultimate form of ignorance. 34 We see here
the connection with the namelessness of the Tao, the name-

' less name of the God who reveals himself to Moses, of the
"absolute Nothing 55 of Meister Eckhart. Man can only know
the negation, never the position of ultimate reality. "Mean-
while man can not know what God is, even though he be
ever so well aware of what God is not. . . . Thus contented
with nothing, the mind clamors for the highest good of
all." 35 For Meister Eckhart, "The Divine One is a negation
of negations, and a denial of denials. . . . Every creature
contains a negation: one denies that it is the other." 36 It is
only a further consequence that God becomes for Meister
Eckhart "The absolute Nothing," just as the ultimate reality
is the "En Sof," the Endless One, for the Kabalah.

I have discussed the difference between Aristotelian and
paradoxical logic in order to prepare the ground for an im-
portant difference in the concept of the love of God. The
teachers of paradoxical logic say that man can perceive
reality only in contradictions, and can never perceive in
thought the ultimate reality-unity, the One itself. This led
to the consequence that one did not seek as the ultimate aim
to find the answer in thought. Thought can only lead us to

84 Cf. Zimmer, ibid., p. 424.

35 Meister Eckhart, translated by R. B. Blakney, Harper & Brothers,
New York, 1941, p. 114.

36 Ibid., p. 247. Cf. also the negative theology of Maimonides.



78 THE ART OF LOVING

the knowledge that it cannot give us the ultimate answer.
The world of thought remains caught in the paradox. The
only way in which the world can be grasped ultimately lies,
not in thought, but in the act, in the experience of oneness.
Thus paradoxical logic leads to the conclusion that the love
of God is neither the knowledge of God in thought, nor the
thought of one's love of God, but the act of experiencing the
oneness with God.

This leads to the emphasis on the right way of living. All
of life, every little and every important action, is devoted to
the knowledge of God, but a knowledge not in right thought,
but in right action. This can be clearly seen in Oriental re-
ligions. In Brahmanism as well as in Buddhism and Taoism,
the ultimate aim of religion is not the right belief, but the
right action. We find the same emphasis in the Jewish re-
ligion. There was hardly ever a schism over belief in the
Jewish tradition (the one great exception, the difference be-
tween Pharisees and Sadducees, was essentially one of two
opposite social classes). The emphasis of the Jewish religion
was (especially from the beginning of our era on) on the
right way of living, the Halacha (this word actually having
the same meaning as the Tao) .

In modern history, the same principle is expressed in the
thought of Spinoza, Marx and Freud. In Spinoza's philoso-
phy the emphasis is shifted from the right belief to the right
conduct of life. Marx stated the same principle when he
said, "The philosophers have interpreted the world in dif-
ferent ways — the task is to transform it." Freud's paradoxical
logic leads him to the process of psychoanalytic therapy, the
ever deepening experience of oneself.



THE THEORY OF LOVE 79

From the standpoint of paradoxical logic the emphasis is
not on thought, but on the act. This attitude had several
other consequences. First of all, it led to the tolerance which
we find in Indian and Chinese religious development. If the
right thought is not the ultimate truth, and not the way to
salvation, there is no reason to fight others, whose thinking
has arrived at different formulations. This tolerance is beau-
tifully expressed in the story of several men who were asked
to describe an elephant in the dark. One, touching his trunk,
said "this animal is like a water pipe" ; another, touching
his ear, said "this animal is like a fan" ; a third, touching
; his legs, described the animal as a pillar.

Secondly, the paradoxical standpoint led to the emphasis
i on transforming man, rather than to the development of
dogma on the one hand, and science on the other. From the
; Indian, Chinese and mystical standpoints, the religious task
of man is not to think right, but to act right, and/or to
become one with the One in the act of concentrated medita-
tion.

The opposite is true for the main stream of Western
thought. Since one expected to find the ultimate truth in the
right thought, major emphasis was on thought, although
right action was held to be important too. In religious de-
velopment this led to the formulation of dogmas, endless
arguments about dogmatic formulations, and intolerance of
the "non-believer" or heretic. It furthermore led to the
emphasis on "believing in God" as the main aim of a re-
ligious attitude. This, of course, did not mean that there
was not also the concept that one ought to live right. But



80 THE ART OF LOVING

nevertheless, the person who believed in God — even if he
did not live God — felt himself to be superior to the one
who lived God, but did not "believe" in him.

The emphasis on thought has also another and historically
a very important consequence. The idea that one could find
the truth in thought led not only to dogma, but also to
science. In scientific thought, the correct thought is all that
matters, both from the aspect of intellectual honesty, as well
as from the aspect of the application of scientific thought to
practice — that is, to technique.

In short, paradoxical thought led to tolerance and an
effort toward self-transformation. The Aristotelian stand-
point led to dogma and science, to the Catholic Church, and
to the discovery of atomic energy.

The consequences of this difference between the two stand-
points for the problem of the love of God have already been
explained implicitly, and need only to be summarized briefly.

In the dominant Western religious system, the love of God
is essentially the same as the belief in God, in God's exist-
ence, God's justice, God's love. The love of God is essentially
a thought experience. In the Eastern religions and in mys-
ticism, the love of God is an intense feeling experience of
oneness, inseparably linked with the expression of this love in
every act of living. The most radical formulation has been
given to this goal by Meister Eckhart: "If therefore I am
changed into God and He makes me one with Himself, then,
by the living God, there is no distinction between us. . . .
Some people imagine that they are going to see God, that
they are going to see God as if he were standing yonder, and
they here, but it is not to be so. God and I: we are one.



THE THEORY OF LOVE



8l



By knowing God I take him to myself. By loving God, I
penetrate him," 37

We can return now to an important parallel between the
love for one's parents and the love for God. The child starts
out by being attached to his mother as "the ground of all
being. 55 He feels helpless and needs the all-enveloping love
of mother. He then turns to father as the new center of his
affections, father being a guiding principle for thought and
action; in this stage he is motivated by the need to acquire
father's praise, and to avoid his displeasure. In the stage of
full maturity he has freed himself from the person of mother
and of father as protecting and commanding powers; he has
established the motherly and fatherly principles in himself.
He has become his own father and mother; he is father and
mother. In the history of the human race we see — and can
anticipate — the same development: from the beginning of
the love for God as the helpless attachment to a mother
Goddess, through the obedient attachment to a fatherly God,
to a mature stage where God ceases to be an outside power,
where man has incorporated the principles of love and jus-
tice into himself, where he has become one with God, and
eventually, to a point where he speaks of God only in a
poetic, symbolic sense.

From these considerations it follows that the love for God
cannot be separated from the love for one's parents. If a per-
son does not emerge from incestuous attachment to mother,
clan, nation, if he retains the childish dependence on a
punishing and rewarding father, or any other authority, he
cannot develop a more mature love for God; then his re-

37 Meister Eckhart, op. cit., pp. 181-2.



82 THE ART OF LOVING

ligion is that of the earlier phase of religion, in which
God was experienced as an all-protective mother or a
punishing-rewarding father.

In contemporary religion we find all the phases, from the
earliest and most primitive development to the highest, still
present. The word "God" denotes the tribal chief as well as
the "absolute Nothing.' 5 In the same way, each individual
retains in himself, in his unconscious, as Freud has shown,
all the stages from the helpless infant on. The question is to
what point he has grown. One thing is certain : the nature
of his love for God corresponds to the nature of his love for
man, and furthermore, the real quality of his love for God
and man often is unconscious — covered up and rationalized
by a more mature thought of what his love is. Love for
man, furthermore, while directly embedded in his relations
to his family, is in the last analysis determined by the struc-
ture of the society in which he lives. If the social structure
is one of submission to authority — overt authority or the
anonymous authority of the market and public opinion, his
concept of God must be infantile and far from the mature
concept, the seeds of which are to be found in the history
of monotheistic religion.

[Mudwall Gatewood 3.0]

"At a still later stage man gives his gods the form of human beings. It seems that this can happen only when he has become still more aware of himself, and when he has discovered man as the highest and most dignified "thing" in the world."

Interesting.  Is there another stage, for us as humans, on the horizon?  Are we presently seeing the birth of that stage?  Are we escaping our delusions expressed by Sagan, that of privilege, self-worth, and special position in the universe?   

[Dee-Vo]

I've sort of overextended my reading as of lately. Three books going at once.

I'm struggling to finish John Galligan's fourth and last installment of his fly-fishing mystery series.

I'm trying to find time to make meaningful headway further into Millard's "The River of Doubt."

I'm also reading intermittently, "The Passing of the Night" by Robinson Risner.

With limited time, I have finally finished all three of these.

"The River of Doubt" was highly enjoyable after the first 40 pages or so of political talk.

I'm prospecting for something new. Has anyone read "The Worst Journey in the World"....?

Other suggestions?

[Dee-Vo]

"The Lost City of Z"?

"Into the Wild"?

[driver]

I meant to post this a while back.

Coyote America: A Natural and Supernatural History

This an interesting read. Sheds a lot of light on coyote populations. It is also very bais, in favor of the coyote.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465093728/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517195749&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=coyote+america&dpPl=1&dpID=51sXC5T%2BPwL&ref=plSrch

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk