The machine does a real good job of absorbing and regurgitating counter culture. The best examples, at least in my experience, are from American television. The first was the neutralizing of the Beats, that was finished when Bob Denver, as Maynard G. Krebs, walked into American living rooms in the sitcom Dobie Gillis.
The hippies were subsumed once the major department stores started selling tie-dyed clothing, and Hip-Hop got theirs when Snap, Krackle and Pop hip-hopped their Rice Krispies box across the breakfast table.
It does take that willingness to give all and fail for a path that the machine can not co-opt.
This is exactly why I like what Br. F. is presenting here. An impossible ideal is much more difficult for the machine to co-opt and turn into a product. Which doesn't mean it won't try!
I need to give this essay some more thought. The machine runs to fast at this moment
But I’d gently push back at the assertion that Jack’s prescription lies outside of the Christian tradition. I think it’s its (:) ) deeply buried heart. So deeply buried that the well needs folks to drag the wretched blocking boulders away with their bare hands. Jack’s encouraging this in his take on asceticism. The deep well is Paul’s‘when I am weak, then I am strong’ ‘the Powers come to and End in weakness’ Those who die (to will to power) Live. Kenosis
A river flows or it isn’t a river
But in flowing it’s doing nothing and achieving everything
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that it is outside the tradition; and, obviously, his wider writing is not. Rather that this particular argument isn't dependent on Christian belief, although it is hospitable to it.
There is precedent more broadly - Aquinas made many naturalistic arguments, and is definitely within the Christian tradition - although a naturalistic argument for asceticism in particular is a stranger thing.
Last night I brought a proposal to a Board of an organisation I am in some sense ‘in charge of’ (a hospital my church runs). For weeks I’d lost sleep trying to argue the case for a significant ‘core’ change, to properly deliver what we were originally charged to. The Money said NO!!!! And there was significant opposition because of this
For weeks I’d agonised and lost nights of sleep imagining many great speeches I’d give to persuade. Gradually I was exhausted (active voice). Yesterday afternoon I had nothing left. The will to power, to make it happen was gone.
Apart from moving the motion I hardly spoke
It was passed after about ten minutes
All the useless work (asceticism) exhausted my will to power. Took me out of the picture
Eric- I am definitely writing firmly within the Christian Tradition, particularly the Orthodox Catholic view. As best I can, anyway. But I have also been greatly influenced by other non-Christian traditions, particular philosophical Taoism and Zen. Honestly, I often think the latter gets to the heart of certain aspects of Christianity better than most Christianity, which is why I tend to quote them a lot.
Also, as you point out, there are lot of roadblocks to a reviving a fully realized Christian Contemplative practice. But all the elements are there and many people have been working to revive it. Some with dubious contributions to be sure, but so much good work as well. I recently reread Martin Laird's trilogy of books on Contemplative Prayer. I think they go along way at proposing a lived synthesis of various traditions of Orthodox Catholic silent prayer, including the Philokalia, Meister Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing, St. John of the Cross, St. Theophan the Recluse, etc. It is well worth reading.
I love your story about doing little and the measure you sought was passed. Doing nothing and all things get done!
I’m not sure I’ve ever contributed a comment to your Substack, but I’m a subscriber so am aware of your searching
I’m an Anglican Priest, currently living and working at The End of The World, or the Deep South of New Zealand, however by birth I’m from the North of England. I’ve lived and worked 20+ years in Yorkshire (Flat caps’ territory) - know it well and most of our children were born there.
I agree very much with your comments on Zen etc. Merton of course got this. Reminds me of Lewis’ comment to the effect ‘as Christianity is the truth of everything it is hardly surprising we should find echoes of it in everything’ (Outrageous paraphrase :) ) But, if you know The Song, Everything Resonates!
The Laird Trilogy is Gold
Thank you too for your Hopefulness
Your mention of ‘all the elements’ put me in mind of the opening of After Virtue, and also Iain McGilchrist’s work which is remarkable. Both these sources of course are less than Hopeful :)
Eric- Thank you for subscribing to my substack and your comments here. I hope that what I have to offer will merit your contributions. I make no pretense to having anything other than have one more viewpoint among a billion. My hope, however, is to foster a greater conversation about the difficulties of a contemplative life in a world that seems intent on turning everything upside down. My intuition, and it is mostly just that, says that the status quo has been long over. It is well past time to fathom what might be next.
I hope you are well on the other side of the planet,
Eric- I agree on Merton. He is controversial with many people, but I think he was very much on to something. I can't know where his heart was at before he died and some have gone in strange directions seemingly under his influence. Martin Laird, to me, is the fuller fruit of Merton's life and writing. I think we all can play a small part in enlivening and deepening that. If only by our own practice of silence.
An inspired piece of writing. It brought a few things to the surface for me. Bear with me. That picture of Jesus doesn't show him in his best light. I guess he didn't like his photo being taken. Especially while he was trying to get away from it all for a few days. Talking of which, 40 days asceticism in a lifetime. Then back to hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes and whoever, drinking wine. For me, there are two motivations behind asceticism. 1. Self-loathing, and a general loathing of humanity. An attempt to escape from the facts of incarnation. 2. To better experience connection, to put aside worldly distractions and noise for a while, to pay better attention to the connection to core self and/or the divine, and then to return to the world better able to continue living. You can probably guess which of those two I'm more aligned to. There is a personal narrative behind everyone's positioning on this, I'd wager. The story so far of our relationships with life. Perceived successes and failures. Justifications and rationalisations. Integration and transcendence vs self-denial and renunciation.
David- I cannot imagine a greater misunderstand on your part by false dichotomy as what you present here. Your argument is a straw man, nobody is proposing this false choice. And it is just plain wrong, to boot. Ultimately you will choose as you see fit, as it should be. If this conversation is to be anything other than futile, it may be worth knowing what others are saying, even if you disagree. I think we have been around this circle before at the Abbey of Misrule. -Jack
Hi Jack, I've not engaged with you, or anyone, on this matter on the Abbey of misrule. Anyhow, it seems my words have upset you. For that I am sorry. It is for you to know whether and to what extent you hold a conflicted relationship with your worldly existence. I accept that my phrasing of one motivation, as I see it, for asceticism as driven by "self-loathing and a general loathing of humanity" might come across as harsh. I recognise this aspect in my own make-up, based on familiar feeling of being a fish out of water in this physical life. However, the drive to fully engage with the world is the stronger one in me. For me, either the Divine/God is everywhere, or it is nowhere. When it comes to consideration of the life of Jesus, it seems evident to me that he did not retreat from the world. The Christian practice of retreating, the monastic life, is therefore not based on any example lived by Jesus. Saying that, asceticism has a long tradition in many religions and philosophies. Why? Because it works. So, horses for courses. Jack, for what it's worth, I admire and respect the choice you have made to explore monastic life. In another life I may well make a similar choice. In the spirit of brotherhood, since we both engage in devotional practice, I offer my sincere apologies for anything I say that offends you. David
David- No worries. It didn't upset me. If I myself came across as irritated, it wasn't intended. Sometimes I just get my fight on, which is rarely a good thing. And I apologize for the mistaken identity, there was someone who made a very similar argument at the Abbey of Misrule. I am grateful for your (albeit, unnecessary) apology and offer my own apology in its place if I came off harsh.
Nonetheless, I stick by my statement that yours is a false choice. It is not between self-loathing and some kind of contemplative refreshment to return to the world . There is, as many have attested, a place for radical silence and contemplation. The Desert Fathers, for one, attempt to live quite literally by the injunctions of the Gospel, the ones the rest of us tend to willfully ignore or explain away. See. Matthew 6 and Luke 12:23-34. These are among the passages that inspire retreat from the world of ambition and getting and spending. Selling all you have and giving alms, for example.
I would add that in asceticism, such as fasting, there is a very real sense of embodiment and joy. It is in the worldly grind that life becomes disincarnate and ghostly. It is in life of material consumption that I see self-loathing and despair. As surprising as this may sound.
But one of the problems with all this talk is the kaleidoscopic whirl of interpretations that is an inevitable part of our fragmented world. The Bible, for example, is a huge book. I have heard people justify all sorts of contradictory and often disturbing positions by quoting the Bible. Sometimes I think that there is no book that has separated more people than the Bible. For what it is worth, I have no intention in getting into a Bible citation contest with anyone.
But there is also a larger point that is clarified in this post. Much of what I am proposing is founded on the assumption that the Arsenios Option will not simply be a matter of a preferred lifestyle choice, i.e, that we are instead facing a fundamental meta-crisis and we won't really get to choose. We are going to face this whether we like it or not.
This is by no means 100% certain, but I am not alone in sensing this. In fact, I truly *hope* I am wrong and a different way through can be found. I am just not optimistic in that sense. There is a fundamental shift happening and I think many of us can sense this. My basis for the Arsenios Option is summed up in various places, particular in the last paragraph of this post. But the pith of what I am assuming is well-expressed here:
1. Our society operates in counter-productive ways that are so detrimental to us that they inhibit our ability to live fully human lives.
2. The source of these counter-productive ways of being, or at least the reason they are omnipresent, is our own will-to-power.
3. Therefore these counter-productive ways of being cannot be addressed by ambitious social programs or normal politics. Such approaches nurture will-to-power and ‘the more we try to extend our will-to-power into the world of ambition the less human we are, and the more we atrophy’.
4. This atrophying of our humanity can only be addressed at the root, with an ascetic training regime that subdues the will-to-power itself. This is each individual’s first task, although ‘we can help each other’.
If the above isn't true--if we aren't in an unavoidable meta-crisis-- then the Arsenios Option can be largely ignored, but for eccentrics. But if, as the post states, the desert is coming for all of us, then the Arsenios Option is simply a prudent preparation. Well overdue, I might add. We all will have to decide this for ourselves. If nothing else it is clear that little now is clear. I am only offering what I see, as painfully limited as that is. -Jack
One of the best and most practically encouraging essays I have ever read. Thank you so much! This whole exchange has been really helpful. God bless you.
My guess is that what you both are writing about is what is actually happening and will increasingly be the experience. Food, water, shelter, social decencies and social interaction are necessities not options for those with responsibilities. And trying to make sense of the work involved is part of the deal, which does not leave a lot of wiggle room. The machine will not provide the sense, and no 'answer' will be an answer. There will be help along the way, but of the provisional kind, time to take a breather and be grateful. I don't see it stopping.
I think you have said a lot of what I had in mind in your reply to David a few hours later. My paragraph was written in one go and a lot was flashing in my mind as I wrote, so I guess I will need to unpack it some more if only for my own sake. And there is always a lot more to be done, materially as well as the ongoing search for good sense.
I agree that many of us sense the dead-end, and the impossibility of credible extrapolation. Trying to make sense of my work had serious limitations, and looking back it still has. (I still dream about it.) But it has become a habit. I guess others are in the same position albeit at a younger age. Kingsnorth like others has looked for location for his family. There are verities in our biological life and our inheritance. Maybe our ancestors still pray for us. I share his sense that past good lives have left some essence in place that outweighs past dread. It helps bear the heavy ironies of present positions and makes for a lighter heart.
Despite my failings and lack of good sense, help has come, including occasionally the circumstance of death. I can't justify it on my own or on behalf of others for whom I incurred responsibility, nor explain the helping hand or from whence it came, whether from the living or dead, human or other. Nor do I have any idea where or why it was withheld. Sacrifice is too big a subject for me to have a belief. Sometimes though there were others who took the strain and gave us a break.
Some really excellent developments of the concept here - I like how you say an ideal has to be impossible to not be assimilated into the Machine.
I don't think that's entirely true, but I think that gets at something true and extremely important.
But I must disagree with your conclusion, that asceticism does not benefit the individual practicing it. Jack also says otherwise.
If our will to power is what separates us from God, understood not as some demanding autocrat in the sky but as the source of all being, wonder, and mystery, then living an ascetic life connects you to wonder, magic, and mystery in a deep way.
And this has to be tested in experience, not theory. When I strive to live more "simply", I find myself opening up to the magic and mystery of life, to a sense of wonder. And arguably, this sense of the "sacred" is what we are all after.
It is also a question of degree, and not necessarily an impossible, formless ideal - although I find that concept useful, as I said.
It is also important to point out in this connection that ascetcism that becomes "extreme" is actually an exercise in will to power - and this has always been known since ancient times in spiritual traditions.
The Buddha explicitly rejected extreme asceticism, after having tried it and excelled in it.
True ascetcism lies at the "still center", and avoids extremes. If this is true, them true ascetcism is neither formless nor impossible.
Surely, the Machine can easily assimilate extreme ascetcism and make it into a product, a fashionable lifestyle, etc, because they are both forms of will to power.
But simplicity? Inhabiting the still center, which isn't flashy or glamorous? I am not su sure!
My point was not that asceticism does not benefit the ascetic. I'm happy to defer to others on that point.
My point was that any benefit to the ascetic may not be its purpose if it is understood as a virtue. Such benefit is incidental: the line 'but politically, and perhaps spiritually, these benefits are beside the point' is key to the last paragraph.
All the same. Thanks for your comment, and I would completely agree about extreme asceticism being an exercise of will-to-power. Absolute commitment should not imply extreme practices; and virtues, by definition, must avoid such practices.
Here is a quotation from Voillaume's book. The second half of the book, from which this quote is taken, comprises retreast notes given by Fr Voillaume to those about to take their final vows as Little Brothers.
"In order to avoid self-indulgent reversions, your offerings in immolation should be made with your eyes fixed on Jesus' Cross and not on your own. By getting away from yourselves you will lighten your own sufferings (partly by forgetting them) and you can really then offer them up with greater freedom. For, you must always remember, it is not the suffering or the trouble itself that has redemptive virtue, but the attitude of oblation in it, the love it arouses, and the degree to which it is united with the Passion of Christ. The natural flow of our life as Little Brothers, is for our inclusion, with all our personal sufferings in the great current of Jesus' Passion, and the passion of the world."
The knock out punch comes with those last words, " and the passion of the world".
Brilliant quote. But, you are killing me here, I am trying to buy *fewer* books. Alas.
First though, I am going to go further down some of paths suggested by Br. F here, i.e. Kierkegaard, Illich etc. Also, understanding Jacques Ellul's thought on propaganda and the technological society.
I have a habit of expressing myself in a short-hand that is unhelpful. I apologise. With respect to Paul Kingsnorth I meant, simply, to suggest that the notion of 'disordered desires' seems to sit at the heart of his thought. Such being the case it seemed but a small step to imagine how something called 'ascetic practice' might be conceived of as means of ridding one's 'self' of that kind of burden.
I keep reading these pieces and sensing that, without realising it, I’ve been orienting slightly towards the concepts described.
But, what I then notice is that I’m slightly afraid of exploring them (in public) from the perspective of personal experience because they have already been so articulately described.
Mike- The more of us who explore these topics the better. We each try to make the best contribution we can. And we all fall short. Doing so honestly, though, can only help all of us. For what it’s worth. -Jack
(1) Unlike you, I think this argument is close to that offered by Paul Kingsnorth with respect to his analysis of the roots of our contemporary crises; at least insofar as these are traced to the desire to sack God and appoint ourselves as the Arbiter of All Desire.
(2) Like you. although for different reasons, I am a little uncomfortable with idea of the 'will to power'.
(3) I think that although there is nothing wrong with 'asceticism' in theory or in practice, it is an unfortunate choice, here.
(4) It would have been useful, in a Christian sense, to ground the argument in Christ's kenosis; and to proceed, from there to talk in terms of 'self-emptying' in the pursuit of humility.
(5) I can only recommend St Charles de Foucauld as a model. And to suggest that a slim book by the first superior of the Little Brothers of Jesus, (based on the life of the saint), The Seeds of the Desert, as worth reading in this regard.
Many thanks, from an (almost) loyal, (somewhat) critical, (more-or-less) conventional Roman Catholic Yorkshire Man
John- Yes, I think fundamentally Paul and I see things similarly. We have many of the same influences I think and are both Gen X'ers. I think that asceticism is being used here in a broader sense of "training". I liken it overall to any other type of discipline or training. Contra to other commenters here who seem to think the spiritual life is easy, most of the time it is a struggle. We are so programmed on many different levels to seek our own comfort and are prone to impervious rationalization and even delusion. The long Christian experience--as well as in other monastic/ascetic traditions--is that normally realization takes a good, long time. It is better to not try and gauge "progress" as that is a trick of the ego. Those who think it is easy or instantaneous are largely fooling themselves.
I have been left alone for a day or so here at the monastery. A perfect time to contemplate in silence and to contemplate silence. I hope that I can finally get a new post out. We shall see.
You are the second person this week to recommend St. Charles de Foucauld. I take that as a nudge to read him. He is on the list!
Thanks. I don't think Paul Kingsnorth has grappled in his writing with asceticism in the way Jack has, or not yet; but the real distinction I was drawing was the unusual austerity of what I perceived as Jack's given rationale for asceticism, it's openness to a wide range of metaphysical presuppositions. I'd agree the two are compatible in the broader sense.
Although not coming from a Christian perspective, I'd agree on the importance of humility and self-emptying and that we haven't touched on it at all.
Brother F- Yes. Though I write within the Christian tradition, I have deliberately sought to present my thoughts in a broader context. There are enough small-minded zealots--of all stripes, religious and secular--grinding out narrow arguments. How does that help?
My hope, which will surely fail, is to offer something that people from many different perspectives can find helpful. I hadn't thought that an atheist would take something from it, but I find that encouraging and have zero problem if they did. In the end, I am enough of a postmodernist to realize that total agreement is a pipe dream. So I do the best I can. It helps that I don't expect much...
Thank you for your summary of my argument in this post. I couldn't have asked for a better one. This conversation has been very clarifying for me.
Thank you for saying so. I was trying to understand and describe your position accurately, but there was (inevitably) the worry that I had completely missed the point.
I don't think you missed the point at all. If anything you brought it out explicity, where I try to write more implicitly. My hope is that ultimately it seeps in better by avoiding psychological defense. It is good to have your summary, because the downside of writing implicitly is that people do often miss the point and project their own understanding rather than actually disagreeing from what one is saying. So now it is clear.
Really, unless one sees our current situation as dire, both individually and collectively, my argument makes little sense for most people. It hinges on the intuition that the desert is coming for all of us. You got that point exactly. Thank you for that. -Jack
I was thinking that the return from the desert might sometimes be completely intentional. When you have something as experiential and embodied as ascetic practice there's a need for constant little reminders of what actions, thoughts, deeds, feel a certain way. Maybe to build up a Pavlovian response to sin? Or to finesse feelings of being close to God? The sinning is part of the practice.
Liam- I think most of us aren't called to a more literal desert, but I also resist turning the desert into a form of "getaway" from life so as to return refreshed. The desert, wherever one finds it, is a radical facing of oneself and all the disordered attachments and passions we can so easily avoid in the world. Not only avoid but our disordered passions flourish in the world. This flourishing of delusion and greed is the fuel the machine runs on.
The church I serve at is made of the homeless and former homeless and the addicted and formerly addicted, the criminal and former criminal with a few that don’t fit those categories. It serves those of similar ilk and provides material and spiritual help to the “least, the last, and the lost” The pastor looks like a bearded, bald, tattooed, big bellied viking. He has a horrendous past of prison, violence and crime, and yet has gained the ear of our mayor and the city council. This essay and Leahy’s essay for me is an erudite spiritual intellectualism, an empty soup of no value or nutrition to me and my fellow knowers of God.
It is a fair remark, but as I am writing from a post-Christian perspective (see the 'Without Saints' article - https://flatcapsandfatalism.substack.com/p/without-saints ), I would not have advised you to read my newsletter in order to help you in your knowing of God at all. I do not offer what I do not have.
I agree about the emptiness of intellectualism, these essays solve nothing; but, and I have some experience, I would add that the world of mayors and councils is also ultimately empty. Nothing on the scale these essays discuss, the scale of society as a whole, will be solved there or, indeed, in parliaments, boardrooms, or charitable meetings of the great and good.
'Fatalism' is in the title of this newsletter for a reason.
You may say, then, that it is best to concentrate on the little good, person-to-person, that you can do; and I would agree in a way and disagree in a way. That is a bigger topic., though.
“Concentrate on the little good, person-to-person, that you can do” the fate and mission of the vast majority, love your neighbor you know, a few of us can work on a bigger scale, the rest of us jawbone about the big picture, perhaps vote, donate, sign a petition or two. According to Jesus things don’t end well here, which may be the times we live in. So we “look forward to a new heaven and new earth, the home of righteousness” 2 Peter 3:13
It is a valid perspective, and I would like more people to share it with you; but I disagree on all almost all the details: I do not think anyone can ever do good on the bigger scale, I think doing good on even the small scale is very difficult much of the time, and I have neither faith nor hope for anything beyond this life.
To be so certain that one is doing good, even on a small scale, is subject to great delusion. It is far easier to do harm, with the best of intentions, than to actually help. Often this kind of altruism is more purely in the domain of egotism than anything else. Best to tread lightly and seek humility in all things. In emptying ourselves of agendas we can better respond to the actual person in front of us, rather than from an ideology. We are all broken.
I agree with Br. F. that large scale "doing good" is almost certain to harm. I am allergic to participating in such. -Jack
Doing good is that difficult and subject to great delusion!?!? What soul crippling angst. I see kindness and good deeds continually in my fellow humans in my part of the world.
It is clear we simply see the world differently, Jeff. Why argue about it? Remember, you're the one coming here and to my substack. Why is that? You can start your own substack, and I promise never to visit it.
And I will add that the Nietzschean idea of the "masked will-to-power" should be taken very seriously. Our altruism is often a form of domination. Without a deep asceticism we would be unlikely to see that.
Though it may make the fundamentalists wail, we need to fathom a post-Christian Christianity. The current quickly dying Imperial Christianity is largely kidding itself. Maybe Feuerbach was onto something...
Might "erudite spiritual intellectualism" be gainfully married to practical Christian action? Why write 3 Gospels that tell much the same story (the Synoptics) and then a random Fourth Gospel from another perspective? Perhaps different people need to hear and heed in different ways; thus different story-tellers. I hail from the Johannine tribe, others Matthean, others Lukan, and still others Markan, but we are of one family.
Augustine resisted converting to Christianity because he thought the Bible trashily written, in bad Latin. He was right, as the translation at his time from the Greek and the Hebrew was trash and no rival of the classical Latin authors. (This was before Jerome's Vulgate, which was also problematic, but I digress.) It was not until he met Ambrose that he was taught to look beyond the simple language, even in the Greek, to the beautiful depth of the fingers pointing to the moon. How wonderful that we come to spiritual fruit from different trees!
Br. Nose- If I gather correctly you are writing from the hope that disparate viewpoints can be reconciled? Correct me if I am wrong. This is an admirable impulse, I held it once myself. At this point, I think it is impossible, both conceptually impossible as well as just psychologically and sociologically impossible. I think factionalism and conflict are, alas, simply baked into the cake of human existence.
The question is how to best respond to this reality. For myself, I do try to take an integral, irenic approach as much as I can. I would much rather have a fruitful conversation with those with whom I fundamentally disagree than to do otherwise. Realistically, I do think that is always possible as not one of us has the full, comprehensive view, though we try. Even so, there are always conflicting attempts at a larger, comprehensive view. So it goes. I am, when necessary, ready to engage in polemics. I would rather not, though.
But that said, I am thankful for your contributions.
I do think that disparate viewpoints can be reconciled, sometimes. I also think that conflict is unavoidable.
I try to do things as I am inspired to do so (not without discerment and thought) with little attachment to the potential results. I think that Gandhi said something about this, but I can't currently find the quote. It is always fruitful for myself, however, as I am sharing with others and it even may bear fruit that I am wholly unaware of, who's to say? I know that it bears fruit in me as I learn about another person, perspective, and way of life.
It was the concept of the via media that changed my life as a teenager. For one small isolated example, in war and peace, we often hear of the hawk and the dove. What is often unheard of is the owl, a via media between that mostly leans toward the dove, but will join with the hawk as is necessary. The decision is made through discernment and prayer.
Col 3:12 ff. is one example, and really that entire chapter. Another is the Beatitudes (the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain). Try your best and give the rest over to God.
That isn't always clear to me. But the best I can say is that I am trying to offer it on substack. A good part of that is trying to understand what that means. So my path is 1) Flee the world (of distractions, at least). Be silent (post forthcoming). Dwell in Stillness.
I don't yet know how compatible that is with maintaining a substack, but this where I am at right now. As I say repeatedly, I think we are in a radically unprecedented situation as a civilization. What is a contemplative life in a radically technological age? And how to do that in a technological society of surveillance, distraction, AI, genetic manipulation, propaganda, etc., etc. on and on.
You have mentioned Merton. It is known that he read Jacques Ellul and Gabriel Marcel, etc. His understanding of contemplation in a technological civilization is not, as far as I know, fully fleshed out in his writing, but as time goes on it is increasingly a part of his understanding of the contemplative life. This is expressed in more often in small asides to the main theme.
I don't know how many people have picked up on that part of his work. In my own little way, I am trying to pick that them up more explicitly.
Needless to say, I am no Merton. But I think conversations like these might help to shed a little light in our dark world.
I don't know if that answers your question. Anyway, I hope you are well. -Jack
Br. Nose- Interestingly, in your comment you reconciled the via media with the not via media. I can see this is deep in your way of thinking. I hope we can continue this type of conversation here and elsewhere. -Jack
Br. Nose- No great insight on my part here. Just that you conception of the via media include the balance (via media) of knowing when the via media will work and that it sometimes doesn't, i.e., between the dove and the hawk.
I don't see why we won't be able to continue the conversation. What is it that is lacking in your current practice? Why might maintaining your Substack be at odds with silence and contemplation? At a certain point, contemplation must birth action, or else it becomes ever subtler ruminations of the ego. The rub is to properly discern action and vocation. It is also important to establish a rule, or routine, to properly order spiritual practices, rest, 'unrelated' hobbies, and study.
Also, contemplation is possible in action. The return to solitude and silence is indeed always necessary, but some contemplative practices can be and should be exercised while in action, such as nepsis/watchfulness, recollection, prayers of the heart, and ceaseless prayer.
As for the technological age, Merton may have writings of which I am unaware. I am by no means an expert, but I can urge you to look into Merton on Pasternak. George Grant wrote extensively about modernity and technology, but from a pre-modern, Classical Western philosophical perspective.
As for surveillance, I would encourage you to look into the history of privacy. It seems as if this is a good primer on the subject:
As for genetic manipulation, I am not sure if you mean plants, or people. Either way, problematic for sure. A good discussion with a biologist may be in order. Oddly enough, genetic manipulation in people is discussed in that YA classic, the Divergent series.
AI is probably pretty scary, but we have Will Smith to save us. If that doesn't work, there is always Keanu Reeves. If that doesn't work, faith, hope, and love. Also, Mt 6:33-34.
Br. Nose- Continuing the discussion, which I find fruitful, is mostly a question of time. That’s all. Monastic life, even for a non-monk like me, isn't designed for the maintaining of blogs. The Abbot has kindly let me take time to do this. It is still a juggling act. But as long as people keep showing up I will keep at as best I can. -Jack
Thank you. I have been a long-time reade of and grappler with Gabriel Marcel. It seems almost impossible that he wasn't a big influence on Ellul. My hope is that Elull extends Marcel's thought in ways that don't seem fully fleshed out. We shall see!
The machine does a real good job of absorbing and regurgitating counter culture. The best examples, at least in my experience, are from American television. The first was the neutralizing of the Beats, that was finished when Bob Denver, as Maynard G. Krebs, walked into American living rooms in the sitcom Dobie Gillis.
The hippies were subsumed once the major department stores started selling tie-dyed clothing, and Hip-Hop got theirs when Snap, Krackle and Pop hip-hopped their Rice Krispies box across the breakfast table.
It does take that willingness to give all and fail for a path that the machine can not co-opt.
This is exactly why I like what Br. F. is presenting here. An impossible ideal is much more difficult for the machine to co-opt and turn into a product. Which doesn't mean it won't try!
I need to give this essay some more thought. The machine runs to fast at this moment
But I’d gently push back at the assertion that Jack’s prescription lies outside of the Christian tradition. I think it’s its (:) ) deeply buried heart. So deeply buried that the well needs folks to drag the wretched blocking boulders away with their bare hands. Jack’s encouraging this in his take on asceticism. The deep well is Paul’s‘when I am weak, then I am strong’ ‘the Powers come to and End in weakness’ Those who die (to will to power) Live. Kenosis
A river flows or it isn’t a river
But in flowing it’s doing nothing and achieving everything
Ramble
Ramble
Thanks FFlatcaps
God Bless the White Rose
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that it is outside the tradition; and, obviously, his wider writing is not. Rather that this particular argument isn't dependent on Christian belief, although it is hospitable to it.
There is precedent more broadly - Aquinas made many naturalistic arguments, and is definitely within the Christian tradition - although a naturalistic argument for asceticism in particular is a stranger thing.
Brief case in point
Last night I brought a proposal to a Board of an organisation I am in some sense ‘in charge of’ (a hospital my church runs). For weeks I’d lost sleep trying to argue the case for a significant ‘core’ change, to properly deliver what we were originally charged to. The Money said NO!!!! And there was significant opposition because of this
For weeks I’d agonised and lost nights of sleep imagining many great speeches I’d give to persuade. Gradually I was exhausted (active voice). Yesterday afternoon I had nothing left. The will to power, to make it happen was gone.
Apart from moving the motion I hardly spoke
It was passed after about ten minutes
All the useless work (asceticism) exhausted my will to power. Took me out of the picture
Stuff, Good stuff, happened.
Do justly, love mercy, walk in humility
Thanks for this story. I think we all tend to underestimate the power of silence.
Put another way ‘I removed (middle voice) myself’
Eric- I am definitely writing firmly within the Christian Tradition, particularly the Orthodox Catholic view. As best I can, anyway. But I have also been greatly influenced by other non-Christian traditions, particular philosophical Taoism and Zen. Honestly, I often think the latter gets to the heart of certain aspects of Christianity better than most Christianity, which is why I tend to quote them a lot.
Also, as you point out, there are lot of roadblocks to a reviving a fully realized Christian Contemplative practice. But all the elements are there and many people have been working to revive it. Some with dubious contributions to be sure, but so much good work as well. I recently reread Martin Laird's trilogy of books on Contemplative Prayer. I think they go along way at proposing a lived synthesis of various traditions of Orthodox Catholic silent prayer, including the Philokalia, Meister Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing, St. John of the Cross, St. Theophan the Recluse, etc. It is well worth reading.
I love your story about doing little and the measure you sought was passed. Doing nothing and all things get done!
I hope you are well.
-Jack
Hello Jack
Grace and Peace
Thank you for your kind wishes - very touching
I’m not sure I’ve ever contributed a comment to your Substack, but I’m a subscriber so am aware of your searching
I’m an Anglican Priest, currently living and working at The End of The World, or the Deep South of New Zealand, however by birth I’m from the North of England. I’ve lived and worked 20+ years in Yorkshire (Flat caps’ territory) - know it well and most of our children were born there.
I agree very much with your comments on Zen etc. Merton of course got this. Reminds me of Lewis’ comment to the effect ‘as Christianity is the truth of everything it is hardly surprising we should find echoes of it in everything’ (Outrageous paraphrase :) ) But, if you know The Song, Everything Resonates!
The Laird Trilogy is Gold
Thank you too for your Hopefulness
Your mention of ‘all the elements’ put me in mind of the opening of After Virtue, and also Iain McGilchrist’s work which is remarkable. Both these sources of course are less than Hopeful :)
Blessings on your Day
- Eric
Eric- Thank you for subscribing to my substack and your comments here. I hope that what I have to offer will merit your contributions. I make no pretense to having anything other than have one more viewpoint among a billion. My hope, however, is to foster a greater conversation about the difficulties of a contemplative life in a world that seems intent on turning everything upside down. My intuition, and it is mostly just that, says that the status quo has been long over. It is well past time to fathom what might be next.
I hope you are well on the other side of the planet,
Jack
Eric- I agree on Merton. He is controversial with many people, but I think he was very much on to something. I can't know where his heart was at before he died and some have gone in strange directions seemingly under his influence. Martin Laird, to me, is the fuller fruit of Merton's life and writing. I think we all can play a small part in enlivening and deepening that. If only by our own practice of silence.
For what it's worth,
-Jack
An inspired piece of writing. It brought a few things to the surface for me. Bear with me. That picture of Jesus doesn't show him in his best light. I guess he didn't like his photo being taken. Especially while he was trying to get away from it all for a few days. Talking of which, 40 days asceticism in a lifetime. Then back to hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes and whoever, drinking wine. For me, there are two motivations behind asceticism. 1. Self-loathing, and a general loathing of humanity. An attempt to escape from the facts of incarnation. 2. To better experience connection, to put aside worldly distractions and noise for a while, to pay better attention to the connection to core self and/or the divine, and then to return to the world better able to continue living. You can probably guess which of those two I'm more aligned to. There is a personal narrative behind everyone's positioning on this, I'd wager. The story so far of our relationships with life. Perceived successes and failures. Justifications and rationalisations. Integration and transcendence vs self-denial and renunciation.
I think, perhaps, it does show him in his best light, entirely human; but what do I know? ;)
David- I cannot imagine a greater misunderstand on your part by false dichotomy as what you present here. Your argument is a straw man, nobody is proposing this false choice. And it is just plain wrong, to boot. Ultimately you will choose as you see fit, as it should be. If this conversation is to be anything other than futile, it may be worth knowing what others are saying, even if you disagree. I think we have been around this circle before at the Abbey of Misrule. -Jack
Hi Jack, I've not engaged with you, or anyone, on this matter on the Abbey of misrule. Anyhow, it seems my words have upset you. For that I am sorry. It is for you to know whether and to what extent you hold a conflicted relationship with your worldly existence. I accept that my phrasing of one motivation, as I see it, for asceticism as driven by "self-loathing and a general loathing of humanity" might come across as harsh. I recognise this aspect in my own make-up, based on familiar feeling of being a fish out of water in this physical life. However, the drive to fully engage with the world is the stronger one in me. For me, either the Divine/God is everywhere, or it is nowhere. When it comes to consideration of the life of Jesus, it seems evident to me that he did not retreat from the world. The Christian practice of retreating, the monastic life, is therefore not based on any example lived by Jesus. Saying that, asceticism has a long tradition in many religions and philosophies. Why? Because it works. So, horses for courses. Jack, for what it's worth, I admire and respect the choice you have made to explore monastic life. In another life I may well make a similar choice. In the spirit of brotherhood, since we both engage in devotional practice, I offer my sincere apologies for anything I say that offends you. David
David- No worries. It didn't upset me. If I myself came across as irritated, it wasn't intended. Sometimes I just get my fight on, which is rarely a good thing. And I apologize for the mistaken identity, there was someone who made a very similar argument at the Abbey of Misrule. I am grateful for your (albeit, unnecessary) apology and offer my own apology in its place if I came off harsh.
Nonetheless, I stick by my statement that yours is a false choice. It is not between self-loathing and some kind of contemplative refreshment to return to the world . There is, as many have attested, a place for radical silence and contemplation. The Desert Fathers, for one, attempt to live quite literally by the injunctions of the Gospel, the ones the rest of us tend to willfully ignore or explain away. See. Matthew 6 and Luke 12:23-34. These are among the passages that inspire retreat from the world of ambition and getting and spending. Selling all you have and giving alms, for example.
I would add that in asceticism, such as fasting, there is a very real sense of embodiment and joy. It is in the worldly grind that life becomes disincarnate and ghostly. It is in life of material consumption that I see self-loathing and despair. As surprising as this may sound.
But one of the problems with all this talk is the kaleidoscopic whirl of interpretations that is an inevitable part of our fragmented world. The Bible, for example, is a huge book. I have heard people justify all sorts of contradictory and often disturbing positions by quoting the Bible. Sometimes I think that there is no book that has separated more people than the Bible. For what it is worth, I have no intention in getting into a Bible citation contest with anyone.
I hope you are well. -Jack
But there is also a larger point that is clarified in this post. Much of what I am proposing is founded on the assumption that the Arsenios Option will not simply be a matter of a preferred lifestyle choice, i.e, that we are instead facing a fundamental meta-crisis and we won't really get to choose. We are going to face this whether we like it or not.
This is by no means 100% certain, but I am not alone in sensing this. In fact, I truly *hope* I am wrong and a different way through can be found. I am just not optimistic in that sense. There is a fundamental shift happening and I think many of us can sense this. My basis for the Arsenios Option is summed up in various places, particular in the last paragraph of this post. But the pith of what I am assuming is well-expressed here:
1. Our society operates in counter-productive ways that are so detrimental to us that they inhibit our ability to live fully human lives.
2. The source of these counter-productive ways of being, or at least the reason they are omnipresent, is our own will-to-power.
3. Therefore these counter-productive ways of being cannot be addressed by ambitious social programs or normal politics. Such approaches nurture will-to-power and ‘the more we try to extend our will-to-power into the world of ambition the less human we are, and the more we atrophy’.
4. This atrophying of our humanity can only be addressed at the root, with an ascetic training regime that subdues the will-to-power itself. This is each individual’s first task, although ‘we can help each other’.
If the above isn't true--if we aren't in an unavoidable meta-crisis-- then the Arsenios Option can be largely ignored, but for eccentrics. But if, as the post states, the desert is coming for all of us, then the Arsenios Option is simply a prudent preparation. Well overdue, I might add. We all will have to decide this for ourselves. If nothing else it is clear that little now is clear. I am only offering what I see, as painfully limited as that is. -Jack
One of the best and most practically encouraging essays I have ever read. Thank you so much! This whole exchange has been really helpful. God bless you.
My guess is that what you both are writing about is what is actually happening and will increasingly be the experience. Food, water, shelter, social decencies and social interaction are necessities not options for those with responsibilities. And trying to make sense of the work involved is part of the deal, which does not leave a lot of wiggle room. The machine will not provide the sense, and no 'answer' will be an answer. There will be help along the way, but of the provisional kind, time to take a breather and be grateful. I don't see it stopping.
Philip -I would be interested in you fleshing out this comment because I find it intriguing. -Jack
Jack
I think you have said a lot of what I had in mind in your reply to David a few hours later. My paragraph was written in one go and a lot was flashing in my mind as I wrote, so I guess I will need to unpack it some more if only for my own sake. And there is always a lot more to be done, materially as well as the ongoing search for good sense.
I agree that many of us sense the dead-end, and the impossibility of credible extrapolation. Trying to make sense of my work had serious limitations, and looking back it still has. (I still dream about it.) But it has become a habit. I guess others are in the same position albeit at a younger age. Kingsnorth like others has looked for location for his family. There are verities in our biological life and our inheritance. Maybe our ancestors still pray for us. I share his sense that past good lives have left some essence in place that outweighs past dread. It helps bear the heavy ironies of present positions and makes for a lighter heart.
Despite my failings and lack of good sense, help has come, including occasionally the circumstance of death. I can't justify it on my own or on behalf of others for whom I incurred responsibility, nor explain the helping hand or from whence it came, whether from the living or dead, human or other. Nor do I have any idea where or why it was withheld. Sacrifice is too big a subject for me to have a belief. Sometimes though there were others who took the strain and gave us a break.
Some really excellent developments of the concept here - I like how you say an ideal has to be impossible to not be assimilated into the Machine.
I don't think that's entirely true, but I think that gets at something true and extremely important.
But I must disagree with your conclusion, that asceticism does not benefit the individual practicing it. Jack also says otherwise.
If our will to power is what separates us from God, understood not as some demanding autocrat in the sky but as the source of all being, wonder, and mystery, then living an ascetic life connects you to wonder, magic, and mystery in a deep way.
And this has to be tested in experience, not theory. When I strive to live more "simply", I find myself opening up to the magic and mystery of life, to a sense of wonder. And arguably, this sense of the "sacred" is what we are all after.
It is also a question of degree, and not necessarily an impossible, formless ideal - although I find that concept useful, as I said.
It is also important to point out in this connection that ascetcism that becomes "extreme" is actually an exercise in will to power - and this has always been known since ancient times in spiritual traditions.
The Buddha explicitly rejected extreme asceticism, after having tried it and excelled in it.
True ascetcism lies at the "still center", and avoids extremes. If this is true, them true ascetcism is neither formless nor impossible.
Surely, the Machine can easily assimilate extreme ascetcism and make it into a product, a fashionable lifestyle, etc, because they are both forms of will to power.
But simplicity? Inhabiting the still center, which isn't flashy or glamorous? I am not su sure!
My point was not that asceticism does not benefit the ascetic. I'm happy to defer to others on that point.
My point was that any benefit to the ascetic may not be its purpose if it is understood as a virtue. Such benefit is incidental: the line 'but politically, and perhaps spiritually, these benefits are beside the point' is key to the last paragraph.
All the same. Thanks for your comment, and I would completely agree about extreme asceticism being an exercise of will-to-power. Absolute commitment should not imply extreme practices; and virtues, by definition, must avoid such practices.
Remarkable article and very helpful.
Truly so.
Here is a quotation from Voillaume's book. The second half of the book, from which this quote is taken, comprises retreast notes given by Fr Voillaume to those about to take their final vows as Little Brothers.
"In order to avoid self-indulgent reversions, your offerings in immolation should be made with your eyes fixed on Jesus' Cross and not on your own. By getting away from yourselves you will lighten your own sufferings (partly by forgetting them) and you can really then offer them up with greater freedom. For, you must always remember, it is not the suffering or the trouble itself that has redemptive virtue, but the attitude of oblation in it, the love it arouses, and the degree to which it is united with the Passion of Christ. The natural flow of our life as Little Brothers, is for our inclusion, with all our personal sufferings in the great current of Jesus' Passion, and the passion of the world."
The knock out punch comes with those last words, " and the passion of the world".
Brilliant quote. But, you are killing me here, I am trying to buy *fewer* books. Alas.
First though, I am going to go further down some of paths suggested by Br. F here, i.e. Kierkegaard, Illich etc. Also, understanding Jacques Ellul's thought on propaganda and the technological society.
I have a habit of expressing myself in a short-hand that is unhelpful. I apologise. With respect to Paul Kingsnorth I meant, simply, to suggest that the notion of 'disordered desires' seems to sit at the heart of his thought. Such being the case it seemed but a small step to imagine how something called 'ascetic practice' might be conceived of as means of ridding one's 'self' of that kind of burden.
No need to apologise: I think that's just a danger of the 'commenting' medium. I think your point is valid.
John- I think this is exactly right. -Jack
I keep reading these pieces and sensing that, without realising it, I’ve been orienting slightly towards the concepts described.
But, what I then notice is that I’m slightly afraid of exploring them (in public) from the perspective of personal experience because they have already been so articulately described.
Still, I have loved this essay exchange.
Mike- The more of us who explore these topics the better. We each try to make the best contribution we can. And we all fall short. Doing so honestly, though, can only help all of us. For what it’s worth. -Jack
Thanks Jack, I’ll try not to feel too self-conscious in my efforts
I would second what Jack has said. There's little reason to be inhibited, my point about the infinity of failure certainly applies to my own writing.
Thoughtful & thought-provoking. First thoughts:
(1) Unlike you, I think this argument is close to that offered by Paul Kingsnorth with respect to his analysis of the roots of our contemporary crises; at least insofar as these are traced to the desire to sack God and appoint ourselves as the Arbiter of All Desire.
(2) Like you. although for different reasons, I am a little uncomfortable with idea of the 'will to power'.
(3) I think that although there is nothing wrong with 'asceticism' in theory or in practice, it is an unfortunate choice, here.
(4) It would have been useful, in a Christian sense, to ground the argument in Christ's kenosis; and to proceed, from there to talk in terms of 'self-emptying' in the pursuit of humility.
(5) I can only recommend St Charles de Foucauld as a model. And to suggest that a slim book by the first superior of the Little Brothers of Jesus, (based on the life of the saint), The Seeds of the Desert, as worth reading in this regard.
Many thanks, from an (almost) loyal, (somewhat) critical, (more-or-less) conventional Roman Catholic Yorkshire Man
John- I am working on a reply in which I hope to address some of what you bring up in this comment. Kenosis, for example. Thank you. -Jack
Don't mention it. My pleasure. Just signed up today. I meant to say that the book, Seeds of the Desert, was written by Rene Voillaume.
John- Yes, I think fundamentally Paul and I see things similarly. We have many of the same influences I think and are both Gen X'ers. I think that asceticism is being used here in a broader sense of "training". I liken it overall to any other type of discipline or training. Contra to other commenters here who seem to think the spiritual life is easy, most of the time it is a struggle. We are so programmed on many different levels to seek our own comfort and are prone to impervious rationalization and even delusion. The long Christian experience--as well as in other monastic/ascetic traditions--is that normally realization takes a good, long time. It is better to not try and gauge "progress" as that is a trick of the ego. Those who think it is easy or instantaneous are largely fooling themselves.
I have been left alone for a day or so here at the monastery. A perfect time to contemplate in silence and to contemplate silence. I hope that I can finally get a new post out. We shall see.
You are the second person this week to recommend St. Charles de Foucauld. I take that as a nudge to read him. He is on the list!
Thank you. -Jack
Thanks. I don't think Paul Kingsnorth has grappled in his writing with asceticism in the way Jack has, or not yet; but the real distinction I was drawing was the unusual austerity of what I perceived as Jack's given rationale for asceticism, it's openness to a wide range of metaphysical presuppositions. I'd agree the two are compatible in the broader sense.
Although not coming from a Christian perspective, I'd agree on the importance of humility and self-emptying and that we haven't touched on it at all.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
Brother F- Yes. Though I write within the Christian tradition, I have deliberately sought to present my thoughts in a broader context. There are enough small-minded zealots--of all stripes, religious and secular--grinding out narrow arguments. How does that help?
My hope, which will surely fail, is to offer something that people from many different perspectives can find helpful. I hadn't thought that an atheist would take something from it, but I find that encouraging and have zero problem if they did. In the end, I am enough of a postmodernist to realize that total agreement is a pipe dream. So I do the best I can. It helps that I don't expect much...
Thank you for your summary of my argument in this post. I couldn't have asked for a better one. This conversation has been very clarifying for me.
-Jack
Thank you for saying so. I was trying to understand and describe your position accurately, but there was (inevitably) the worry that I had completely missed the point.
I don't think you missed the point at all. If anything you brought it out explicity, where I try to write more implicitly. My hope is that ultimately it seeps in better by avoiding psychological defense. It is good to have your summary, because the downside of writing implicitly is that people do often miss the point and project their own understanding rather than actually disagreeing from what one is saying. So now it is clear.
Really, unless one sees our current situation as dire, both individually and collectively, my argument makes little sense for most people. It hinges on the intuition that the desert is coming for all of us. You got that point exactly. Thank you for that. -Jack
If you've got an allergy, you eat a basic diet and then slowly re-introduce things to find out what's been poisoning you.
I was thinking that the return from the desert might sometimes be completely intentional. When you have something as experiential and embodied as ascetic practice there's a need for constant little reminders of what actions, thoughts, deeds, feel a certain way. Maybe to build up a Pavlovian response to sin? Or to finesse feelings of being close to God? The sinning is part of the practice.
Liam- I think most of us aren't called to a more literal desert, but I also resist turning the desert into a form of "getaway" from life so as to return refreshed. The desert, wherever one finds it, is a radical facing of oneself and all the disordered attachments and passions we can so easily avoid in the world. Not only avoid but our disordered passions flourish in the world. This flourishing of delusion and greed is the fuel the machine runs on.
I hope you are well. -Jack
Br. F- I hope you don't mind my replying at length here. Thank you for your indulgence. -Jack
Not at all!
Thank you.
I wanted to give room for others to have their say. But today I am here at the monastery alone and thought it a great opportunity to respond.
The church I serve at is made of the homeless and former homeless and the addicted and formerly addicted, the criminal and former criminal with a few that don’t fit those categories. It serves those of similar ilk and provides material and spiritual help to the “least, the last, and the lost” The pastor looks like a bearded, bald, tattooed, big bellied viking. He has a horrendous past of prison, violence and crime, and yet has gained the ear of our mayor and the city council. This essay and Leahy’s essay for me is an erudite spiritual intellectualism, an empty soup of no value or nutrition to me and my fellow knowers of God.
It is a fair remark, but as I am writing from a post-Christian perspective (see the 'Without Saints' article - https://flatcapsandfatalism.substack.com/p/without-saints ), I would not have advised you to read my newsletter in order to help you in your knowing of God at all. I do not offer what I do not have.
I agree about the emptiness of intellectualism, these essays solve nothing; but, and I have some experience, I would add that the world of mayors and councils is also ultimately empty. Nothing on the scale these essays discuss, the scale of society as a whole, will be solved there or, indeed, in parliaments, boardrooms, or charitable meetings of the great and good.
'Fatalism' is in the title of this newsletter for a reason.
You may say, then, that it is best to concentrate on the little good, person-to-person, that you can do; and I would agree in a way and disagree in a way. That is a bigger topic., though.
“Concentrate on the little good, person-to-person, that you can do” the fate and mission of the vast majority, love your neighbor you know, a few of us can work on a bigger scale, the rest of us jawbone about the big picture, perhaps vote, donate, sign a petition or two. According to Jesus things don’t end well here, which may be the times we live in. So we “look forward to a new heaven and new earth, the home of righteousness” 2 Peter 3:13
It is a valid perspective, and I would like more people to share it with you; but I disagree on all almost all the details: I do not think anyone can ever do good on the bigger scale, I think doing good on even the small scale is very difficult much of the time, and I have neither faith nor hope for anything beyond this life.
To be so certain that one is doing good, even on a small scale, is subject to great delusion. It is far easier to do harm, with the best of intentions, than to actually help. Often this kind of altruism is more purely in the domain of egotism than anything else. Best to tread lightly and seek humility in all things. In emptying ourselves of agendas we can better respond to the actual person in front of us, rather than from an ideology. We are all broken.
I agree with Br. F. that large scale "doing good" is almost certain to harm. I am allergic to participating in such. -Jack
Doing good is that difficult and subject to great delusion!?!? What soul crippling angst. I see kindness and good deeds continually in my fellow humans in my part of the world.
No crippling of the soul and no angst.
It is clear we simply see the world differently, Jeff. Why argue about it? Remember, you're the one coming here and to my substack. Why is that? You can start your own substack, and I promise never to visit it.
I hope you are well. -Jack
And I will add that the Nietzschean idea of the "masked will-to-power" should be taken very seriously. Our altruism is often a form of domination. Without a deep asceticism we would be unlikely to see that.
Though it may make the fundamentalists wail, we need to fathom a post-Christian Christianity. The current quickly dying Imperial Christianity is largely kidding itself. Maybe Feuerbach was onto something...
Might "erudite spiritual intellectualism" be gainfully married to practical Christian action? Why write 3 Gospels that tell much the same story (the Synoptics) and then a random Fourth Gospel from another perspective? Perhaps different people need to hear and heed in different ways; thus different story-tellers. I hail from the Johannine tribe, others Matthean, others Lukan, and still others Markan, but we are of one family.
Augustine resisted converting to Christianity because he thought the Bible trashily written, in bad Latin. He was right, as the translation at his time from the Greek and the Hebrew was trash and no rival of the classical Latin authors. (This was before Jerome's Vulgate, which was also problematic, but I digress.) It was not until he met Ambrose that he was taught to look beyond the simple language, even in the Greek, to the beautiful depth of the fingers pointing to the moon. How wonderful that we come to spiritual fruit from different trees!
Br. Nose- If I gather correctly you are writing from the hope that disparate viewpoints can be reconciled? Correct me if I am wrong. This is an admirable impulse, I held it once myself. At this point, I think it is impossible, both conceptually impossible as well as just psychologically and sociologically impossible. I think factionalism and conflict are, alas, simply baked into the cake of human existence.
The question is how to best respond to this reality. For myself, I do try to take an integral, irenic approach as much as I can. I would much rather have a fruitful conversation with those with whom I fundamentally disagree than to do otherwise. Realistically, I do think that is always possible as not one of us has the full, comprehensive view, though we try. Even so, there are always conflicting attempts at a larger, comprehensive view. So it goes. I am, when necessary, ready to engage in polemics. I would rather not, though.
But that said, I am thankful for your contributions.
I do think that disparate viewpoints can be reconciled, sometimes. I also think that conflict is unavoidable.
I try to do things as I am inspired to do so (not without discerment and thought) with little attachment to the potential results. I think that Gandhi said something about this, but I can't currently find the quote. It is always fruitful for myself, however, as I am sharing with others and it even may bear fruit that I am wholly unaware of, who's to say? I know that it bears fruit in me as I learn about another person, perspective, and way of life.
It was the concept of the via media that changed my life as a teenager. For one small isolated example, in war and peace, we often hear of the hawk and the dove. What is often unheard of is the owl, a via media between that mostly leans toward the dove, but will join with the hawk as is necessary. The decision is made through discernment and prayer.
Col 3:12 ff. is one example, and really that entire chapter. Another is the Beatitudes (the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain). Try your best and give the rest over to God.
It is a noble effort and worth doing. It isn't exactly my path, but I don't dismiss it either.
What do you see as your path?
That isn't always clear to me. But the best I can say is that I am trying to offer it on substack. A good part of that is trying to understand what that means. So my path is 1) Flee the world (of distractions, at least). Be silent (post forthcoming). Dwell in Stillness.
I don't yet know how compatible that is with maintaining a substack, but this where I am at right now. As I say repeatedly, I think we are in a radically unprecedented situation as a civilization. What is a contemplative life in a radically technological age? And how to do that in a technological society of surveillance, distraction, AI, genetic manipulation, propaganda, etc., etc. on and on.
You have mentioned Merton. It is known that he read Jacques Ellul and Gabriel Marcel, etc. His understanding of contemplation in a technological civilization is not, as far as I know, fully fleshed out in his writing, but as time goes on it is increasingly a part of his understanding of the contemplative life. This is expressed in more often in small asides to the main theme.
I don't know how many people have picked up on that part of his work. In my own little way, I am trying to pick that them up more explicitly.
Needless to say, I am no Merton. But I think conversations like these might help to shed a little light in our dark world.
I don't know if that answers your question. Anyway, I hope you are well. -Jack
Br. Nose- Interestingly, in your comment you reconciled the via media with the not via media. I can see this is deep in your way of thinking. I hope we can continue this type of conversation here and elsewhere. -Jack
Could you unpack this comment more fully for me? The via media is indeed very important to me, the only way that I stay sane!
Br. Nose- No great insight on my part here. Just that you conception of the via media include the balance (via media) of knowing when the via media will work and that it sometimes doesn't, i.e., between the dove and the hawk.
Would you consider yourself a Thomist? -Jack
I don't see why we won't be able to continue the conversation. What is it that is lacking in your current practice? Why might maintaining your Substack be at odds with silence and contemplation? At a certain point, contemplation must birth action, or else it becomes ever subtler ruminations of the ego. The rub is to properly discern action and vocation. It is also important to establish a rule, or routine, to properly order spiritual practices, rest, 'unrelated' hobbies, and study.
Also, contemplation is possible in action. The return to solitude and silence is indeed always necessary, but some contemplative practices can be and should be exercised while in action, such as nepsis/watchfulness, recollection, prayers of the heart, and ceaseless prayer.
As for the technological age, Merton may have writings of which I am unaware. I am by no means an expert, but I can urge you to look into Merton on Pasternak. George Grant wrote extensively about modernity and technology, but from a pre-modern, Classical Western philosophical perspective.
As for surveillance, I would encourage you to look into the history of privacy. It seems as if this is a good primer on the subject:
https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/the-birth-and-death-of-privacy-3-000-years-of-history-in-50-images-614c26059e
As for genetic manipulation, I am not sure if you mean plants, or people. Either way, problematic for sure. A good discussion with a biologist may be in order. Oddly enough, genetic manipulation in people is discussed in that YA classic, the Divergent series.
AI is probably pretty scary, but we have Will Smith to save us. If that doesn't work, there is always Keanu Reeves. If that doesn't work, faith, hope, and love. Also, Mt 6:33-34.
Br. Nose- Continuing the discussion, which I find fruitful, is mostly a question of time. That’s all. Monastic life, even for a non-monk like me, isn't designed for the maintaining of blogs. The Abbot has kindly let me take time to do this. It is still a juggling act. But as long as people keep showing up I will keep at as best I can. -Jack
Ellul was quite a chap. I would start with, 'Meaning of the City' . An absolute stunner.
Thank you. I have been a long-time reade of and grappler with Gabriel Marcel. It seems almost impossible that he wasn't a big influence on Ellul. My hope is that Elull extends Marcel's thought in ways that don't seem fully fleshed out. We shall see!
Not sure about link to Marcel. Ellul claimed that the only two thinkers whose work he had read in their entirety were Kierkgaard and Marx.
Maybe so. Perhaps what Marcel was onto was just in the air, so to speak.