Skip to main content

On Not Knowing (Peter reads the Neoplatonists, part II)

I’ve been reading Greek philosophers.  I formed a neoplatonist book club recently with a couple of Pagan friends, and we’re reading Iamblichus’s On the Mysteries.  I’m plowing through it, chewing on some very dense prose as I try to take in and understand neoplatonist ideas about God and the Gods, time and eternity, body and mind and soul.

I am aware of being very attached to some ideas about the soul.  It’s not all that different from the way Christians cling to their orthodoxy.  Christians (and that includes me when I was younger) will do a lot of mental gymnastics to make their experiences of the world to fit into Christian doctrines they can’t afford to let go of.  Everything new they learn gets reworked and reinterpreted to fit with their core beliefs.

My own attachment, the idea I find myself clinging to, is the idea of an immortal soul.  The reason is simple and obvious: I want to keep going and keep growing after death.  I don’t want it to end.

Personal identity may not survive death…and I can be OK with that.  But if the soul includes a divine spark, an immortal component, then I would find it very comforting to believe that that spark—that of God within me—goes on to survive and to grow even without Peter Bishop and his memories, his consciousness, and his individuality.

I wrote a while ago about wanting to be buried in a shroud impregnated with mushroom spores, so that my body would return to the Earth more quickly and more profoundly as it was consumed by mushrooms.  That’s not incompatible.  The neoplatonists viewed the soul as having a dual nature, connected at one end to flesh and time and generation and at the other end to eternity and to the realm of the Gods.  I could see those two aspects dissociating at death and each going its own way, the earthly aspect returning to the Earth and the eternal to the Gods.  Both are sacred.  Each would be a kind of homecoming.

I like that idea.  I like that image.  I like that as my future after death.  And I know that liking it, by itself, is not sufficient reason to believe it.

But over the last few years I have been trying out philosophical systems—the Builders of the Adytum, Plotinus, and now Iamblichus.  As I study a philosophical system, I adopt it and live it for a while, growing into it as if it’s true, and thus finding the good within it as well as its limitations.

I see nothing wrong with living as a neoplatonist for a while.  Nothing in it violates me spiritually, nor does it violate my scientific integrity to adopt a hypothesis and thoroughly test it.

Though always maintaining that integrity.

I know myself.  I know what I want, and I know that wanting it doesn’t make it so.  But wanting it doesn’t make it wrong either, and it does make it worth investigating, out to the furthest edges and into every nook and cranny.






Image credit:  "Grief" sculpture by Augustus Saint-Gaudens (1848-1907), photo by Peter Bishop

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Peter on Grief and Communities

Well, that was unexpected. For the last year, ever since my mom's health took a sharp downturn, I've been my dad's ride to Florence Congregational Church on Sundays. That community has been important for my dad and the weekly outing with me was something he always looked forward to and enjoyed, so I didn't mind taking him there. It meant giving up attending my own Quaker meeting for the duration, but I had already been questioning whether silent waiting worship was working for me. I was ready for a sabbatical. A month ago, my dad was Section-Twelved into a geriatric psych hospital when his dementia started to make him emotionally volatile. I had been visiting him every day at his assisted living facility which was right on my way home from work, but the hospital was almost an hour away. I didn't see him at all for three weeks, and when I did visit him there, it actually took me a couple of seconds to recognize him. He was slumped forward in a wheel chair, lo...

Fame

(Note: there were so many thought provoking comments in response to this post that it generated a second-round of ideas. You can read the follow-up post here .) I have a confession to make. I want to be famous. Well, sort of. I don't want to be famous, famous, and ride around in a limousine and have to hire security and that sort of thing. I just want to write a book, have it published by somebody other than my mother, and bought and read by somebody other than my mother, and maybe even sign a couple of autographs along the way. Mom can have one autographed, too, if she wants. It has to be a spiritual book. A really moving and truthful book, that makes people want to look deep inside themselves, and then they come up to me and say something like, "It was all because of that book you wrote! It changed my life!" And I would say, no, no, really, you did all that, you and God/the gods --I'm a little fuzzy on whether the life-changing book is for Pagans or for Quake...

A Quaker Pagan Day Book: Testimonies and Queries

Pagans often argue about how to define who we are.  What are the boundaries--between Wicca and Witchcraft, between Heathens and Pagans, between polytheists, pantheists, and non-theists...  While I could do without the acrimony, we're a new as well as an old religious movement, so it makes sense that like any adolescent, we are fascinated by questions of identity. I will admit to preferring the Quaker approach to identity, though: rather than trying to create the definitive checklist of belief that make someone a "real Quaker," Friends typically share a body of testimonies and questions for reflection with those who are drawn to the Religious Society of Friends. "Do you feel this same sort of spiritual leading?" Friends ask one another.  "Does this speak to the condition of your soul, as it does to ours?" Queries, not checklists of doctrine, hold the ways Quakers approach discernment, including around membership.  And though no individual can declar...