THEORIES OF
TRUTH
My first encounter with the teachings of the
True Parents was in a lecture in the summer of 1970: “The Principle of Creation” (a topic only cursorily mentioned by Dr.
Noda). Certain points in the lecture were transformative as they gave me new
hope. In 1969, I had abandoned my hope for the conversion to pacifism of
individuals in democratic
states, decided to become a
rural minister, and enrolled in Union Theological Seminary to begin my studies
in the fall of 1970. In ihe
lecture, the first point that stimulated some hope was that individuals exist
in families that protect and help them, and that their decisions concerning
matters beyond the family are influenced by their participation in it. The
lecturer pointed out that, further, families exist in communities that protect
and help… etc. The next transformative insight was the principle of dual
purpose. I immediately felt that, armed with these insights, I should resume my
efforts for conversions to pacifism. This was one factor in my deciding, in
September 1971, to commit myself to discipleship in Master’s project to help
God realize the peaceful world. My
stance in interpreting the points was transformativist, experiencing them
immediately in the context of my ongoing life and later also.
My next
encounter with the Principle was the studying of Young Oon Kim’s Divine
Principle and its Applications. (The book does not identify the Divine
Principle as distinguished from its applications.) I was not particularly
interested in the discussion of dual characteristics, but understood the nature
of the subject-object relationship (which I have come to view as most
importantly centered on the subject’s greater responsibility). The principle/
insight of the four-position foundation and its formation I understood as a
description of how everyone thinks. For example, if one feels a slight
penetration in one’s arm, one intuitively knows that it was caused by a force,
that the force had direction, and that it originated as an impulse. The
principle/ theory of the three objects purpose I found realistic in its
recognition that a child often takes the subject position, initiating a giving
and responding. In my concluding that these principles are universally true,
was my stance ipso facto (critical)
objectivist? This may also be the case with the principle of dual purpose. Especially when it is applied to an
individual in the family, it would appear to almost anyone as an ethical
principle. It may be that family members universally are at least unconsciously
aware of this principle. Nevertheless, I have recently been seeking to apply
this as more fundamental, considering the purpose of the individual of any
entity to be repairing, maintaining, or fortifying the entity’s foundation for
realizing the purpose of the greater entity in which it participates.
Of great
importance to me, second only to the theory of dual purpose, were the theories
of the three stages of the growing process and of indirect and direct dominion.
Miss Kim’s book included Mark 4:27’s description of the stages in the growth of
a plant. Again, I considered this description to be widely comfortably
acceptable, and labels of the stages, such as ’forming’, ‘growing’, and ‘completing’,
apt. I have been spent a considerable
amount of thinking about applications of this theory, both within Principle
texts and outside of them, including in Euclidean geometry and in theory of
narrative, the structuralist theory – especially as codified by A-J Greimas
with 3 stages – becoming an important part of the framework of my thinking.
Already in September 1971 I applied the three-stage theory in developing my
curricula for the second and third years of my M.Div. studies, and found each year’s curriculum
internally coherent. Thus, objectivist
enhancement of my thinking processes became useful, transformative, in my
life. The concept of God’s indirect
dominion of a person (which can be metaphorically extracted from the verse in
Mark) resonated well with my Quaker inclinations, and the concept of God’s
direct dominion supported my hope for the end of religion as prophesied by
Jeremiah. I am considering that those
Principle texts’ theories exemplified in the above Bible verse may be
descriptions of the way all human beings think.
While attending the
lecture, I had accepted the discussion of the original mind, conscience, and
the fallen mind as descriptive of my everyday experiences and was pleased that
it affirms my long-held assumption (and the assumption of progressive
education) that everyone is fundamentally altruistic. This had prepared me,
finally, for some discussion of today’s discordant society; however, I doubted
the existence of angels, thinking that that was likely a mythologizing of a
tendency within persons to promote the purpose of the individual over the
purpose of a whole, fearing that pursuit of the latter might lead to total
loss. (Some years later, I proved to myself that if there were no angels, the
entire Principle of Creation would unravel.) The discussion of Jesus’ role in
the attempt to dispel the “fallen mind” was familiar as a description of my
ongoing religious practices.
I have found
True Father’s persistent use of numerology, which at first bothered me, to be a
tool for understanding the Bible, assuming that the final redactor used the
numbers to signify the nature or meaning of that to which they refer. When
asked about the actual historicity of the Bible’s 10 generations before Noah,
True Father said that they did not need to be generations but could be the
number of providential figures. If my view that, owing to the human portion of
responsibility, the only thing predetermined is the fulfillment of the steps of
the scenario – in the ever- continuing
activities of creation – leading to the realization of the world according to
God’s ideal is true, then any of the biblical and post-biblical periods that
are neatly matched up could have been shorter, perhaps divisible by 10 or 4:
however, the pattern of exemplification through establishment of a communicable
standard to attempts to realize the standard would remain.
I read the
story of the Fall, its consequences, and the analysis of freedom in Exposition
of the Divine Principle. My general response to the story is that which
Alison Wakelin reported in her comment on Dr. Noda’s post, that it is plausible
that all subsequent human ills have stemmed from the spiritual invasion of a
couple who are the ancestors of all subsequent human beings. I find Eve’s growing love for the Archangel,
past the point where her conscience warned of its inappropriateness, to the
point where she could not stop but agreed to its consummation, to be typical of
the process of yielding to a temptation. Absent in the story is any mention of
Adam, Eve’s sibling relationship with whom constituted the immediate whole of
her existence as she sought the further realization of her individual purpose
by sensual gratification, new knowledge, and becoming “like God”. Of significance to me greater than the story
is the assertion that the immediate consequence of the Fall was dread, undue
fearfulness. I find that to be a crucial factor in many rational but
regrettable decisions.
The chapter on the Fall in Exposition of
the Divine Principle contains two further important principles. The first
is the four-step process of the fallen original nature. Having read that, I
readily began to consciously always seek to perform its converse. Wholly eye-opening to me was the chapter’s
principle of freedom: that internal freedom consists of acting according to the
Principle and that freedom is complete only with the intended result. I
understand the former to be willing and acting to fulfill one’s fundamental
desire, which is to give love aiming for the greatest imagined result. It is in
the process of forming my will that “evil forces” intervene. Internal
alienation is from one’s fundamental desire.
Finally,
regarding the interpretation of church rituals
Such, if participated in wholeheartedly, are by their very nature
transformative at least temporarily. I have been wholehearted in the ones in
which I have chosen to participate. My natural intellectual search for their
deeper or more precise meaning has not greatly influenced their effect.
In
conclusion, I have reported experiences in confronting points in a lecture and
in two books promoted or sanctioned by HSA-UWC or FFWPU and in promoted or
sanctioned rituals. I have suggested that my stance in some has been
transformativist and in others universalistic. However, I find that I am
insufficiently clear about and comfortable with Dr. Noda’s concept ‘
objectivist’ to firmly state, in
answering the question posed at the
start of this comment, that I am an
integralist – holding the two posed interpretive stances either alternatingly or
finding them not mutually to be
exclusive, as in my experience of encountering a point novel to me being
transformative and also concluding that it was descriptive of universal human
experience.
England. He
was a Fabian socialist, and from him, so was my mother and subsequently both
parents centered on her. Both parents were well educated and highly
cosmopolitan, and the frameworks of their intellectual thought were the views
of Sigmund Freud and of….]]
[[I came to
love myths. My education in primary and secondary schools was centered on
historical materialism, with the teaching methodology of “progressive
education” based on the pragmatism of…
and the assumption, elaborated by Bowlby, that
everyone is fundamentally altruistic. I
learned of Jesus and Christian hope through music: Christmas carols,
African-American slave songs (which my mother loved), and a couple of great
hymns which portray Jesus as a father figure]].
[[ During my
freshman year in college, I encountered Jesus’ words while I was singing in the
Chapel choir, and I decided to try to live by them, even though there was much
that I did not understand. These frameworks of my thought were altered]] early
in my sophomore year, I was instantly persuaded that the peaceful world would
come about only through democratic demands for peaceful activity (rather than
through heavily armed governments uniting)
[[and I came
to understand the Bible as progressively revealing truth as the canon took
shape (as in the hermeneutical perspective of Principal texts). My education in
Christianity was nourished then by a career as a professional musician in
Christian and Jewish congregations and by avid reading of the documents of the
Second Vatican Council along with various articles and another book or two.]]
decided to
become a rural minister, and enrolled in Union Theological Seminary to begin my
studies in the fall of 1970.
[[ I was,
and kprobably still am, essentially a Quaker. Quakers in the East do not have
clergy, who are]] I enrolled in Union Theological seminary under the care of a
Presbyterian session to begin my studies that fall.///
I am very pleased to discover, from their comments here, that there are so many brothers and sisters much better trained in philosophy and able to philosophize at a much higher level than I can. I will not join the conversation among them. On the other hand, Dr. Noda, with whom I have worked and whom I greatly respect, was so far from being in scrupulous in composing the article that stimulated the philosophical discussions that to engage directly with the article would be exhausting. What I will do is relate my experiences and thoughts when having been confronted with officially sanctioned texts on the Principal, UT, and V O C, and when participating in Unificationist rituals (during some of which I had personal encounters with the True Parents}, and other Unificationist events.
in the ever-
continuing activities of creation
[[W was
given by my spiritual mother who, having accepted my invitation, had been
participating in a biweekly living room Gilbert and Sullivan group that I led,
and knew, generally, my views. The
lecture was her first, as she had only recently moved into the Center.]]
[[ At the
end of the lecture, expressed excitement, and my spiritual mother resolved to
spend time with me on weekends, which she did.
In
September, my spiritual mother having moved to Berkeley for graduate studies, I
asked Gil Roschuni to teach me more about the Principal. I visited weekly, and
he read aloud every word]]
)[[:
although later I and two other intellectual brothers lived and met daily with
Ms. Kim we didn’t think to ask her about this.) I argued with Gil about almost
every point, and he usually invoked the parent-child relationship in
responding. This emphasis resulted in my gaining a new feeling for and
understanding of God, for, as a child, I had been steeped in progressive
education and discussion of it viewing a teacher as a substitute parent. These,
additionally, prepared me for understanding, later, why God did not intervene
in the Fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment