What’s to be Done: On Holy Indifference Pt.1

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Avatar Angelo says:

    Thank you……

  2. Avatar Kyle M says:

    Very good article, thank you for posting this.

  3. Avatar coco says:

    It’s really a broad topic so I put here just few hints I believe we should try to keep in mind:
    – the question of “quality of being” in regards to knowledge is indeed crucial.
    For instance, it is very well known fact from general esotericism that immoral person might not be able to progress to certain levels of cognition etc.
    However, on the opposite pole we have “mystical” approach by which it is *only* about quality of being.
    Like, if you are saintly enough, you don’t require quest for any special, particular or concrete knowledge e.g. on supra-sensible worlds.
    I think that is mistake. High level of moral being is certainly a prerequisite but not end in itself.
    It’s like, just be “good” and all else will be given to you as “natural” consequence.
    In general terms, application of such “optimistic” view on human nature and abilities is way to greatest catastrophes imaginable. Not mentioning terrible arrogance which stands behind such view.
    That is the trap of mystical approach, which, maybe was relevant in the past for some great saints, but with today’s intellectual disposition of man, one *must* seek information, knowledge and try to reach that level of being in order to break through limits of materialistically defined sphere of “legitimate” knowledge.

    Basically, I don’t think we can talk about indifference in general sense. The thing is we need to recognize that certain ideology creates some extra sensitivity on one hand and some extra indifference on the other.

    For instance, materialistically minded people will be indifferent to anything that seems too lofty and “metaphysical” to them.
    But also, some fundamentalist Christians who try to derive all knowledge from Bible would try to avoid any potential knowledge that jeopardize Bible’s supremacy, including all sorts of esoteric or scientific knowledge.
    Postmodernists will be indifferent or wildly against any notion of traditional knowledge, but will be lighted up by anything new etc. etc.

    So, we have to filter out those ideological predisposition for this or that type of information, we need to grow beyond that and try to be genuinely open and curious in sphere of cognition.

    • Avatar Mihai says:

      I don’t know if by these general hints you had in mind something particular which I wrote here – if yes, then they are certainly missing the point- but in any case, you are creating for yourself artificial hurdles in your attempt to understand these subjects of knowledge, being etc.

      For one thing, you need to step out of the false mental framework created by the modern approach to these issues- where the answer is practically compromised from the start, because you are not allowed to ask the correct questions.
      Concretely, you need to step out of considering oppositions of mystical vs scientific vs metaphysical vs ethical vs esoteric vs exoteric and so on. These stem from wrongly posed questions and are entirely missing the point.

      We need to first of all see that “knowledge” is at once one and many and it has multiple layers and different angles of approach as well as different degrees of nearing that which is absolute.

      So, for example, you wrote:

      “Basically, I don’t think we can talk about indifference in general sense. The thing is we need to recognize that certain ideology creates some extra sensitivity on one hand and some extra indifference on the other.”

      This is a good observation. The problem stems from relativizing the absolute and absolutizing the relative in most cases. I would also add here the inability to see the one in the many and the many in the one.

      But anyway, from the observation made above, you can start and make your way towards a clearer answer.

      • Avatar coco says:

        Hi Mihai,
        indeed, i wrote that comment under wrong artickle, it was meant as response to your comment on latest podcast, mostly to:
        “I would only specify this: that the way I have come to see it, the correct question should not be posed in terms of knowledge, but being.
        Namely, not “how can I acquire this knowledge”, but “what kind of person can have this knowledge? What kind of person do I have to BE?”
        To that I had to say:
        “However, on the opposite pole we have “mystical” approach by which it is *only* about quality of being.
        Like, if you are saintly enough, you don’t require quest for any special, particular or concrete knowledge e.g. on supra-sensible worlds.”…etc.
        Regarding your:
        “Concretely, you need to step out of considering oppositions of mystical vs scientific vs metaphysical vs ethical vs esoteric vs exoteric and so on. These stem from wrongly posed questions and are entirely missing the point.”
        I appreciate that, however, my mentioning all those mystical, scientific etc. as way to point to various discourses that may or may not be explicit but are usually in the background of all debates.
        So, it is simply a method of elaboration, since most of the dead-end debates end nowhere since those implicit assumptions clash.
        So, for instance, that is why I wanted to point that when someone claims that people are “indifferent” to this or that, it usually means that according to his particular mental bias or ideological filter is positioned in such way that something important to him is not important to others, while missing completely that something else might be important to those others, which he neglects.
        Probably 80% of online debates circle around such discrepancies in ideologically conditioned sensitivity.

        But, these are all only preliminary considerations in my view, this is all just to get the better feeling of what we’re dealing with and to orient ourselves among all sorts of directions and schools of thought.
        It’s not a manner of good active thinking process to jump right to bottom of things.
        So I would normally first “prepare the ground” and go to further points if it makes sense at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *