back to lesson #1:
Lesson 1 "nothing I see means anything"
meditation:
Tomato, I don't know what rules of argument you apply to not be convinced that any statement which negates itself is demonstrating an "internal contradiction". This very first statement, "nothing I see means anything" begs itself. If it is a true statement then the statement itself must also fall into the category of meaningless. Premise: all things = meaningless. Premise: the statement "nothing I see means anything" is contained in the category "all things". Conclusion: therefore the statement "nothing I see means anything" is meaningless. It is the simplist of tautologies. In other words, if the statement is true then it is false. It refutes itself. One need go no further logically, to show an "internal contradiction".
But as is often the case with many of these groups in formulating their doctrine, following a line of reasoning to its logical consequence is not a criterion of Truth. As if their truth is "supra" or translogical. Let's look at it from a more ontological point of view. Truth by definition is One. This conforms to the Law of Identity. Something cannot not be itself. Anything that is One must then have being in and of itself. As such, it can have no polar opposite. Error (or the false) then, is not the opposite of Truth, it is the absence of Truth (a very different creature philosophically). Just as Evil is not the opposite of Good, rather it is the absence of Good. (In other contexts these musings become important in coming to terms with the nature of God as expressed in scriptures around the world. ie. omnicience, omnipotence, etc.) To continue, Satan is not the opposite of God, he is the absence of God for God by definition has no category equivalent counterpart. Which brings us to the point, meaninglessness is not the opposite of meaning, it is the absence of meaning. There is no possible way to make an intelligible statement that claims to say that the meaningless has being-in-and-of-itself which is just what the statement in question attempts to do. There is a difference between things that have being-in-and-of-themself and things that exist-in-relation-to. For example, up has no reality without the relative concept down. In requires out. In our every day language we constantly confuse things that have being-in-and-of-themself and things that exist-in-relation-to (polar opposites). For me, loosely put, Metapshyics is the study of things that have-being-in-and-of-themselves. So despite its claims ACIM is neither metaphysical nor ontological enquiry. So what is ACIM? It is a psychotheraputic technique and its philosophical assumptions are merely pragmatic statements oriented toward its goal of psychic equilibrium through reconciliation and healing. It is a pseudo-religion. In my opinion, there is a vast chasm between true spiritual activity and psychic activity with a one way bridge in between. Spiritual forces can inform and transform the psychic but the psychic of itself has no access to the spiritual. This principle, again IMO, accounts for the danger of all these new age religions; they discover techniques that are effective in the rearrangement of psychic material but purport to engage in spiritual work. And at deeper levels this is never a benign act. Though the above is stated dogmatically it is just my opinion and invites refutation.
part two - What does ACIM achieve in reality re: enlightenment?
ghunk |
