I fully recognise that the human species is communal and has evolved from an extended family base that became tribal. Indeed, human collectivity has been the strength underlying human (biological) evolution in general, and cultural development specifically. What, then, is the purpose, value and meaning for humanity (as a whole), for an individual pursuing a solitary path? What does it mean to be 'solitary'? Can a human being be truly isolatory? Is it possible to leave human society completely or even partially? What is it that is being left? From what is the individual removing him or herself from? To where are they relocating? What changes when an individual supposedly 'leaves' society? From a philosophical position it would seem that 'leaving society' might be a 'tautology' - more of a convention than a practical reality, and yet something tangible does appear to 'change'. Firstly, there is an inner change in orientation usually coupled with a concerted change in behavioural patterns. Indeed, 'leaving society' seems to be primarily a decision about abandoning one set of behaviours whilst embracing another. What is abandoned is the ordinary or expected patterns usually associated with the conventions of everyday life. Although there are grades of disengagement from everyday life - the more stringent examples include the rejecting of commercial labour (that is labour for profit), but not usually labour in principle. Personal (amorous) relations are purged from the expectations of the mind and body - as are any associations and interactions with family members and family structures. These are remarkable realignment of outward behaviour, but their purpose is to create an external (sensory) environment that generates the conditions for a profound change to occur in the functionality of the inner psychological and biological processes of the body. An outer physical transformation is required because without this impetus it is doubtful that will power alone could furnish the requisite strength of purpose required to permanently 'change' the frequency through which the mind and body operates. This being the case, is living in isolation in reality simply another definition of collective existence, albeit existing 'outside' of the convention that usually defines what many believe communal living actually is? If course, as the individual living in isolation still inhabits exactly the same physical world after supposedly 'leaving' it - and given that no one disappears or that anything changes to any great extent - it must be the case that 'leaving society' is really a redefinition of the physical phenomena of the world and of the manner in which these processes interact. Nothing changes except how the physical world is interpreted. However, although this may appear to be a superficial definition, throughout human history, it is clear that great historical and dialectical forces have been unleashed and harnessed that have brought down (and established) dynasties, empires, religious movements and social orders, all premises on markers of outer differences and distinctive modes of inner thought. Gods have come and gone, spirits have emerged and been exorcised and many different types of nature worship have come and gone. Yet the ability for a man and woman to live peacefully in the metaphorical (and actual) hills has often provided the inner (and outer) stimulus for great spiritual, artistic and engineering achievements to be conceived in the mind, built through the control of the body and put to use for the benefit of humanity. In this model, the direction of travel is easy to discern - from isolatory inspiration to purposeful application to collective human society in general. How did this happen? What is the pattern that grants this kind of inspiration? It seems that by consciously ‘withdrawing’ an individual is entering a ‘different’ type of collectivity – one that is not necessarily common or obvious to the rest of humanity. There appears to be a ‘gathering’ of inner and outer energy – a combination of psychological creativity and physical strength and healthy robustness! This intensification of the over-all energy available to the participating individual is ‘focused’, ‘directed’ and ‘intensified’ through the act (and experience) of ‘isolation’. It is as the ‘herd’ is seen better from a distance and understood to a greater degree. As an individual is part of the herd – it is the same as stating that the ‘herd is looking at itself in a particular manner’ - and none of this at this juncture has to have anything to do with ‘religion’ as such or even specifically. Taking a step back allows for the human mind to adopt a wider scale of observation and thereby ‘select’ a more effective mode of interactive behaviour that is designed to alleviate the greatest amount of collective suffering with the least (or most ‘efficient’) amount of individual effort. Although perhaps associated with the monkish disciplines – even those undergoing specialist education in the secular world still have to ‘withdraw’ from regular society to attend a school and become a ‘student’. A certain ‘isolation’ from mainstream reality is acquired to define what is a ‘different’ approach to understanding and interpreting reality! It could be that by adopting the meditative style of the monastic – a style of being considered the most ‘efficient’ for self-isolating – the secular student could achieve a much more profound appreciation of their subject matter! The forces of historical materialism, for instance, together with the waves of dialectical transformation could be easily perceived as unfolding through the inner and outer world! Surely, this is the Revolutionary power of isolating for self-education.
0 Comments
For Marx religion is like a fix of opium designed to take the minds (and bodies) of the collective working-class off of the daily suffering implicit within the life of a capitalist society! Whilst for Lenin, religion of any sort is nothing but a ‘fog’ which distorts the collective thinking of the working-class. Furthermore, Marx exposes the underlying philosophical premise of any form of theism as being the product of ‘inverted’ thought processes, or to put it another way, a body of knowledge built upon a foundation of illogical thinking and incorrect conclusions. Marx explains that the idea of an ‘all-knowing’ God is nothing but a ‘thought’ in the human mind – a product of wishful thinking and imagination – which is then mistaken as existing ‘independently’ somewhere ‘out there’ in the universe. This argument is as powerful as it is simplistic and straightforward. For Marx, the vast body of theological literature does not matter – as it is all premised upon a false understanding of reality that relies upon ‘blind faith’ to exist and continue to exist. This is where religion receives its greatest support, as ‘faith’ does not require logical though or correct scientific scrutiny to ‘exist’ and ‘function’ throughout society. The Church Authorities are political entities that support the predatory capitalist system, and they sustain this influence (regardless of its obvious ‘corruption’) through the propagation of the agency of ‘faith’. Just as the Medieval Church gained its political power by aligning itself with the imperial Roman apparatus – modern Christianity has been developed by the bourgeoisie to represents its own best class interests – and grew-out of the process of industrialisation over the last four-years or so. Modern Christianity, therefore, exists as a statement of class dominance by the bourgeoisie which masquerades as a vehicle for personal development and deliverance. By transferring ‘religion’ from the ‘public’ to the ‘private’ sphere – as Marx and Lenin agree – the power-mongering of its modern priesthood is dismantled and disempowered. Religious doctrine is then replaced into a position of its founding – where it becomes a vehicle for self-cultivation with NO political ambitions or political power. An argument can be made that by placing religion into the ‘private’ sphere – religion is being returned to its ‘genuine’ state and purpose of being a vehicle for ‘inner’ development. This private-undertaking should be the only ‘lawful’ function that religious possesses. The ideology of Marxist-Leninism suggests that as times unfolds throughout a ‘Socialist’ society (which sees the working-class seizing control of the means of production) - it is believed that the ‘impulse’ toward religion will eventually die-out quite naturally as society is transformed from one of exploitation’ to that of ‘collective co-operation' - from ‘daily suffering’ to ‘daily collective and personal empowerment’! As the outward aspect of social organisation becomes ‘classless’, ‘just’, ‘productive’ and ‘equalitarian’, etc, the ‘inner’ health and vibrancy of the human-condition will becomes so ‘purified’, ‘positive’ and ‘progressive’ that there will no longer appear the impulse for the need for religion to arise as a psychological, emotional and physical habit. Therefore, Marxist-Leninist ideology offers a critique of religion that is so devastating to the Bourgeois Church that its power-brokers would rather support the ideology of ‘fascism’ and declare Marxism to be ‘evil’ than honestly and truthfully face the allegations levelled by Marx and striving to work with its conclusions rather than propagandising against it. Religion, if handled the right-way, can be useful for the development of a Socialist society, with any Socialist government possessing the moral responsibility of ‘integrating’ religionists into a new Socialist world-order with as little friction as possible. ACW (15.4.2021)
|
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles PhD - Political Commissar and BMA (UK) Historian & Researcher. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|