Punctum Saliens

I’ve finally found a quote from C.G. Jung that backs up what I’ve been saying for a while now [e.g. here, here, and here]:

The Churches stand for traditional and collective convictions which in the case of many of their adherents are no longer based on their own inner experience but on unreflecting belief, which is notoriously apt to disappear as soon as one begins thinking about it. The content of belief then comes into collision with knowledge, and it often turns out that the irrationality of the former is no match for the ratiocinations of the latter. Belief is no adequate substitute for inner experience, and where this is absent even a strong faith which came miraculously as a gift of grace may depart equally miraculously. People call faith the true religious experience, but they do not  stop to consider that actually it is a secondary phenomenon arising form the fact that something happened to us in the first place which instilled pistis into us — that is, trust and loyalty. This experience has a definite content that can be interpreted in terms of one or other of the denominational creeds. But the more this is so, the more the possibilities of these conflicts with knowledge mount up, which in themselves are quite pointless. That is to say, the standpoint of the creeds is archaic; they are full of impressive mythological symbolism which, if taken literally, comes into insufferable conflict with knowledge. But if, for instance, the statement that Christ rose form the dead is to be understood not literally but symbolically, then it is capable of various interpretations that do not conflict with knowledge and do not impair the meaning of the statement. The objection that understanding it symbolically puts an end to the Christian’s hope of immortality is invalid, because long before the coming of Christianity mankind believed in a life after death and therefore had no need of the Easter event as a guarantee of immortality. The danger that a mythology understood too literally, and as taught by the Church, will suddenly be repudiated lock, stock and barrel is today greater than ever. Is it not time that the Christian mythology, instead of being wiped out, was understood symbolically for once? [Jung, C.G., "The Undiscovered Self," CW vol. 10, par. 521.]

… but you don’t realize that what I said is not what I really meant. Language sure is a sneaky little bugger. A quote from Thomas Merton in Zen and the Birds of Appetite:

The language used by Zen is therefore in some sense an antilanguage, and the “logic” of Zen is a radical reversal of philosophical logic. The human dilemma of communication is that we cannot communicate ordinarily without words and signs, but even ordinary experience tends to be falsified by our habits of verbalization and rationalization. The convenient tools of language enable us to decide beforehand what we think things mean, and tempt us all to easily to see things only in a way that fits our logical preconceptions and our verbal formulas. Instead of seeing things and facts as they are we see them as reflections and verifications of the sentences we have previously made up in our minds. We quickly forget how to simply see things and substitute our words and our formulas for the things themselves, manipulating facts so that we see only what conveniently fits our prejudices. Zen uses language against itself to blast out these preconceptions and to destroy the specious “reality” in our minds so that we can see directly. Zen is saying, as Wittgenstein said, “Don’t think: Look!”

In light of this, think about the Bible as the inerrant, inspired, yada, yada, yada, Word of God. Feel free to fill in as many adjectives as you deem appropriate. The transfer from God to the original writers to the words printed in your KJV or NIV or NAS or 21CKJV may be perfect. But the transfer from the words on the page to your mind to what you say is definitely not. Our interpretation of the words is subject to the falsification that Merton discusses. Why do you think so many different people can get so many different interpretations from the same Bible?

As a child, I believed the same things my parents did. I was naturally influenced by the biases and rationalizations of my parents and those who taught me in the church and so I saw things in the world as they did. As I was not exposed to very much influence other than my parents and our church, my logical preconceptions and verbal formulas were the same as my parent’s. Hence, what fit nicely into their way of thinking also fit nicely into mine. Even though I struggled with those beliefs and even though I felt they didn’t “work” for me, I did not have the tools to change my habits and rationalizations and so I could not accept any other belief. I had to get to a point of desperation and throw everything away — telling everyone that I no longer believed anything anymore.

But even though I made this declaration, the beliefs still stuck with me and troubled me. I still had a very difficult time accepting any belief different from those with which I was raised — I still felt they were all “false.” But since I couldn’t go back to my old beliefs, I had no where to turn; I had nothing to believe. Eleven years after my denouncement, I was still trying to find common ground among different beliefs. Not between Islam or Buddhism and Christianity but between the Lutherans or Methodists or Episcopalians and the “real” Christians (i.e. how I was raised)

It took a long time and a large separation between me and my parents and the religion of my youth before I was able to step out of my preconceptions and look at things differently. And, at least for me, that separation was crucial. I needed the physical and emotional space to be there before I could relax my defenses, so to speak, and allow new ideas to seep in without immediately judging them from my old perspective.

One of the easiest ways to get stuck in the rut of “see[ing] things only in a way that fits our logical preconceptions and our verbal formulas” is to limit our exposure to new ideas and differing opinions. As a child, I only listened to preachers who agreed with the pastor of our church and I only read approved books, etc. All else was off limits because it was dangerous to expose ourselves to wrong ideas — at least ideas that we said were wrong because of our preconceptions. I would bet that many, if not most, of determinations of what was appropriate and what was not was made because someone else — someone trusted as a spiritual leader — said so. The books were not read first hand but were simply dismissed because so-and-so said it was evil. And so, we were constantly exposed to in-bred ideas and as a result, our minds atrophied and became inflexible which made it harder for us to entertain differing opinion. A vicious, downward spiral.

One solution is to do what Cliff Martin proposes in the comment thread to a post at OutsideTheBox: “Just as The God Delusion should be required reading for all believers, the McGrath’s wonderful little answer[, The Dawkins Delusion,] should be required reading for all atheists!!”

A post (via challies.com) about Rick Pearcey’s McDonald’s boycott. He does not agree with some decisions that McDondald’s has made and is therefore not going to frequent their restaurants anymore. Good for him. This type of thing is not done enough. I boycotted Amazon.com many years ago (the embargo is still mostly in effect, today) but the reasons were not so noble as Rick’s. I wrote them a letter and everything. It felt good but at the same time rather anti-climactic. And I haven’t done it since. Why?

• It takes time and energy: I have to stay up to date with things so that I know what kinds of bad things companies are doing. Then, I also feel I have the ethical responsibility to make sure I lift the boycott if they amend their ways. Keeping up with the situation takes even more time and energy.
• It feels useless. What possible difference could Rick’s buying a Big Mac make to a multi billion (trillion?) dollar company? That’s the anti-climactic piece I mentioned above. I told Amazon.com I wasn’t buying any more books from them and I feel they felt bad for a second then took out their bank statements, lit a cigar, kicked off their shoes and just laughed and laughed and laughed.
• The alternative is inconvenient and, most likely, more expensive. Yes, Amazon.com has great customer service, great selection and great prices. So, If I’m not buying books from them I’ll need to either pay more money or more sanity to deal with another company. Paying a dollar or so more for a different fast food item once a week may not seem that inconvenient, but what if you’re paying $3 more a book and you buy many books a month? What if you have to pay $2000 more for a car? The inconvenience and additional expense of following your convictions can be daunting in some cases.
• The alternative is sometimes worse. What if this company whose policies I cannot accept does happen to make one thing I really do need and the only other place to buy it is from a warehouse in NJ who ships it from Chile after being assembled in China? Is that better than supporting a company who goes against your beliefs? So, not only do you have to investigate the company you’re boycotting but you now have to track your alternate source.
• It makes me look arbitrary. “Oh,” people will say, “you’ll boycott Blah Blah Widgets because they think yada yada yada so why not boycott Foo Bar Tech and Baz Woo Cosmetics and Flip Flop Toys? They do this and that and the other.” It’s impossible to boycott everyone with whom you disagree. So where do you draw the line? Is the important thing that a line is drawn — somewhere, anywhere — or is the important thing that everything on my side of the line has been checked out 100%?

The other thing I found myself doing (both in the Amazon.com case and after I quit smoking) was that I’d get up on my soapbox and demand that everyone else follow my convictions and for the same reason. Talk about annoying! These are my convictions — not yours. Obviously, McDonald’s and Amazon.com have different convictions and don’t they have the right to express what they believe? It’s a touchy situation — equal rights for expressing our convictions and beliefs. I don’t think anyone really has a good answer for how to handle it.

It’s not easy to back up your convictions. So, why do it at all? Is Rick going to change McDonald’s? Did I change Amazon.com? I know, I know. “It all has to start somewhere.” “It’s the principle of the thing.” “What if everyone said that?” It’s this cliche and that hackneyed expression. But really all I’m going to get out of it (in the vast majority of cases) is the self-respect that comes from following my convictions. The question is, is that enough to offset all the negatives and inconveniences and additional costs of the alternative?

So, yes, I applaud Rick for taking a stand. I think more people need to speak up about companies who have made poor decisions and support the wrong things but we also need to act. And that is the real issue here. How far are you willing to go to demonstrate your beliefs? How much would you give up? If you had to put a time and money figure on it, what would it be? How much effort are you willing to put into investigating the companies with which you do business? How much extra cost are you willing to incur to shop an alternative, less convenient option? What if you had to give up listening to your favorite music artist? Or give up using your current cell phone company/provider? Or switch MP3 players? Or buy a different make car? Or do business with another bank? Would you be willing to institute the boycott and stick with it? Or do we just avoid looking too carefully at these major things in our lives so that we can continue using them with a “clear” conscience?