1
THE ZENSORY LIGHTNESS OF BEING | The Sovereignty of Detachment over other Concepts - A Contemplation of the Good |‘I think...
1 mysticism, which is morality’ […]’ Referring to Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ dealing with the main thoug...
towards what could be perceived as the ‘Holy Grail’ of morality, grasping it’s true mystical                              ...
7how can one make oneself better ? If life would occur once and never again, as Kunderapresupposes, there would be no high...
the attachment of the particular, to detach is to transcend this particular, hence to graspessence hence to perfect. Trans...
possessing and having are eradicated and where one’s own needs and interests are                                          ...
secondary place in moral philosophy when attempting to answer the question ‘how shouldone live’ in universal conceptions. ...
17 ground . In this Breaking Through every mode of being hence every conception is                                        ...
to write is to particularize. However, a particular mode of being is the prerequisite forunderstanding of its limitations ...
22 field , it shows again why emphasis is put on direct experience over written doctrine by the mystical approach. On the ...
peace in external things:“Make a start with yourself, and abandon yourself. Truly, if you do not begin by getting away fro...
stretch of one’s intentional arch. It is by being as such the world opens itself: a particularmode of being generates a pa...
26they are limitative and therefore cause alienation from essence . Again difficulty raisesregarding an understanding of w...
only man, who abandons all for Divine’s sake, who does not consider anymore this or that good, that man will have Divine, ...
tending of the soul seems to be of value. The labyrinth is unicursal having one way into thecenter and one way out symboli...
‘It is the humble man, that man, who sees himself as nothing, will see other things as they are - for he isdetached from s...
BIBLIOGRAPHYBourdieu, P. (1984), ‘La Distinction; a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste’, SagePublications, London.E...
Amsterdam.Murdoch, I. (1985), ‘The Sovereignty of Good’, Ark, London in: Crisp, R. and Slote, M.(2007), ‘Virtue Ethics’, O...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

| The Zensory Lightness of Being | The Sovereignity of Detachment over other Concepts, a Contemplation of the Good |

315

Published on

Published in: Spiritual
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
315
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

| The Zensory Lightness of Being | The Sovereignity of Detachment over other Concepts, a Contemplation of the Good |

  1. 1. 1
  2. 2. THE ZENSORY LIGHTNESS OF BEING | The Sovereignty of Detachment over other Concepts - A Contemplation of the Good |‘I think there is a place both inside and outside religion for a sort of contemplation of the Good, not justby dedicated experts but by ordinary people: an attention which is not just the planning of particulargood actions, but an attempt to look right away from Self towards a distant transcendent perfection, asource of uncontaminated energy, a source of new and quite undreamt-of virtue. This is the true 2
  3. 3. 1 mysticism, which is morality’ […]’ Referring to Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ dealing with the main thought ‘’each man has only one life to live’, a life in which that what occurs, occurs only once and so forth never again hence imposing a certain unbearable lightness on being, this essay 2 explores its ‘bearable’ potential; a Modeless Mode of Being in which particular being, self- 3 being, has been transcended. A Modeless Mode of Being, a ‘Zensory’ Being in which The Good can be grasped according to Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. Opposed to Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence - associated with the thought the universe and its events have already occurred and will recur ad infinitum, imposing a certain ‘heaviness’ on one’s being - Kundera’s concept of lightness underlines the rather insignificance of one’s being - for decisions do not matter and are therefore perceived light not causing personal suffering. On the other hand this insignificance of one’s being is causing suffering in the awareness of the transience of life occurring once and never again: an existential lightness becoming unbearable for Man generally wishing his being to have transcendent meaning. The unbearableness lies in the attachment to the value of one’s individual life lived by ‘self’ and it is the letting-go of this attachment, a detachment, which generates the transcendent meaning or significance Man would search for; his mystical nature, generating a ‘bearable’ lightness of his being. Functioning as a metaphor to pave the path1 From: Iris Murdoch, ‘The Sovereignty of Good’ (1985) in: (Crisp and Slote, 1997: 116).2 ‘A Modeless Mode of Being’; a concept of Meister Eckhart to refer to that ‘mode’ – although being ‘modeless’in which all particular modes of being are transcended and Unity is experienced. Beginning with capitals thisModeless Mode corresponds with the Divine, Unity in which All is One. ‘Good’ is therefore written as well witha capital to refer to a Modeless Mode of Goodness in which all its particular modes are transcended.3 ‘Zensory’: a term conceptualized to describe what Eckart calls a Modeless Mode of Being. More explanationwill be given further in this essay. 3
  4. 4. towards what could be perceived as the ‘Holy Grail’ of morality, grasping it’s true mystical 4 nature, Kundera’s idea of lightness will be perceived from its other side. A contemplation of the Good by looking away from self towards a distant transcendent perfection, towards a new source of virtue, a viewpoint expressed by moral philosopher Iris Murlock – in favor of the use of metaphors herself - and quoted above. It is the mystical nature of morality, a contemplation of Good following Murdoch, this essay attempts to explore in larger depths by traveling through the mindscape of Christian 5 mystic Meister Echkart and his doctrine of redemption, wherein the human being 6 becomes a Homo Divinus, an incarnation of the Divine or God , the Godhead. Since Murdoch has stated a contemplation of the Good would be possible for her both inside and outside religion, the choice for Eckharts’s mystical doctrine rooted in Christianity could be considered an extra validation regarding its use. The question why an exploration of the mystical nature of morality would matter should be understand in the context of Murdoch’s stating moral philosophers should attempt to answer the question:4 Contemplation is a concept of utter importance as well in both the thoughts of ancient philosophers Plato andPlotinus. Former states it is through contemplation the Divine Form of Good can be grasped, the highest objectof knowledge only accessible for philosopher-kings. Latter constitutes contemplation as the way to reachHenosis, a state of Oneness.5 – Or ‘living realization’ for the mystic approach emphasizes direct experience over doctrine. To speak aboutliving realization in light of discussing mystical thought seems however not suitable: the purpose of this essay isto explore mystical ideas by means of analyzing them, grasping them to theoretical extent. To realize theircontent and transcent their theoretical dimension, agreement is there, words should be realized in livingdeeds.6 In his Sermons Eckhart mostly uses the ‘concept’ of God to name the Divine, he mentions though that ‘Godhas no name’. It is herefore this essay uses Divine as a concept instead of God to refer to itself for former is aconcept less loaded than latter. Secondly awareness is there, the word is not capable to grasp the true essence ofthe Divine, that is by experience only as the mystical approach implies. Thirdly the Divine is ‘the solitary One’,being both transcendent and immanent (Shah-Kazemi, 2006:136). 4
  5. 5. 7how can one make oneself better ? If life would occur once and never again, as Kunderapresupposes, there would be no higher improvement of one’s being than by perfecting itand it is the perfection of virtue, a contemplation of the Good, grasping it’s mysticalnature, which could be considered it’s glorious finish. According to Murdoch it is one’stask to come to see the world as it is and in order to do so, Man has to sacrifice all to cometo this essence. This is what the mystic attempts, to dis-cover the Essence of Being.A contemplation of the Good implies according to Murdock a looking towards atranscendent perfection of virtue, what seems to be a pleonasm when aligning it with thethoughts of Meister Eckhart. About the relation between transcendence and virtueEckhart argues the ability to transcend limitative conceptions, so too in relation to aconception of virtue, presupposes their existence as a foundation for this transcendencepotential. Perfection of virtue as such could be considered in so far a transcendence of any 8kind of particular virtue, a-going-beyond for which all virtues have to be realized .‘[A]ll virtues should be enclosed in you and flow out of you in their true being. You should traverse and 9transcend all virtues, drawing virtue solely from its source in that ground where it is One with Divine ’.The essence of all virtues should be assimilated to such extent they all emanate, ‘flow’from man supernaturally, beyond his self-being. A looking towards a perfection of virtueshould therefore be detached of any particularizing conception of virtue realizedbeforehand in order to make transcendence, hence perfection possible. The limitation is in7 From: The Sovereignity of Good over other concepts of Virtue (1985) in: (Crisp and Slote, 2007:100).8 From: (Shah-Kazemi, 2006:143).9 From: (O’Connell Walshe, 1979, I:128). 5
  6. 6. the attachment of the particular, to detach is to transcend this particular, hence to graspessence hence to perfect. Transcendence is therefore perfection by which the pleonasticnature of Murdock’s expression of ‘transcendent perfection’ becomes clearly visible.Eckhart agrees on the essentialism of detachment, he argues transcendence of virtue canbe realized only indeed by looking away from the particular he associates with a lookingaway from self connected to the ‘created world’ by conforming one’s will to the DivineWill. He states the Divine Will is necessarily Good and so man must necessarily accept andbe ready for everything that is the Divine Will in order to improve one’s being to thehighest extent possible.‘I find no other virtue better than a pure detachment from all things, because all other virtues have someregard for created things, but detachment is free from all created things [..] He who would be serene andpure needs but one thing, detachment." 10Pure detachment he associates with an immovable stand of spirit in all assaults of feelingof joy, sorrow, shame like a stand of a solid tree rooted in the earth not blown away by araging storm. Here immovability rather should be understood as a firm-being-rooted ableto go with the flow of feeling as it appears being not overwhelmed by it, not attached to it,letting be whatever is, without judgment, preference or meaning. This immovable standwould bring man in the greatest similarity with the Divine. Initially detachment forEckhart signifies a notion of will constituted as a ‘not-willing’ a certain cessation of will,where particular will fades away in order to become receptive to the Divine will, where10 Spirit: not guided by self/thinking from subject, but rather a just-being, a letting-flow equal to the stand ofspirit the Buddhist tradition of Vipassana meditation describes. 6
  7. 7. possessing and having are eradicated and where one’s own needs and interests are 11renounced in the interest of another’s: the Divine . Receptivity, for Eckhart stronglyemphasizes the importance of complete disappearance of individual will to become as‘fully empty’ needed to receive the Divine, for that will enter a detached, hence, ‘free’ 12soul :"To be empty of all created things is to be full of ‘God’, and to be full of created things is to be empty of‘God" […]According to Eckhart, the Divine is ‘No-thing’ – rather the Being that undergrids allreality. Man must become no-thing to be one with Divine. It is the concept of Kenosis,rooted in Christian theology, which also refers to this process of self-emptying: releasing 13ones own will and becoming entirely receptive to the Divine . This process of self-emptying is what could be understood as an increase of sensitivity to its full potential, apotential hidden in man, though regularly covered by a veil of self-interested will. It is themoral philosopher Malcolm McDowell, who also introduces the concept of sensitivity tothe field of virtue relating it to a sort of single complex perceptual capacity, an ability to 14recognize requirements which situations impose on one’s behavior . Virtue he puts on a11 From: Selected Writings. Trans. Oliver Davies. New York: Penguin Books USA, Inc., 1994, p. 24412 From: sermon 24 - ‘Free’ or ‘pure’ as mentioned in the first quotation. What Eckhart exactly means by Soulremains unclear for he does not give an elaboration on it and/or uses other concepts to describe it.13 With reference to Kenosis: here it stands for becoming receptive to the Divine as in: ‘Christ emptied Himself’(Philippians 2:7) The common view to Kenosis is derived from German theologist Gottfried Thomasius (1800)stating Christ gave up voluntarily some of His divine attributes - omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence -so he could function as a man on earth to fulfill the work of redemption. Note that here the emptying factor isin the letting-go of divine attributes, whilst concerning Man, the emptiness is in the letting-go of one’s own –human – will to receive the Divine. The question raises if this Divine would be similar to the Divine attributesThomasius mentions.14 From: ‘Virtue and Reason’ (1979) in: (Crisp and Slote, 2007:142,144,161 and 162). 7
  8. 8. secondary place in moral philosophy when attempting to answer the question ‘how shouldone live’ in universal conceptions. Although differently formulated than Murdock’squestion ‘how can one make oneself better’, both questions are connected for ‘how to live’in view of moral philosophy implicitly deals with ‘to live good’ as does ‘to make oneselfbetter’ for ‘better’ is an improvement of good. Secondly to live good automatically couldimply to aspire to make oneself better for to live is to be in motion, to develop, whichopens dimensions for learning hence improvement. Turning back to the secondary placeMcDowell puts virtue on in light of these questions, it is the ‘being a kind of person’ –perceiving life and events in a certain way – he puts on the first place. This ‘kind of being’seems to overlap strongly with Eckhart’s notion of a ‘mode of being’ when he introduces a‘Modeless Mode of Being’, a negation of a negation of a ‘mode of being’ in attempt toconstitute a transcendent mode of being – for even the concept of mode is in this modeless 15mode transcended - that being in which detachment is fulfilled and a ‘Breaking Through ’manifests itself.‘’Therefore, I say, if a man turns away from self and from created things, then - to the extent that one 16will do this - one will attain Oneness and blessedness in one’s Souls spark, which time and place nevertouched’’ […]According to Eckhart all perfection, all blessedness depends upon the Breaking Through,which is beyond the created world of temporality entering the ground that is without15 Breaking-Through: When the self is fully detached and the veil of the created world has vanished enteringthe Modeless Mode of Divine Being.16 To the extent – to the fullest extent means total detachment of individual will. 8
  9. 9. 17 ground . In this Breaking Through every mode of being hence every conception is 18 transcended and a Modeless Mode of ‘Oneness ’ Being manifests beyond the limits of ordinary sensory experience though being possible to grasp by direct experience for this is the mystical approach. The kind of direct experience in this Modeless Mode is difficult to conceptualize for it impoverishes its nature – as do all signifiers in relation to their signifieds - nevertheless in order to be communicated, one needs a signifier signifying the signified. In this case the nature of the signified it is even more problematic for here the signified is something which in fact cannot be signified by a signifier, for it is beyond being and it is within being this potential lies. Eckhart attempts to overcome this by his expression of ‘Modeless Mode,’ and another suitable term approaching it to a large extent seems to be ‘Zensory’ experience, the Modeless Mode wherein the ‘Now’ is experienced, ‘Presence’: ‘never touched by time and place’ for Eckart insist one must flee one’s senses 19 and turn inwards to break through . This fleeing one’s senses could be understood as a ‘Stateless State’ of the senses, in which they are transcended – a- going-beyond the ordinary senses, generating hence a ‘Zensory’ experience. Concepts as ‘Zensory’ and ‘Modeless Mode’ serve merely as metaphors in the attempt to grasp and communicate about the existence of Oneness, for it has to be underlined again they represent a mode of Being which actually cannot be catched in words for to speak or17 From: (‘O Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon 80).18 Oneness: and not unity, which is also associated with this Modeless Mode, Eckhart strongly insists onOneness as opposed to united-ness of which latter corresponds with a coming together of things, which stillremain rather get unified. Oneness merely is where two are become one and wherefore one has to loose itsidentity. In de Modeless Mode of Being, the soul gives up her being and life to become One with Divine, whichstays. The soul does not perish for Divine, for it is Divine which brought soul out of itself, therefore soul mustbe truly its (‘O Connel Walshe, 1979: I-184).19 From: (Shah-Kazemi, 2006:158). 9
  10. 10. to write is to particularize. However, a particular mode of being is the prerequisite forunderstanding of its limitations nourishing the need to become One and thus Good andtranscend particularity. As was mentioned in the beginning of this essay, it is the existenceof concept which makes its transcendence/perfection possible leading to BreakingThrough and to experience Divine: Oneness. Oneness is therefore immanent in concept assuch. This could be extended to the thought, it is the existence of man, which makes histranscendence/perfection possible, making this Oneness/ the Divine also immanent inhim. This becomes even more clear when Eckhart argues it is Divine revealing itself inman after he becomes detached from self-being and transcends this beingness in theBreaking Through, this he calls, the Godhead in man. Here Eckhart’s mysticism showsboth elements of transcendence and immanence. The Divine made the soul not merelylike the image in Himself, but like His own Self, in fact like All He is. Man, as in particular‘self’, only has to step out of the way, which is the only thing man in fact ought to do in life,however still turns out to be the greatest challenge he is confronted with:‘God is always ready, but we are unready. God is near to us, but we are far from Him. God is in, we 20are out. God is at home in us, we are abroad ’.Turning back to the doubtful nature of the ‘Modeless Mode of Being’ concept, this is the 21great challenge all schools of mysticism are facing and are criticized for by the scientific20 From: (‘O Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon 69).21 ‘All schools of mysticism’: respectively all groups of agents representing a tradition of mystical philosophy inwhich certain concepts, structures and systems of meaning are created to signify to the Mystery of being, theDivine. 10
  11. 11. 22 field , it shows again why emphasis is put on direct experience over written doctrine by the mystical approach. On the one hand, one might wonder how to live according to the mystical approach of being if no doctrine of this approach would be available to orient one’s being to, on the other hand, one might become alienated by living up to other’s doctrine potentially blinded for one’s own experience. Eckhart adds to this man must have assimilated a certain degree of doctrine and live according to the virtues derived from this doctrine in order to make transcendence, perfection, possible. To what extent what doctrine should be assimilated en which virtues are following from that is however not clear. Dealing with Eckhartian mysticism, it seems the teachings of Christ are 23 preferred since Eckhart’s mystical thought itself is rooted in Christianity . On the other hand, it is considered the mystic’s being not to be attached to any kind of doctrine, conception or preference, which again shows the rather complicated nature of what path to walk to reach transcendence. The only certainty is that at least one or another path has to be walked, for as to Rome, it is a multitude of paths leading to the Breaking Through, chosen paths, which one has to let go eventually when completely internalized. And this is exactly the challenge man has to face: to become conscious of one’s internalized path, doctrine completely mastered and to detach from it again to every extent possible without escaping to another one. Speaking about ways to embed to one’s being the how-to question concerning detachment, ingredient to reception of the Divine will, hence transcendence of the limitative created world, hence perfection and the experience of Breaking Through, Eckhart indeed mentions the potential danger of escapism, here conceived as a search of22 Field – as in the Bourdieuan concept of field: a setting in which actors and their positions are located byprocesses of interaction among the specific rules of the field, the ‘Habitus’ an actor reflects and his possession of‘Capital’; cultural, economical and social. A social arena in which actors maneuver in pursuit of desirableresources (Bourdieu, 1984).23 Thereafter Eckhart speaks about assimilation of the ‘lofty teachings of Christ’ (Shah-Kazemi, 2006: 134). 11
  12. 12. peace in external things:“Make a start with yourself, and abandon yourself. Truly, if you do not begin by getting away fromyourself, wherever you run to, you will find obstacles and trouble wherever it may be. People who seekpeace in external things - be it in places or ways of life or people or activities or solitude or poverty ordegradation - however great such a thing may be or whatever it may be, still it is all nothing and givesno peace”.Eckhart underlines the importance of the detachment of all external things opening theway for what he perceives as the key leading to Breaking Through, an opening of the doorsof the created world. This opening, or more precisely stated ‘re-opening’ or ‘dis-covering’of the world is exactly the core of French phenomenology as represented by Merleau-Ponty although he disagrees with the possibility to transcend the I and enter what Eckhartconstitutes as the Modeless Mode of Being, the Now, receiving Divine. He states there canbe no self-enclosed Now experience of time, because time always has a reflexive aspectbeing aware of itself, opening man up to experience beyond particular horizons ofsignificance. This temporal alterity causes man can never say ‘I’ absolutely (PP 208) for: “I know myself only insofar as I am inherent in time and in the world, that is, I know myself only in 24my ambiguity ” […] ‘Subject is time and time is subject’ [...]Despite this difference in perception of Now, Merleau-Ponty ascribes man’s inherent‘mode’ of being in the world and time as dependant on intentionality, directed by the24 From: (Merleau-Ponty, 2009: 345, 431 and 432). 12
  13. 13. stretch of one’s intentional arch. It is by being as such the world opens itself: a particularmode of being generates a particular opening of the world: being is to be in the world. Thetighter one’s intentional arc is stretched, the more open the world will be. BecauseMerleau-Ponty states ‘subject is time and time is subject’ – in abstracter terms translated ina = b and b = a, following the rules of logic from it can be derived, that -a = -b and –b = -a– transformed to concrete terms again: no-subject is no-time and no-time is no-subject. Andalthough Merleau-Ponty discloses an existence of a Now state as explained earlier, thenegation of his assumption makes this Now state possible, in which there is no time and nosubject according to Eckhart. It is precise the detachment of self (subject) letting it fadeaway resulting in an absence, an emptiness ‘Breaking Through’ its subject-existence andwith it all its creations such as time, entering this Modeless Mode of Being in which henceno subject and no time exist. One could say in this Modeless Mode of Being one’sintentional arc is stretched that far it snaps and everything simple is for even a particularmode of openness is transcended in the Modeless Mode. Merleau Ponty’s statement ‘The 25world is wholly inside and I am wholly outside myself ’ is thus valid in so far I and theworld are distinctive, which is the case in this particular mode of ‘being in the world’,however when mode is transcended to a Modeless Mode, concepts as world, I, inside andoutside do not matter anymore.Using Merleau-Ponty’s metaphor, it is detachment from I – subject – bringing one’sintentional arch to snap. Eckhart underlines this should be a purity of intention cut offfrom individual will with no falling back on admixtures for – ‘however their greatness’ –25 From: (Merleau Ponty, 2009: 407). 13
  14. 14. 26they are limitative and therefore cause alienation from essence . Again difficulty raisesregarding an understanding of what this essence exactly might be since Eckhartpresupposes it is nature to be without nature from which follows that, to think of goodnessor any other concept dissembles Good (essence), it is putting an impermanent veil over theimmutable nature of the Universal Good. It dims it in thought for the mere thought 27obscures essence for a particular good adds nothing to goodness, it rather would hide andcover the goodness in man. So mental thinking of goodness veils the Good, for Good, itstrue nature, is incompatible with human thought limiting and distorting it. It is ThomasKuhn’s concept of ‘incommensurability’, which seems to be in place here, explaining thisgap between concept and reality as a rely on different contexts – that of mental thinkingand of direct experience, two contexts, which are incomparable.With ‘no falling back on admixtures’ (external things), Eckhart means all things outside ofthe inner life, a falling back on any other doctrine, belief, conception dealing with theouter life. In fact this then also includes doctrines stating how to enter one’s inner life for itis the statement, the belief of the how-to, which would seem to lead one away from one’sown experience. In this view even Eckhart’s focus on detachment becomes doubtful for itis still a how-to means, a way, to become empty in order to receive the Divine. Aware ofthis, he arguments detachment is the ‘key’ virtue standing above all doctrines withforthcoming particularized conceptions of virtue related to self, for it is not associated withself, in contrast, detachment presupposes the leaving of self in order to transcend it. It isabout pure intention, as seeking Divine for its own sake, what ‘true’ detachment implies,26 From: (O’Connell Walshe, Vol.II: 39).27 From: (O’Connell Walshe, Vol.II: 32). 14
  15. 15. only man, who abandons all for Divine’s sake, who does not consider anymore this or that good, that man will have Divine, Good and all things with Divine and because of that detachment in its true nature is the best of all virtues. For to have Divine is the highest man can achieve in soul. About this seeking Divine for its own sake he adds, one should want nothing, also not an experience of Divine in one’s soul and be free of all knowing so one will not know that Divine is in one’s soul. The only thing one should ask is to become 28 a place only for Divine, ‘in which It can work ’. Man should therefore not worry about 29 what one does, rather what one is . Although Eckhart takes it for granted man attempts to live a moral and regular life, he considers it not enough for he sums up a few reasons preventing man from attainment of ‘true’ detachment. The first reason is the soul being too scattered being too much distracted by the external created world. The second reason is the soul’s involvement with transient things, which in fact could be considered a distraction as well. The third reason is an excessive focus by the soul on bodily needs, preventing the soul from its growth towards 30 union with Divine and to become One . Except these three reasons Eckharts recommends ‘absolute stillness for as long as possible’ as a necessary means on one’s way to become receptive to Divine. On the other hand, he warns man walking the path of stillness hence contemplation, not to abandon one’s inner life, rather flow with it in such a way that inward life spontaneously breaks out into outward life, activity, which will lead back into inward life again. Here the metaphor of the labyrinth, the ancient mystical symbol for28 From: (O’Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon, 87).29 From: (O’Connell Walshe, 2008: Talks of Instruction 4).30 From: (O’Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon 85). 15
  16. 16. tending of the soul seems to be of value. The labyrinth is unicursal having one way into thecenter and one way out symbolizing the ‘decensus ad inferos’: the descent into the bowelsof ‘symbolic’ death and return to life reborn. Thereafter it is associated with the symbolic‘conjunctio oppositorum’: the place in which duality comes together as in a spiral being 31transcended and becoming One . Eckhart’s idea of going inwards (descending) leading togoing outerwards (returning) leading back to going inwards and so on in itself could beconsidered an example of both explanations of the symbol of the labyrint, descending andreturning as also in its totality as a process of coming together of duality (inner and outer)in the flow, the movement.Following this logic of the labyrinth, it seems it is in this movement, immersion of soul cantake place, the true detachment from self, emptying one’s being to become this placewhere ‘It’, hence Divine, can work. For to be completely in the movement, in the flow, iswhere the self will take its rest, where Man becomes detached from it’s self-being openingup to receive Divine and man will not seek it for it happens to him being in this flow, thisis truly the Modeless Mode of Oneness Being, the Zensory lightness of Being for here man(self) is completely merged into Divine, ‘Now’ and therefore does not even know God is inhim. It is thus in the movement All becomes One hence the Good will be known, the truemystical nature of morality, its Essence as also all other mystical natures of concepts for inthis Modeless Mode Oneness reigns, Perfection. True Creation lies in the movement.Turning back to Murdock, this essay started with, it is also her, who refers to detachmentfrom self as the way most likely to become Good.31 From: (Eliade, 1969). 16
  17. 17. ‘It is the humble man, that man, who sees himself as nothing, will see other things as they are - for he isdetached from self - and although he is not by definition ‘Good’, he is the most likely of all to become 32Good’ .And from this viewpoint it can be concluded, detachment indeed seems to be sovereignover other concepts of virtue nevertheless man should stay indeed ‘humble’ in one’s beliefabout morality still being able to detach from it in order to make transcendence henceperfection possible, Breaking Through to become Good rooted in that Zensory Lightnessof Being, in which All is One…...‘letting go they went comfortably to sleep. It was All Right’…32 Murdoch in: (Crisp & Slote, 2007: 117). 17
  18. 18. BIBLIOGRAPHYBourdieu, P. (1984), ‘La Distinction; a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste’, SagePublications, London.Eliade, M. (1969), ‘Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism’, Sheed andWard; Search Book Edition, New York.McDowell J. (1979), ‘Virtue and Reason’, The Monist, 62, pp. 331-350 in: Crisp, R. andSlote, M. (2007), ‘Virtue Ethics’, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Meister Eckhart (1994), ‘Selected Writings’. Translated by Oliver Davies, Penguin BooksUSA Inc., New York.Merleau-Ponty, M. (2009), ‘De Fenomenologie van de Waarneming’, Boom Uitgevers, 18
  19. 19. Amsterdam.Murdoch, I. (1985), ‘The Sovereignty of Good’, Ark, London in: Crisp, R. and Slote, M.(2007), ‘Virtue Ethics’, Oxford University Press, Oxford.‘O Connell Walshe, M. (1979), ‘Meister Eckhart: Sermons and Treatises (Vols. I-III),Element Books, Dorset.‘O Connell Walshe, M. (2008), ‘The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart’,Crossroads Herder, New York.Shah-Kazemi, R. (2006), ‘Paths to Transcendence according to Shankara, Ibn Arabi andMeister Eckhart’, World Wisdom Inc, Bloomington, Indiana. 19

×