Soulnerd: The Third Spiritual Option

“Life is like getting on a boat that is about to sink.” —D.T. Suzuki

“The idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else; it is a mainspring of human activity–designed largely to avoid the fatality of death, to overcome it by denying in some way that it is the final destiny of man.” —Ernest Becker.

We are mirror mortals, the first known species with the capacity to imagine the full arc of life and to know in definitive detail that we die. We get on the boat; we row with great enthusiasm knowing that no matter our destiny, our real destiny is the inky deep. We invest in our journey, conscious that we must eventually divest.

And it isn’t just the one death. Getting on a boat that is about to sink is a fractal experience played out in the arc of minutes, hours, years, eras, epochs, and millennia. Every day something dies. You lose your glasses, your friend snubs you, you realize that the thing that thrilled you yesterday isn’t great after all. Over the months, too, the people and joys come and go. Then each of us dies. Our families die. Our civilizations fall. Our species. The universe itself is terminal. Everything we embrace as exciting and new comes with its time-release aging, decay, and breakdown. When you buy a pet dog you buy a pet dog’s death.

None of this would matter if we never got on the boat. But here we are. We care. When we fall in love, investing, it’s like a taste of heaven—joy eternal. When we break up, divesting of each other, it’s a little taste of hell—dissolution eternal. The deeper you go in the more it hurts to come out. Whether we choose to divest or divestment is thrust upon us, there it is, the inevitable, looming no matter where we go.

This view of life fits with disconcerting snugness. Because we throw our lot in with the garden, we grieve when we’re cast out of it. Because we accelerate into what enthuses us, our brakes squeal and our wheels shudder when we are forced to stop. Union is sweet, disunion is sour. Yes, no one gets out alive, but also no one gets out without great grief and loss, and here we are, knowing we’ll be evicted eventually. And what can we do about it?

I’ve had a hard time with the word “spiritual.” Powerful but ill-defined words make me wary. Since I can’t find much consensus about what it means, I feel at liberty to offer my own definition. Spirituality is one’s overall strategy for coping with the challenge of investing, knowing that one must eventually divest. Spirituality is a kind of preparation, a pre-grieving. Defined this way, I see three main spiritual paths, each with myriad variations, but still ultimately just three:

1. Make One Eternal Investment: Build a pillar of belief to hold onto, one thing from which one never divests for all eternity, something that can’t be credibly challenged or tested and proved wanting, something that explains why people leave and people die and why there has to be so much pain and disappointment and letting go, a belief perhaps that explains how it will all make sense by and by or will be made equitable in the world beyond, a belief that makes the world beyond—the eternal realm—one’s primary focus, aiming us toward its purpose ever after and toward the happily ever after that we expect to come from serving its purpose ever after.

2. Let Go Into Thin Slices: Since letting go is the hard part, make a practice of divesting. Practice divesting by being present in every instant. Excise memory (of what’s lost) or projection (to what’s in store). Be here now, quieting the hungry ghosts of intellect and conception. Become one with nature which doesn’t think, theorize, speculate or foresee, but just is. Return to animal simplicity. In pain, simply say “ouch.” In pleasure simply say “ah.” Don’t generalize or theorize about implications. Know the arc but live in the moment, the cross sections, one slice of life at a time.

3. Make a Study of the Arc: Put one’s grief in context of the patterns structures and trends of human and natural affairs. Study that larger context with heart and head full open, feeling waves of sorrow and joy and thinking about and analyzing the waves, using your intellect and capacity for conception, giving voice to hungry ghosts, the desire to understand, and to manage, to minimize grief but also to face it squarely. Study it through the many disciplines, culture’s long arguments, quests, debates, and accounts, the peculiarly stubborn attempts to see clearly that constitute intellectual culture. Cut a path through big time, the “long and wide now” by absorbing evolutionary biology, intellectual history, philosophy, anthropology, and above all, literature. Become worldly so that you can say of whatever life deals you, “Yes, this too life has in its vast and intricate creative capacities.”

Every once in a while people ask me if I’m spiritual or have a spiritual practice. By their definition I think they’re asking about the first two kinds, in which case my answer is an obvious no. But I balk a little because though the third kind is in some ways an anathema to the first two, it feels like my spiritual path, so I haven’t known exactly what to say.

My deepest spiritual experience came by reading a novel about a normal couple divorcing. It was during my first mid-life crisis (I’ve had two and am expecting one more). My wife was in love with someone very spiritual. My marriage and my career were both falling apart. My eldest son was showing signs of severe chemical imbalance. My expectations of success as a man felt snuffed. I was terribly uncomfortable in my skin, crying every day, an embarrassment to my wife and children, an endless font of anxiety imposed on my friends.

I had to get away and decided to spend a month in rural Guatemala where I had worked in my early 20s. En route I stopped off to see my brother, an English professor living in Chicago. He asked me what I brought to read on my journey. I showed him my books, all Buddhist tracts. “These are all so aspirational,” he said. “Why not read some fiction?” He gave me a book of short stories by John Updike spanning the arc of an ordinary marriage. It captured people just as we are. It laid us wide open in precise non-judgmental detail, including all our shocking neediness and coldness and yet free from authorial scorn. It was people just seen.

On a bus from Guatemala City to Livingston, a long drive that flew by, I was thoroughly absorbed, feeling as one with us, but not in some platitudinously abstract “we are all one” kind of way. Rather, intimate with the details, and generalizing intellectually with my heart wide open, experiencing the full catastrophe of being one of us, fearful in our embraces, haunted by the pairing of investment and divestment. It was grace, forgiveness from the universe, but grace in the fine details set in the context of the real predicament, not in God’s sweeping and peculiar forgiveness for His making us wrong on purpose.

On my spiritual path, Updike is a master, as are so many practitioners of fiction. Though I now work among theorists and scientists, philosophers and psychologists, I contend that no theoretical or scientific or spiritual work is anywhere near as capable of representing what this is, this life of ours, than good fiction. Literature is a yoga, a soulnerd’s intellectual-spiritual practice of contour-fitting what we know to what is so.

Originally published on Mind Readers Dictionary.

Author

  • Below is a message from Philip Hefner from Chicago in response to Edward Davis, who reviewed James Gilbert's book REDEEMING CULTURE (University of Chicago Press, 1997) in Meta 158 last week. Hefner argues that Davis has misrepresented Gilbert's book with regard to chapter twelve in particular and to the legacy of Ralph Burhoe, IRAS, and Zygon.

    Hefner notes in closing that there were two article length reviews of Gilbert's book in the March 1998 issue of ZYGON. For those of you who do not already know, ZYGON can now be accessed online at <http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/Static/online.htm>. The only caveat here is that online access is restricted to the Internet domains of college and university, whose libraries subscribe to ZYGON. So for instance, I can access ZYGON online when logged on through my <@temple.edu> server, but not through my <@voicenet.com> server.

    -- Billy Grassie

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    From: [email protected] (philip hefner) Subject: Davis's review of REDEEMING CULTURE

    I feel compelled to comment on Professor Davis's review of James Gilbert's book, REDEEMING CULTURE. I was disappointed by the review and the ways in which I think it does not do justice to Gilbert's book. I will deal only with Davis's brief comments on the work of Ralph Burhoe and Zygon, which occupy chapter twelve of the book.

    First of all, Davis neglects to point out that the sentence he quotes at the end of his review is about Zygon, not about IRAS or Shapley or Burhoe. Gilbert asserts that while Burhoe and Shapley did not achieve their lofty goals and although their vision was at point flawed, their movement was significant, worthwhile, and not without effect. In the very next sentence after Davis's quote, Gilbert writes, Yet IRAS and Zygon maintained the conversation between liberal theologians and an important wing of the scientific community. They staked out space for the claims of religion for relevance in a scientific society and provided a way for religion and science to engage each other as equal partners in an age when the pressures to choose one side or the other were growing rapidly. But a meeting of science and religion, like the ever-receding goal of religious ecumenism, evaded Burhoe and Shapley even as they succeeded in making small conquests and conversions (page 295).

    More provocatively, let me say that Gilbert uses the term pantheism to refer only to Shapley's personal religious perspective, and never uses it, as Davis asserts, to refer to Burhoe, IRAS, or Zygon. Anyone with first-hand knowledge understands very well that they do not represent a pantheistic position. Only by manipulating his quotes does Davis bring Zygon and IRAS into relation with pantheism.

    I would note the seriousness with which Gilbert discusses the effort of Burhoe, Shapley, and their colleagues in both mainstream science and mainstream religion, to offer a rational version of Christian faith that could coexist with science on an equal basis. Davis's commitments to the contrary notwithstanding, that effort is both well established in the history of Christian thought and a compelling response to the intellectual and spiritual circumstances of our time. It certainly is not wholly adequate, and it is but one such response among many, but there is no reason to distort it, as Davis may be doing.

    In March 1998, Zygon published two article-length discussions of Gilbert's book: by Richard Busse (Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, and James Miller (Coordinator of the AAAS Program for Dialogue between Science and Religion).

    Philip Hefner=<[email protected]> Fax: 773-256-0682 Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago Chicago Center for Religion and Science Tel.: 773-256-0670 Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 1100 East 55th St. Chicago, IL 60615-5199 U.S.A.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

    Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

    Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science . Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Similar Posts