The Wishing Dervish
Philosophy
Presence of Absense
Le soi sincère
Le soi sincère ©Philippe Quéau 2023 ©Art Kéo 2023
Explication : le soi ceint serre; mais, le « sois saint » sert…
Gazing Old Men
Parler ou se taire, comment savoir?
Un jeune homme, nommé M., aimait converser avec des esprits brillants, tout en se promenant nonchalamment, le long d’agréables chemins de campagne. Il se plaisait tout particulièrement en la compagnie de L., qui avait une réputation d’extravagance, et n’appartenait à aucune école de pensée. Mais, dans l’entourage de M., on disait de L. que c’était un sophiste, et même un faiseur, qui n’aimait que ce qui est étrange et les discours décousus. Un peu à la manière d’un Socrate de seconde zone, il cherchait à jeter le doute sur la manière même dont la plupart des gens pensaient. Cela irritait le commun. D’autres en riaient.
Par exemple, L. disait, comme allant de soi, que l’existence des choses ne s’épuise jamais, qu’il y a des principes sans conséquence, des commandements et des injonctions qui n’aboutissent à rien, ou encore qu’il y a des pensées qui viennent de nulle part. Il disait aussi que le regard ne se meut pas, et qu’un cheval bai n’est pas un cheval. Il affirmait, sans mollir, qu’un orphelin n’a jamais eu de mère. Toutes ces pseudo-réflexions suscitaient la critique de ceux qui tenaient le haut du pavé, dans la grande ville, et qui distribuaient les accolades suivant les allégeances. On accusait L. d’énoncer ce qui pouvait passer pour des platitudes, et de se plaire à d’ineptes logorrhées.
M. défendait L. de son mieux. Il répondait point par point aux critiques dont son ami faisait l’objet, et trouvait des justifications à ses pensées les plus décousues.
L’existence des choses ne s’épuise jamais, car elles font partie de l’être – qui est toujours.
Il y a des principes sans conséquence, des commandements et des injonctions qui n’aboutissent nullement, car, en réalité, tout est en puissance, tout peut faire but, ou fin, et rien n’est déterminé.
Il y a des pensées qui viennent de nulle part, en effet, lorsqu’on reste absolument sans pensées, on n’est plus que soi, en son propre soi. Ce soi est-il quelque part ?
Le regard ne se meut pas : en effet il n’a pas de place, ni de lieu. Quel serait son lieu, et où irait-il s’il en avait un ?
Un cheval bai n’est pas un cheval : c’est là une démonstration courte mais décisive de la différence entre le mot et la chose même, entre le nom et l’être, entre l’apparence et l’essence.
Un orphelin qui n’a jamais eu de mère, n’est jamais venu au monde. Cela prouve qu’il n’existe pas, en effet, ou encore qu’un orphelin qui n’a jamais eu de mère, n’a jamais eu de mère.
– Bien essayé, mon cher M., intervint alors P., ce n’est pas très facile de singer Maître Liei, ou même d’en piller le style, mais vous avez fait de votre mieux.
Ce à quoi M., un peu dépité, mais décidément prêt à en découdre, répondit, citant de mémoire une traduction de Maître Lie par A.C. Graham :
– « Whoever gets the idea says nothing, whoever knows it all also says nothing. Whether you think that saying nothing is saying or not saying, whether you think that knowing nothing is knowing or not knowing, you are still saying and still knowing. But there is nothing that he either does not say or says, nothing that he does not know ou knows. »
– Quel galimatias !, rétorqua P., avec un sourire de mépris, de ceux qu’on voit les héros arborer dans les romans russes.
– Je ne pense pas. Il faut voir l’idée, dit encore L. Quiconque la voit en effet, peut dire qu’il n’en dira rien. Quiconque sait une chose peut décider de la taire. Que vous pensiez que ne rien dire, c’est dire, ou bien que ce n’est pas dire, dans les deux cas, c’est un fait que vous le pensez. Et ça aussi, il vous revient de le dire ou pas. Que vous pensiez que ne rien savoir, c’est un savoir ou bien un non-savoir, cette pensée même est encore une sorte de savoir, n’est-ce pas ? Soit on dit quelque chose, soit on ne dit rien. Soit on sait, soit on ne sait pas. Et en dehors de ça, il n’y a rien, n’est-ce pas ?
– Hmmm… Je demande à voir, répondit P., un peu songeur.
___________________
iCf. Lie-Tseu. Le Vrai Classique du vide parfait, IV, XIII
The Four Kinds of Knowledge, and Spinoza.
Spinoza defines several kinds of knowledge by which we form general ideasi . First, there is the knowledge we obtain through the senses, which he calls « knowledge by vague experience », and « truncated and confused ». Then he describes three other kinds of knowledge that enable us to form « ideas »: Imagination, Reason and Intuition, which he calls « knowledge of the first kind », « knowledge of the second kind » and « knowledge of the third kind » respectively.
Knowledge of the first kind is « opinion or Imagination », which derives from the signs or words by which we remember things, and by means of which « we form ideas similar to those by which we imagine them »ii . Knowledge of the second kind is « Reason« , which is derived from the fact that we have « common notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things ». Knowledge of the third kind is « Intuitive Science » which, I quote, « proceeds from the adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate idea of the essence of things ». This convoluted formula is really not easy to understand. That’s why Spinoza says he’s going to explain it with an example – the « Rule of Three ».
As we all know, this Rule allows us, given three numbers, to obtain a fourth, which is to the third as the second is to the first.
There are two ways of applying it, one academic, the other immediate. « Merchants will not hesitate to multiply the second by the third and divide the product by the first »iii says Spinoza, but for the simplest numbers no demonstration is necessary. « Given the numbers 1, 2 and 3, there is no one who does not see that the fourth (proportional) number is 6, » he explains. We see at a glance the relationship between the first and the second (the number 2 is double 1), and we conclude that the fourth is obviously 6 (double 3).
Spinoza thinks that we can apply the Rule of Three to the relationship between the ideas we form about God and the ideas we form about the world… According to him, there is a kind of proportion between: 1° the ‘formal’ essence of God’s attributes, 2° the ‘adequate’ idea we form of them, 3° the true essence of things and 4° the idea we form of their essence.
In other words, the idea we have of the essence of God’s attributes can be compared to the idea we have of the essence of things. This statement may seem self-evident: the idea of one essence is analogous to the idea of another essence – they are both ideas about essence. Any idea conceived by Man about any essence is, on a formal level, analogous to any other idea conceived about any other essence.
However, isn’t it difficult to put ideas about this world and ideas about God in correspondence, without any particular precaution?
Spinoza asserts that, in knowledge of the third kind, a relationship of proportion is possible between human thoughts about the essence of things and human thoughts about the essence of God. He thus explicitly rejects the hypothesis that no proportion is possible between God, Man and the World.
Let us now try to test this relationship of proportion, assumed by Spinoza, on three classic examples of the formulation of divine attributes: « God is », « God is alive », « God is one ».
1 « God is ».
God « is ». By this simple assertion, he is – without attribute or epithet. He is only this « He is« . « Being in God is not something added, but a subsistent truth », says S. Hilaire.iv Thomas Aquinas similarly affirms that God’s being is not ‘added on’ to him. God’s being is not added to him, but « subsists » in him. His being is « without addition ».v Boethius, seven centuries before Thomas Aquinas, had already said: « That which is may well, by a new addition, be something else again: but being, there is no addition to it ».vi Thomas Aquinas gave as an example the difference between the beast and the animal. The ‘beast’ is the animal that is just that – an animal. The ‘animal’, on the other hand, is an animal that can also be reasonable, or unreasonable, or anything else. The divine being ‘is’, as the beast is a beast, quite simply. It is only ‘being’, – a being without addition. On the other hand, the being in general, and the human being in particular, « is » like the animal is an animal with specific possibilities of addition (« feathered animal », « reasonable animal », « political animal », etc.). Hence this possible analogy, if we follow Thomas Aquinas: The being of God is to the being of Man, as the being of the beast is to the being of the animal…
The very being of God only « is ». This does not prevent an infinite number of things from following from the divine being, through an infinite number of modes, says Spinoza: « An infinite number of things must follow in an infinite number of modes from the necessity of the divine nature, that is, everything that can fall under an infinite understanding ».vii But the very being of God can only be this very being. If we believe, as Spinoza does, that this is the opportunity to discover knowledge of the third kind, then, by the Rule of Three, the very being ofman can only be that very being. Or can it be other than this very being?
2. « God is alive ».
Four centuries before Spinoza, Thomas Aquinas devoted the beginning of the Summa Theologica to questions such as: Is the existence of God self-evident? Does God exist? Is there in God a composition of essence and existence? Is God perfect? Do creatures resemble God? Is there in God a composition of essence and subject?
To answer this last question, Thomas Aquinas posits a sort of relationship of proportion between God and deity, on the one hand, and life and the living, on the other. « It is said of God that he is life, and not only that he is alive, as we see in S. John (14,6): ‘I am the way, the truth and the life’. Now deity is in the same relationship with God as life is with the living. So God is deity itself ».viii The distinction between life and the living is a good example of knowledge of the third kind, which allows a formal analogy between the living God and what is life, or living, in man.
3. « God is one ».
What is the essence of divine unity? Is it a numerical unit? The number 1 would then enclose God, and contain him in its arithmetical essence, which seems impossible to admit.
Is it an ontological unity, a unity of being? God’s being would then be limited to being only this being, which is a (grammatical) mode of being, whereas God is supposed to be being itself, beyond all modes of being.
Is it a unity of essence? No. But every essence, whatever it may be, is already ‘one’, in a way by essence. To assert the unity of God’s essence is therefore a pleonasm, because every essence is essentially one.
Is it a ‘transcendental’ unity? Then it would be, to a certain extent, intelligible as an a priori form of reason.
Is it a ‘transcendent’ unity? Possibly, but then as a transcendent unity it is completely unknowable to reason.
As we can see, the possible formulations of the question of divine unity represent various ideas, more or less ‘adequate’, of what its essence might actually be. Let’s imagine that we choose, from among them, one idea (or another) of the formal essence of divine unity. By applying the Rule of Proportion, on the basis of this idea of divine unity, a similar idea of the essence of the unity of things in the world could emerge.
But let us immediately add that the analogy of proportion could also work in the other direction: if we form an adequate idea of the essence of a thing in the world, we should therefore be able to deduce an analogous idea as to the nature of the divine essence.
For example, we can conceive of something in the world as being ‘one’, insofar as it presents itself as a unique, singular entity.
By analogy, then, we can form the idea that God’s essence is also ‘unique’, ‘singular’.
However, there are many singular things in the world, and even an innumerable number. Would there then, by analogy, be many singular things in the world? Many « Gods », and even an uncountable multiplicity? Perhaps, but not necessarily. Applying the Rule of Proportion, we might only wish to deduce that there are indeed many singular attributes in God, and even an infinite number. This is what Spinoza does, and from this he draws this stimulating proposition: « The more we know singular things, the more we know God ».ix
These examples show that it is possible to progress in our knowledge of God, even though he is infinite and has an infinity of attributes. This is how we can best define him: « By God I mean an absolutely infinite being, that is, a substance made up of an infinite number of attributes, each of which expresses an eternal and infinite essence ».x
Spinoza’s God is even infinitely infinite, because each of his ‘attributes’ can have an infinite number of ‘modes’, i.e. affections. « By modes I mean the affections of a substance. »xi Each mode is an affection of an attribute of the substance, and an attribute can have an infinite number of possible affections, and therefore as many ‘modes’. The substance of God, in so far as it ‘affects’ a certain thing, is translated into a particular mode. All things in the world are particular ‘modes’ in God, ‘affections of his substance’. We can also say that these modes are ‘conceived’, or ‘represented’, by means of particular things.xii Thoughts too are ‘modes’ in God, ‘affections of his substance’. They are affections of the divine attribute that is thought.xiii
The fact that there are ideas, the fact that there is ‘thinking’, is a ‘mode’ that expresses in a certain way the nature of God, insofar as he is a ‘thinking thing’.xiv The fact of thinking a ‘singular’ thought (this thought, or that thought) is also a ‘mode’, which expresses the nature of God in a certain and determined way.xv Finally, the bodies themselves are also ‘modes’ expressing God. xvi
All of the above can be called « third-kind » knowledge. What purpose does this knowledge serve, you may ask? This is a very interesting question, and one that goes to the heart of consciousness and unconsciousness. One possible answer can be found on the last page of the Ethics. Spinoza harshly criticises the « ignorant ». He says that the « ignorant » has, in a way, ceased to be: « The ignorant is almost unconscious. As soon as he ceases to suffer, he also ceases to be ».xvii On the other hand, Spinoza values his antonym, the Wise Man. « The Wise Man, on the contrary, considered in this capacity, hardly knows inner turmoil, but having, by a certain necessity, eternal awareness of himself, of God and of things, never ceases to be and possesses true contentment. If the path that leads to it appears to be extremely arduous, it is still possible to enter it. And it must certainly be arduous which is so rarely found. How could it be possible, if salvation were within reach and could be reached without great difficulty, that it should be neglected by almost everyone? But everything beautiful is as difficult as it is rare.xviii
Everything beautiful is difficult and rare…
But not everything that is difficult and rare is necessarily beautiful. Neither difficulty nor rarity are sufficient conditions for beauty.
Beauty comes like grace. But where does it come from?
To answer this question, we might need to know some kind of knowledge of a fourth kind…
__________________
iSpinoza. Ethics. Part II. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul. Scolie 2 de la Proposition XL Trad. Ch. Appuhn. Garnier-Flammarion, 1965, p.115
iiSpinoza. Ethics. Part II. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul. Scolie 2 de la Proposition XL Trad. Ch. Appuhn. Garnier-Flammarion, 1965, p.115
iiiSpinoza. Ethics. Part II. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul. Scolie 2 de la Proposition XL Trad. Ch. Appuhn. Garnier-Flammarion, 1965, p.115
ivS. Hilaire. De Trin. VII. PL 10, 208
v« What is said about being without addition can be understood in two senses: either the being receives no addition because it is part of its notion to exclude all addition: thus the notion of ‘beast’ excludes the addition of ‘reasonable’. Or it does not receive addition because its notion does not include addition, as the animal in general is without reason in the sense that it is not in its notion to have reason; but neither is it in its notion not to have it. In the first case, the being without addition of which we speak is the divine being; in the second case, it is the being in general or common. « Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, Question 3, Article 4, Solution 1
viBoethius. De Hebdomadibus. PL 64, 1311.
viiSpinoza. Ethics. Part I. Proposition XVI. Translated by Ch. Appuhn. Garnier-Flammarion, 1965, p.39
viiiThomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica, I, Question 3, Article 3.
ixSpinoza. Ethics. Part V. On the freedom of man. Proposition XXIV. Translated by Ch. Appuhn. Garnier-Flammarion, 1965, p.325
xSpinoza. Ethics. Part I. On God. Definition VI. Ibid, p.21
xiSpinoza. Ethics. Part I. On God. Definition V. Ibid, p.21
xiiModes are conceived as being derived from the divine substance, since they represent particular affections of it.
xiii« Thinking is an attribute of God, in other words God is a thinking thing. God ‘thinks’ when he ‘affects’ his substance in something other (than himself). Spinoza. Ethics. Part II. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul. Proposition I. Ibid, p.71
xivSpinoza. Ethics. Part II. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul. Demonstration of Proposition V. Ibid, p.74
xvSpinoza. Ethics. Part II. On the Nature and Origin of the Soul. Demonstration of Proposition I. Ibid, p.71
xvi« By body I mean a mode which expresses the essence of God, in so far as it is considered as an extended thing, in a certain and determinate manner. » Spinoza. Ethics. Part II. On the nature and origin of the soul. Definition I. Ibid, p.69
xviiSpinoza. Ethics. Part V. On the freedom of man. Scolia of Proposition XLII Ibid, p.341
xviiiIbid.p.341
Being and Fichte
Neuroscientists, however arrogant, remain astonishingly silent about the essence of consciousness. Having acknowledged that they have failed to understand its origin and nature by searching for it in neurons and synapses, we should perhaps try other avenues than neurosciences, despite a ‘modern’ context that is hard on ideals and insensitive to essences. We could, for example, mobilise the resources of pure reason, plunge into introspection, without disdaining the achievements of millennia, without ignoring the ideas of famous visionaries such as Thales, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Schelling, Hegel… In the long line of ‘idealist’ thinkers, Fichte occupies a special place, because of his radical, utterly anti-materialist personality.
For Fichte, the ‘divine essence’ permeates everything. Its real, effective presence is everywhere. But most of the time it remains hidden, immanent and unintelligible. Very few consciousnesses are capable of detecting it, or of sensing it, even if only obscurely. Fichte also asserts that consciousness is an emanation of this presence, an emanation of the divine. From this emanation, it forms a place where being, thought – and the feeling of the ‘blessed life’i – are knotted together. The ‘divine presence’, though hidden, elusive and fleeting, can appear in consciousness (if it welcomes and embodies it in some way). Some consciousnesses are a priori disposed to ‘see’ and ‘contemplate’ it, to a certain extent. Other consciousnesses remain obstinately deaf and blind to themselves, and a fortiori to the divine – starting with ‘materialistic’ consciousnesses.
Consciousness, in all its forms, states, degrees, actualisations and potentialities, rubs shoulders with the divinity without knowing it, without grasping the abyss, measuring its width, reaching its height. The humblest and most elevated forms of consciousness only bear witness to the putative existence of the mystery, but they neither unveil it nor resolve it. Among the consciousnesses of which man can form some idea, there is the abysmal consciousness of the individual self, but also the cosmic consciousness of the Self in the universe, the consciousness of the mystery of Being, the consciousness of the mystery of being thrown into the world – in a world said to be without consciousness. We can conjecture that these more or less elevated forms of consciousness are alive. They live a life thinking itself as Life, and living itself as Thought. In this Life and Thought, consciousness can link and ally itself with the divine. It finds true happiness, if it can, in the awareness of this link. Apart from this true consciousness, apart from the Life and Thought that make it true and give it life, there is nothing truly real.ii
Outside this reality, there is certainly the whole of the unreal. The unreal is not true, but it is not nothingness, it is not non-existent. The unreal exists in a certain way. It has a form of existence that can be described as ‘intermediate’, insofar as the unreal relies in part on real existences, on conscious lives, to develop its capacity for illusion… From the proven existence of illusion, from this latent and persistent presence of the unreal in reality, we can deduce that we can live and think more or less truly. What does that mean? To really live is to really think, to really recognise the truth, and to do away with illusion. From the observation of this intimate entanglement of true, real consciousness with the unconsciousness attached to illusion, we deduce the possibility of all sorts of levels of opacity, obscurity, obliteration. We sincerely seek clarity, but all we find is the shadow it casts. The more we are bathed in light, the more we are blinded by the shadow of the abyss. Light prevents us from seeing the shadow. The sun hides the night in broad daylight. « I want to arrive at a clear intuition, but clarity is found only at the bottom of things; on the surface there is only darkness and confusion. He, therefore, who invites you to clear knowledge, is undoubtedly inviting you to descend with him into the depths of things. »iii Consciousness and thought are the only clear path to truth and reality, to life and the divine. There is no other way. Being and thought are the same thing, said Parmenides. Now we can add: God, whoever He/She may be, forms with pure thought the same manifestation of the Spirit.
Fichte puts it this way: « Pure thought is the very manifestation of God, and the divine manifestation in its immediacy is nothing other than pure thought. » iv What is ‘pure thought’? It is a thought illuminated by a luminous consciousness. The flash of thought is not latent or immanent; it zaps the night and bursts forth like a million suns, like the very love of being and of life. « Our own life is only what we grasp in the necessary fullness of life with clear awareness; it is what we love, what we enjoy in that clear awareness. Where there is love, there is individual life, and love is only where there is clear consciousness. » v
Consciousness is there from the start. Better still, it is the origin itself, and not an induced effect, or the product of some created matter. How can we know that it is the origin itself? We know because we do not feel our consciousness, and we know that it is consciousness alone that feels, knows and perceives.vi All that we perceive, know, feel and sense belongs solely to consciousness. It has pre-eminence. We deduce that it is undoubtedly the originator. What has not come into consciousness can never be perception or knowledge, sensation, intuition or feeling.vii Hence Fichte’s radical and absolutely « idealist » thesis. Consciousness is the root of being, not the other way round. Without consciousness I am only a he or a she, not a me.viii There is originally being. And then there is what being is, the way in which being manifests its existence, the way in which being presents itself: all this constitutes the background of consciousness. This background is an abyss – it veils its depths, its widths and its heights. Consciousness is therefore not one, but is potentially a myriad of myriads, infinitely sharable, and always presenting itself anew, in a single individuation.ix
Naked being, on its own, has no real ‘existence’, we can even say that it is a kind of nothingness, admittedly a non-absolute nothingness, since it is being, but it is a kind of nothingness. It is an existential nothingness as long as it does not manifest itself as existing, as a phenomenon, as reality. To exist, it must emerge from the shadow of being and present itself in the light of existence. « The consciousness of being is the only form, the only possible mode of existence; it is therefore the immediate and absolute existence of being » x .
The existence (of being) cannot be confused with its essence. The original, first, unique, absolute being is absolutely one, and therefore essentially alone. At least, this is the lesson taught by the historical monotheisms. As for its existence, it is not alone, but infinitely multiple and diverse. This existence knows itself in its multiplicity and diversity. It grasps itself in this knowledge, which is also one of the elements of its consciousness. Existence is in itself consciousness, which differentiates it from the being that is one and only, which is above all consciousness, since it is the being that makes it possible, engenders it and gives it existence.xi Being thus reveals itself in existence (which it ‘creates’) and in consciousness (which is ‘life’). But it does not reveal itself as being, in its essence of being, which remains inaccessible. It reveals itself only as a manifestation, as the externalisation of its essential interiority.
On the one hand, there is being and its essence; on the other, there is the existence of being and the awareness of its existence. Existence and consciousness are of the same nature: they are images, representations, manifestations or ‘processions’ of being. They participate in being, derive from it, proceed from it and bear witness to it, but they are not identical with it. How can the multiple, the infinite, the diverse be equal to the One, the Singular, the Unique, which is also their source, their depth, their abyss? Consciousness knows and understands its link and even its identity with existence, but it does not understand the being from which this existence proceeds. « It must therefore be obvious to anyone who has grasped all this reasoning, that the existence of being can consist only in consciousness of itself, as a pure image of the absolute being that is in itself, and that it absolutely cannot be anything else. » xii Existence depends on the essence of the being that precedes it, makes it possible and engenders it. It does not come from itself, but is founded on an essence whose nature and depth it does not grasp a priori. But, insofar as it is a consciousness, a consciousness aware of its relationship of dependence with respect to an essence that escapes it, but to which it owes its existence, it cannot detach itself from this consciousness, which founds it, – and make itself independent of it. Existence and consciousness are absolutely intertwined.xiii
Existence (of being) is the source of consciousness (of being). Existence and consciousness are indissolubly linked. Originating from being and its essence, existence is self-sufficient. However, through consciousness, it embodies a certain idea, a possible image of its essence.
The few ideas, concepts or notions that we can form about being are necessarily shaped and based on the living forms of existence, which vary ad infinitum. These forms, so varied, so multiple, do not exhaust the essence of being, since they are never more than fleeting, fleeting, local, partial figures of it. xiv
Every living thing requires a form of consciousness, more or less developed. Plants, bacteria, amoebas, prokaryotes and single-celled organisms all live and have some kind of consciousness, even if only embryonic. All forms of ‘life’, however humble, such as protozoa, fungi and hyphae, have an underlying proto-consciousness, more or less outcropping. These proto-consciousnesses probably have very little to do with what we know about human consciousness. But Alfred Binetxv and H.S. Jenningsxvi have asserted that micro-organisms have a « psychic life ».
We can assume that no proto-consciousness is entirely empty, devoid of all affect, all perception and even all ‘concept’. All forms of consciousness and proto-consciousness carry within them some trace of their origin, of their past, and they potentially unfold the conditions of their future. In its memory and in its power, all consciousness weaves itself permanently.
We could also, hypothetically, imagine all consciousness, or proto-consciousness, as being unconsciously ‘happy’ – ‘happy’ to know that it is conscious. Of course, it can also be ‘unhappy’. But it never represents itself as absolutely ’empty’. Consciousness can never be conscious of anything other than its supposed nothingness, or of the fact that it is ’empty’, of its essential unconsciousness. So there is no real ‘life’ that is not necessarily associated with a certain self-consciousness or proto-consciousness, with the capacity to dream that emanates from it. Closely associated with this dream of consciousness is a form of intuition of eternity – an intuition of what is eternal in itself.xvii For the sake of clarity, let us assume that being, taken as a totality and considered in its essence, can also be called ‘God’. Existence and consciousness would then be ‘divine’ emanations. Ideas, concepts and knowledge, insofar as they incorporate this consubstantial link between being and consciousness, would themselves be so many latent, veiled faces of ‘divinity’, whatever that may be.xviii
Consciousness can decide to represent itself as ‘thought’. But it could also represent itself as containing the part of unconsciousness with which all consciousness is charged. Existence and life, consciousness and thought, would only be so many possible forms, among countless others, of a ‘divine’ life, hidden and concealed.
We might as well say that we have seen nothing yet. From the infinity of time, we probably won’t have enough to fill the abyss of ignorance or the heights of desire.
______________
iJohann Gottlieb Fichte. Method for arriving at the blessed life. Translated from the German by M. Bouillier. Librairie philosophique de Ladrange, Paris, 1845 (My translation into English).
ii« Thus, true life and happiness exist in thought, that is, in a certain conception of ourselves and the world, considered as an emanation of the intimate and hidden essence of the divine being » Ibid. p.61.
iiiIbid. p.71
ivIbid. p.75
vIbid. p.98
vi« But inner consciousness embraces the outer sense, since we are conscious of the action of seeing, hearing, feeling, whereas we do not hear, we do not see, we do not feel consciousness, and so it already holds the highest place in the fact given by observation. If, therefore, one examines things more deeply, he will find it more natural to make consciousness the principal cause, and the external sense the effect and accident, to explain, to control, to confirm the external sense by consciousness, than to do the opposite. » Ibid. p.101
vii« All sensible perception is only possible in thought, only as something thought, as a determination of general consciousness, and not as separate from consciousness, as existing by itself, it is not true that we simply hear, that we simply feel; we are only aware of our seeing, hearing, feeling. » Ibid. p.103
viii« I say that the existence of being, immediately and in the root, is the consciousness or representation of being. Apply the word IS to any object, to this wall, for example, and you will understand me clearly. For what does this word mean in the proposition ‘this wall is’? Obviously, it is not the wall itself, nor is it identical with it. So it does not give itself as such, but, through the third person, it separates itself from the wall as from an independent existing being. » Ibid. p.110
ix« Consciousness of being, the is in relation to being, constitutes existence, we have said, leaving us to suppose that consciousness would only be one form, one species, one possible mode among many others of existence, and that there could be others ad infinitum. » Ibid. p.111
xIbid. p.112
xi« Being must manifest itself as being, without ceasing to be being, without in any way abandoning its absolute character, without mixing and merging with existence. It must therefore distinguish itself from its existence, and oppose it. Now, since outside absolute being there is absolutely nothing, apart from its existence, it is in itself that this distinction and this opposition must take place, or else, to speak more clearly, existence must grasp itself, know itself and establish itself as simple existence. » Ibid. p.112
xii« That knowledge and consciousness are indeed the absolute existence, or, if you prefer, the revelation, the expression of being in the only possible form, is what knowledge can perfectly understand, as you yourselves, as I assume, have all understood. But it can in no way discover and grasp in itself how it produces itself, how from the intimate and hidden essence of being, an existence, a revelation, an expression of being can flow. » Ibid. p.113
xiii« Existence cannot take place without grasping itself, knowing itself, supposing itself in advance; it is necessarily of its essence to grasp itself. Because of this absolute character of existence, because of the dependence that binds it to its essence, it is impossible for it to emerge from itself, to go beyond itself, and to understand itself, to deduce itself, independently of this consciousness. It is for itself and in itself, and that is all. Ibid. p.114
xiv« The fact that the existence of being is consciousness, and all that follows from it, result from the idea of existence alone. Now this existence leans and rests on itself; it is prior to the notion of itself, and it is inexplicable by this notion. » Ibid. p.115
xvAlfred Binet. The psychic life of micro-organisms. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger, n°XXIV, July-December 1887. Ed. Félix Alcan, Paris
xviH.S. Jennings, Behavior of the Lower Organisms. The Columbia University Press, New York, 1906.
xvii« No one, in fact, can be tempted to attribute life and happiness seriously and in the true meaning of the word, to a being who is not aware of himself. All life presupposes self-awareness, and only self-awareness can grasp life and make it possible to enjoy it. Moreover, true life and happiness consist in union with that which is unchanging and eternal. Now, the eternal can only be grasped by thought, it is only accessible to us in this way » Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Method for attaining the blissful life. Translated from the German by M. Bouillier. Librairie philosophique de Ladrange, Paris, 1845, p.60
xviii« The real life of knowledge is therefore at its root being itself, and the essence of the absolute; it is nothing else. There is no separation between God and knowledge in its deepest vital root; they merge with each other. » Ibid. p.116
Consciousness and Jeremiah
Jeremiah once played on the word shaqed (‘almond tree’) as a springtime metaphor for wakefulness and awakening. « Then YHVH said to me: ‘What do you see, Jeremiah? Then YHVH said to me: ‘You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to fulfil it’. »i There is an untranslatable allusion here. In Hebrew, the word שָׁקֵד, shaqed, « almond tree », comes from the verbal root שָׁקַד, « to watch over« . Watching over the arrival of spring, the almond tree blooms first, before the other trees. This word also evokes the Watcher (שׁוֹקֵד, shôqed), which is one of the names of God, always awake, always vigilant.
In the dark winter, does the almond tree feel its sap rising? Does it know its juice? Does it already light the milk of the almond to come? We need to use the metaphor of sap to savour its flavour. In plants, there are two kinds of sap: « raw » sap, which « rises », and « elaborated » sap, which « descends ».ii Light is captured by « antennae » and converted into energy, which is then used to synthesise the carbohydrates that make up the « elaborated » sap that the plant needs to survive.iii As it « descends », this sap takes some of the water and mineral salts contained in the « ascending » sap. The two types of sap cross paths and work together to nourish the plant and help it grow.
The almond tree, like all plants, is a kind of « antenna », receiving signals from the sky and the earth, the energy of light and water. In winter, it watches out for spring. As soon as it sees the signs of spring, it proclaims its arrival. Mobilising the power of its sap, it buds and covers itself with flowers.
The almond tree is a metaphor for consciousness. Both « watch ». Like an almond tree in winter, consciousness watches for the coming of a spring that will cover it with flowers. It may also be dreaming of the summer that will bring them to fruition. Plunged into its night, surrounded by an obscure winter, consciousness keeps watch. It awaits the coming of that which is absent in it. It does not run away from the experience of life in which it seems to be buried. It wants to savour it in all its amplitude, to sense its power, to smell its future fragrances. It watches over the revelation to come. It waits for the moment to rise above its essence, its natural being, to soar beyond all nature. It awaits the manifestation of the super-nature in its nature.
Does the almond tree, in its waking hours, have some sort of proto-consciousness of the almond to come? Does human consciousness have, in its first, amniotic night, some subconsciousness of its future?
After the birth, she lives as a « child of the world »iv . Does she then dream of another coming to light, another coming to life?
Like the almond tree in winter, the philosopherv ‘suspends’ for a time the rise of consciousness, the surge of sap. Does this get him a better taste?
______________
iJer 1:11-12
iiRaw sap is a solution made up of water and mineral salts. This solution is absorbed at root level by the rootlets. It circulates mainly in the xylem, i.e. the vessels of the wood. Through the xylem, the plant sends the sap up into its aerial parts. It does this by means of a suction effect and root pressure. The suction effect is caused by the loss of water (through transpiration and evaporation) from the leaves, leading to a drop in pressure. The drop in pressure then draws water from the xylem towards the top of the plant. Root pressure occurs mainly at night. The accumulation of mineral salts in the root stele causes water to flow upwards, water pressure to increase and the liquid to rise in the xylem. Elaborated sap is produced by photosynthesis in the leaves and consists of sucrose. It travels downwards to be distributed to the various organs of the plant, using another conductive tissue, the phloem, in the opposite direction to the raw sap, which rises in the xylem. This dual circulation allows water molecules to move from the xylem to the phloem. See http://www.colvir.net/prof/chantal.proulx/BCB/circ-vegetaux.html#c-transport-de-la-sve-brute-
iiiOrganisms that use photosynthesis absorb light photons in structures called « antennae ». Their energy excites electrons and causes them to migrate in the form of excitons, whose energy is then converted into energy that can be used chemically. These « antennae » vary from organism to organism. Bacteria use ring-shaped antennae, while plants use chlorophyll pigments. Studies on photon absorption and electron transfer show an efficiency of over 99%, which cannot be explained by conventional mechanical models. It has therefore been theorised that quantum coherence could contribute to the exceptional efficiency of photosynthesis. Recent research into transport dynamics suggests that the interactions between the electronic and vibrational modes of excitation require both a classical and a quantum explanation for the transfer of excitation energy. In other words, while quantum coherence initially (and briefly) dominates the exciton transfer process, a classical description is more appropriate to describe their long-term behaviour. Another photosynthesis process that has an efficiency of almost 100% is charge transfer, which may also justify the hypothesis that quantum mechanical phenomena are at play. C f.Adriana Marais, Betony Adams, Andrew K. Ringsmuth and Marco Ferretti, « The Future of Quantum Biology », Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, vol. 15, no. 148, 11 14, 2018.
ivIn the words of E. Husserl. Philosophie première, t.II, Translation from the German by Arion Kelkel, PUF, 1972, p.173
vCf. E. Husserl. The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Gallimard, 1976, p.172
The Demon of Socrates
In archaic and classical Greece, the art of divination, the art that deals with everything « that is, that will be and that was »,i was considered knowledge par excellence. In Plutarch’s On the E of Delphi,ii Ammonios says that this knowledge belongs to the domain of the gods, and particularly to Apollo, the master of Delphi, the God called ‘philosophos’. The sun, reputed to see and know everything and illuminate whoever it wished, was merely his symbol, and Apollo, son of Zeus, was really the mantic God in essence. However, at Delphi, another son of Zeus, Dionysus, was also involved in the art of mantics, competing with Apollo in this field.iii Dionysus, ever-changing, multi-faceted and ecstatic, was the opposite and complementary type of Apollo, who was the image of the One, equal to himself, serene and immobile.
In Homeric Greece, an augur like Calchas tried to hear divine messages by distinguishing and interpreting signs and clues in the flight of birds or the entrails of sacrificial animals. He sought to discover and interpret what the Gods were willing to reveal about their plans and intentions. But, at Delphi, the divinatory art of Dionysus and Apollo was of a very different nature. It was no longer a question of looking for signs, but of listening to the very words of the God. Superhuman powers, divine or demonic, could reveal the future in the words of the Greek language, in cadenced hexameters. These powers could also act without intermediaries in the souls of certain men with special dispositions, enabling them to articulate the divine will in their own language. These individuals, chosen to be the spokespersons of the Gods, could be diviners, sibyls, the « inspired » (entheoi), but also heroes, illustrious figures, poets, philosophers, kings and military leaders. All these inspired people shared one physiological characteristic, the presence in their organs of a mixture of black bile, melancholikè krasisiv .
In Timaeus, Plato distinguished in the body a « kind of soul » which is « like a wild beast » and which must be « kept tied to its trough » in « the intermediate space between the diaphragm and the border of the navel »v. This « wild » soul, placed as far as possible from the rational, intelligent soul, the one that deliberates and judges free from passions, is covered by the liver. The ‘children of God’, entrusted by God ‘the Father’‘vi with the task of begetting living mortals,vii had also installed the ‘organ of divination’ in the liver, as a form of compensation for the weakness of human reason. « A sufficient proof that it is indeed to the infirmity of human reason that God has given the gift of divination: no man in his right mind can achieve inspired and truthful divination, but the activity of his judgement must be impeded by sleep or illness, or diverted by some kind of enthusiasm. On the contrary, it is up to the man of sound mind, after recalling them, to gather together in his mind the words uttered in the dream or in the waking hours by the divinatory power that fills with enthusiasm, as well as the visions that it has caused to be seen; to discuss them all by reasoning in order to bring out what they may mean and for whom, in the future, the past or the present, bad or good. As for the person who is in the state of ‘trance’ and who still remains there, it is not his role to judge what has appeared to him or been spoken by him (…). It is for this reason, moreover, that the class of prophets, who are the superior judges of inspired oracles, has been instituted by custom; these people are themselves sometimes called diviners; but this is to completely ignore the fact that, of enigmatic words and visions, they are only interpreters, and in no way diviners, and that ‘prophets of divinatory revelations’ is what would best suit their name. »viii
Human reason may be « infirm », but it is nonetheless capable of receiving divine revelation. Soothsayers, oracles, prophets or visionaries are all in the same boat: they must submit to the divine will, which may give them the grace of a revelation, or deny it to them.
Plutarch refers to the fundamental distinction Homer makes between soothsayers, augurs, priests and other aruspices on the one hand, and on the other, the chosen few who are allowed to speak directly with the gods. « Homer seems to me to have been aware of the difference between men in this respect. Among the soothsayers, he calls some augurs, others priests or aruspices; there are others who, according to him, receive knowledge of the future from the gods themselves. It is in this sense that he says:
« The soothsayer Helenus, inspired by the gods,
Had their wishes before his eyes.
Then Helenus said: ‘Their voice was heard by me’. »
Kings and army generals pass on their orders to strangers by signals of fire, by heralds or by the sound of trumpets; but they communicate them themselves to their friends and to those who have their confidence. In the same way, the divinity himself speaks to only a small number of men, and even then only very rarely; for all the others, he makes his wishes known to them by signs that have given rise to the art of divination. There are very few men whom the gods honour with such a favour, whom they make perfectly happy and truly divine. Souls freed from the bonds of the body and the desires of generation become genies charged, according to Hesiod, with watching over mankind ».ix
How did the divinity reveal itself? There is a detailed description of how Socrates received the revelation. According to Plutarch, Socrates’ demon was not a ‘vision’, but the sensation of a voice, or the understanding of some words that struck him in an extraordinary way; as in sleep, one does not hear a distinct voice, but only believes one hears words that strike only the inner senses. These kinds of perceptions form dreams, because of the tranquillity and calm that sleep gives the body. But during the day, it is very difficult to keep the soul attentive to divine warnings. The tumult of the passions that agitate us, the multiplied needs that we experience, render us deaf or inattentive to the advice that the gods give us. But Socrates, whose soul was pure and free from passions and had little to do with the body except for indispensable needs, easily grasped their signs. They were probably produced, not by a voice or a sound, but by the word of his genius, which, without producing any external sound, struck the intelligent part of his soul by the very thing it was making known to him.x So there was no need for images or voices. It was thought alone that received knowledge directly from God, and fed it into Socrates’ consciousness and will.xi
The encounter between God and the man chosen for revelation takes the form of an immaterial colloquy between divine intelligence and human understanding. Divine thoughts illuminate the human soul, without the need for voice or words. God’s spirit reaches the human spirit as light reflects on an object, and his thoughts shine in the souls of those who catch a glimpse of that light.xii Revelation passes from soul to soul, from spirit to spirit, and in this case, from God to Socrates: it came from within the very heart of Socrates’ consciousness.
_______________
iAs the augur Calchas said, in Iliad I, 70
iiPlutarch, On the E of Delphi, 387b-c.
iiiMacrobius, Sat. 1, 18, quoted by Ileana Chirassi Colombo, in Le Dionysos oraculaire, Kernos, 4 (1991), p. 205-217.
ivRobert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, Oxford, 1621 (Original title: The Anatomy of Melancholy, What it is: With all the Kinds, Causes, Symptoms, Prognostickes, and Several Cures of it. In Three Maine Partitions with their several Sections, Members, and Subsections. Philosophically, Medicinally, Historically, Opened and Cut Up)
vTimaeus, 70e-72b
viTimaeus, 71d
viiTimaeus, 69b-c
viiiTimaeus, 71e-72b
ixPlutarch. » On the Demon of Socrates » 593c-d. Moral Works. Translation from the Greek by Ricard. Tome III , Paris, 1844, p.115-116
xIbid, p.105
xi« But the divine understanding directs a well-born soul, reaching it by thought alone, without needing an external voice to strike it. The soul yields to this impression, whether God restrains or excites its will; and far from feeling constrained by the resistance of the passions, it shows itself supple and manageable, like a rein in the hands of a squire. » Plutarch. « On the Demon of Socrates », Moral Works. Translation from the Greek by Ricard. Tome III , Paris, 1844, p.105
xii« This movement by which the soul becomes tense, animated, and, through the impulse of desires, draws the body towards the objects that have struck the intelligence, is not difficult to understand: the thought conceived by the understanding makes it act easily, without needing an external sound to strike it. In the same way it is easy, it seems to me, for a superior and divine intelligence to direct our understanding, and to strike it with an external voice, in the same way that one mind can reach another, in much the same way as light is reflected on objects. We communicate our thoughts to each other by means of speech, as if groping in the dark. But the thoughts of demons, which are naturally luminous, shine on the souls of those who are capable of perceiving their light, without the use of sound or words ». Ibid, p.106
Drunkenness, Trance and Consciousness
Over the millennia, the growth of human consciousness may have been particularly favoured in a few psychically pre-disposed individuals, for example during exceptional, acute, unheard-of, literally unspeakable experiences, such as those experienced in the face of imminent death, or in the rapture of trance. These experiences, which were completely out of the ordinary, were all opportunities for unexpectedly revealing to the ‘I’ certain aspects of the unfathomable depths of the Selfi. Often repeated during individual experiences, and gradually assimilated culturally by communities during collective trances, ecstatic states of consciousness were shared very early in human history, in socialised forms (proto-religions, cult rites, initiation ceremonies). These experiences, which I would describe as ‘proto-mystical’, may have been facilitated by a number of favourable conditions (environment, climate, fauna, flora). Through an epigenesis effect, they undoubtedly also had a long-term impact on the neuronal, synaptic and neurochemical evolution of the brain, producing an organic and psychic terrain that was increasingly adapted to the reception of these phenomena, and resulting in a correlative increase in ‘levels of consciousness’. Countless experiences of trance or ecstasy, which may initially have been linked to accidental circumstances, and then melted like lightning onto virgin consciousnesses, or may have been long-prepared, culturally desired and deliberately provoked during cultic rites, enabled the mental terrain of the brains of the Homo genus never to cease sowing and budding, as if under the action of a slow psychic yeast intimately mingled with the neuronal paste. These powerful mental experiences probably accelerated the neurochemical and neurosynaptic adaptation of the brains of Palaeolithic man. To a certain extent, they revealed to them the unspeakable nature of the immanent ‘mystery’ that reigned in the depths of their own brains. The mystery was revealed to be present not only in human consciousness, just awakened from its slumber, but also all around it, in Nature, in the vast world, and beyond the cosmos itself, in the original Night – not only in the Self, but also in what could be called the Other.
Neuronal, synaptic and neurochemical evolution were essential conditions for mental, psychic and spiritual transformation. Accelerated by increasingly complex feedback loops, it involved physiological, neurological, psychological, cultural and genetic changes, catalysing the exploration of new paths. We can postulate the existence of an immanent, constantly evolving, epigenetic link between the evolution of the brain’s systemic structure (neurons, synapses, neurotransmitters, inhibitory and agonistic factors) and its growing capacity to accommodate these ‘proto-mystical’ experiences.
What is a ‘proto-mystical’ experience? The prototype is the shamanic experience of leaving the body (‘ecstasy’), accompanied by surreal visions and an acute development of awareness of the Self (‘trance’). A hunter-gatherer living in some region of Eurasia may happen to consume one of dozens of mushroom species with psychotropic properties. Suddenly he/she is overcome by a ‘great flash of consciousness’, stunned, transported, delighted and ecstatic. The psychotropic molecules in the mushroom stimulated a massive quantity of neurotransmitters, disrupting the functioning of the brain’s neurons and synapses. In the space of a few moments, there is a radical difference between the usual state of ‘consciousness’ and the sudden state of ‘super-consciousness’. The absolute novelty and unprecedented vigour of the experience will mark him/her for life. From now on, he/she will have the certainty of having experienced a moment of double consciousness. His/her usual, everyday consciousness was, as it were, transcended by a sudden super-consciousness. A powerful ‘dimorphism’ of consciousness was revealed in him/her, of a different nature from the daily alternation of wakefulness and sleep, or the ontological split between life and death. Far from being rare, this experience, however singular, would be repeated for countless generations.
Since ancient times, dating back to the beginning of the Palaeolithic, more than three million years ago, hunter-gatherers of the Homo genus have known about the use of psychoactive plants, and have consumed them regularly. Long before the appearance of Homo, a large number of animal species (such as reindeer, monkeys, elephants, moufflons and felines) also used them, as they continue to do today.ii Living in close symbiosis with these animals, the hunter-gatherers did not fail to observe them. If only out of curiosity, they were encouraged to imitate the strange (and dangerous for them) behaviour of these animals when they indulged in psychoactive substances – substances found in various plant species that are widespread in the surrounding environment all over the Earth. This abundance of psychotropic plant species in nature is in itself astonishing, and seems to suggest that there are underlying, systemic reasons at work – forms of fundamental, original adequacy between the psychotropic molecules of plants and the synaptic receptors of animal brains. Today, there are around a hundred species of psychoactive mushrooms in North America. The vast territories of Eurasia must have had at least as many in the Palaeolithic period, although today there are only around ten species of mushroom with psychoactive properties. Paleolithic Homo often observed animals that had ingested plants with psychoactive effects, which affected their ‘normal’ behaviour and put them in danger. Homo was tempted to imitate these animals, ‘drugged’, ‘delighted’, ‘stunned’ by these powerful substances, wandering in their reveries. Astonished by their indifference to risk, Homo must have wanted to ingest the same berries or mushrooms, to understand what these so familiar prey could ‘feel’, which, against all odds, offered themselves up, indifferent, to their flints and arrows… Today, in regions ranging from northern Europe to Far Eastern Siberia, reindeer have been found to consume large quantities of fly agaric during their migrations – as have the shamans who live in the same areas. This is no coincidence. In Siberia, reindeer and hunter-herders live in close symbiosis with the Amanita muscaria fungus.
Molecules of muscimoleiii and ibotenoic acid from Amanita muscaria have an intense effect on the behaviour of humans and animals. How can we explain the fact that such powerful psychotropic molecules are produced by simple fungi, elementary forms of life compared to higher animals? Why, moreover, do these fungi produce these molecules, and for what purpose? This is a problem worthy of consideration. It is a phenomenon that objectively links the mushroom and the brain, humble fungal life and the higher functions of the mind, terrestrial humus and celestial lightning, peat and ecstasy, by means of a few molecules, psycho-active alkaloids, linking different kingdoms… It’s a well-documented fact that shamans on every continent of the world, in Eurasia, America, Africa and Oceania, have been using psychoactive substances since time immemorial to facilitate their entry into a trance – a trance that can go as far as ecstasy and the experience of ‘divine visions’. How can these powerful effects be explained by the simple fact that the immediate cause is the consumption of common alkaloid plants, whose active ingredients consist of one or two types of molecule that act on neurotransmitters?
As the peoples of northern Eurasia migrated southwards, they brought with them shamanism, its sacred rites and initiation ceremonies, adapting them to new environments. Over time, Amanita muscaria, the North Siberian mushroom, had to be replaced by other plants, endemically available in the environments they crossed, and with similar psychotropic effects. R. Gordon Wasson, in his book Divine Mushroom of Immortalityiv , has skilfully documented the universality of their consumption. He did not hesitate to establish a link between shamanic practices involving the ingestion of psychotropic plants and the consumption of Vedic Soma. As far back as 3e millennium BC, the ancient hymns of the Ṛg Veda described in detail the rites accompanying the preparation and consumption of Soma during the Vedic sacrifice, and celebrated its divine essence.v
The migratory peoples who consumed Soma called themselves Ārya, a word meaning ‘noble’ or ‘lord’. This Sanskrit term has become a sulphurous one since it was hijacked by Nazi ideologists. These peoples spoke languages known as Indo-European. Coming from northern Europe, they made their way towards India and Iran, through Bactria and Margiana (as attested by the remains of the ‘Oxus civilisation’) and Afghanistan, before finally settling permanently in the Indus valley or on the Iranian high plateaux. Some of them passed through the area around the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea. Others headed for the Black Sea, Thrace, Macedonia, modern-day Greece and Phrygia, Ionia (modern-day Turkey) and the Near East. Once in Greece, the Hellenic branch of these Indo-European peoples did not forget their ancient shamanic beliefs. The Eleusis mysteries and other mystery religions of ancient Greece have recently been interpreted as ancient Hellenised shamanic ceremonies, during which the ingestion of beverages with psychotropic properties induced mystical visions.vi
During the Great Mysteries of Eleusis, cyceon, a beverage made from goat’s milk, mint and spices, probably also contained as its active ingredient a parasitic fungus, rye ergot, or an endophytic fungus living in symbiosis with grasses such as Lolium temulentum, better known in French as ‘ivraie’ or ‘zizanie’. Rye ergot naturally produces a psychoactive alkaloid, lysergic acid, from which LSD is derived.vii Albert Hofmann, famous for having synthesised LSD, states that the priests of Eleusis had to process Claviceps purpurea (rye ergot) by simply dissolving it in water, thereby extracting the active alkaloids, ergonovine and methylergonovine. Hofmann also suggested that cyceon could be prepared using another species of ergot, Claviceps paspali, which grows on wild grasses such as Paspalum distichum, and whose effects, which he called ‘psychedelic’, are even more intense, and moreover similar to those of the ololiuhqui plant of the Aztecs, which is endemic in the Western hemisphere. When these powerful psychoactive ingredients are ingested, the mind seems to be torn between two heightened (and complementary) forms of consciousness, one focused on the outside world, the world of physical sensations and action, and the other focused on the inner world, the world of reflection and unconscious feelings.
These two forms of consciousness seem to be able to be excited to the last degree, jointly, or in rapid alternation. They can also ‘merge’ or enter into mutual ‘resonance’.
On the one hand, the sensations felt by the body are taken to extremes, because they are produced directly at the very centre of the brain, and not perceived by the senses and then relayed by the nervous system.
On the other hand, the mental, psychic and cognitive effects are also extremely powerful, because multiple neurons can be stimulated or inhibited simultaneously. For example, the action of inhibitory neurotransmitters (such as GABA) can increase massively and spread throughout the brain. Suddenly, and strongly, the action potential of post-synaptic neurons or glial cells in the brain decreases. The massive inhibition of post-synaptic neurons results, subjectively, in a radical decoupling between the usual level of consciousness, a kind of ‘external’ consciousness, dominated by the influence of external reality, and an ‘internal’ level of consciousness, turned inwards, an interior completely detached from the surrounding, immediate reality. It follows that the ‘internal’ consciousness is brutally sucked into this independent psychic universe that C.G. Jung calls the ‘Self’, and to which countless traditions refer under various names.
The complex neurochemical processes that take place in the brain during shamanic ecstasy can be summarised as follows: psychoactive molecules (such as psilocybin) are structurally very close to organic compounds (indoles) that occur naturally in the brain. They suddenly place the entire brain in a state of near-absolute isolation from the outside world, which is perceived through the five senses. Consciousness is deprived of all access to its usual, everyday world: the brain, on the other hand, is almost instantly plunged into an infinitely rich universe of forms, movements, and ‘levels of consciousness’ very different from those of everyday consciousness. According to research carried out by Dr Joel Elkes at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, the subjective consciousness of a subject under the influence of psilocybin can ‘alternate’ easily between the two states just described – the ‘external’ state of consciousness and the ‘internal’ state of consciousness. The alternation of the two states of consciousness can be observed experimentally, and can even be induced simply by the subject opening and closing his or her eyes. This establishes the structural, systemic possibility of to-ing and fro-ing between ‘external’ consciousness, linked to the world of perception and action, and ‘internal’ consciousness, inhibited in relation to the external world but uninhibited in relation to the internal world. We might hypothesise that the original emergence of consciousness, as it developed in Palaeolithic man, was the result of a similar phenomenon of ‘resonance’ between these two types of consciousness, a resonance accentuated precisely when psychoactive substances were ingested. Psilocybin, for example, causes consciousness to ‘flicker’ between these two fundamental, totally different states, and in so doing, it makes the subject himself appear as if from above, insofar as he is capable of these two kinds of consciousness, and insofar as he is capable of navigating between several states of consciousness, between several worlds, until he reaches the world of the divine.
It is a very old and universal symbol, that in the muscimoles of the Amanite, in the ergot of the weed, is hidden not only the power of drunkenness, but a pathway to the divine… We find it again in the Gospel, albeit in metaphorical form. « As the people slept, his enemy came and sowed drunkenness among the wheat, and went away. When the weeds had grown and produced fruit, then the tares also appeared. »viii
Should we uproot this weed that makes us drunk and crazy? No! the wheat would be uprooted with it. « Let the two grow together until the harvest. And at harvest time I will say to the reapers, ‘Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to consume them; but the wheat gather it into my barn’. »ix
The tares must remain mixed with the wheat until the ‘harvest’. Only then can the chaff be burnt. It must be put to the fire, because it is itself- even a fire that consumes the spirit, a fire that illuminates it with its flashes, and opens it to vision.
The spiritual metaphor of tares is similar to that of leaven. Tares make you drunk, leaven makes the dough rise. The ergot of the rye ferments the spirit and raises it to the invisible worlds. A little leaven mixed with the dough ferments it and makes it risex …
____________
iA sense of ‘mystery’ must have emerged long ago in Homo sapiens, in parallel with an obscure form of self-awareness – a latent awareness of an unconscious ‘presence’ of self to the Self. These two phenomena, the intuition of mystery and the pre-consciousness of the unconscious self, are undoubtedly linked; they paved the way for the gradual coming to light of the Ego, the formation of subjective consciousness, the constitution of the subject.
iiCf. David Linden, The Compass of Pleasure: How Our Brains Make Fatty Foods, Orgasm, Exercise, Marijuana, Generosity, Vodka, Learning, and Gambling Feel So Good. Penguin Books, 2011
iiiMuscimole is structurally close to a major central nervous system neurotransmitter: GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid), whose effects it mimics. Muscimole is a powerful agonist of type A GABA receptors. Muscimole is hallucinogenic in doses of 10 to 15 mg.
ivRichard Gordon Wasson, Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich Inc, 1968
vThe Wikipedia article Fly agaric reports that the survey Hallucinogens and Culture (1976), by anthropologist Peter T. Furst, analysed the elements that could identify fly agaric as Vedic Soma, and (cautiously) concluded in favour of this hypothesis.
viCf. Peter Webster, Daniel M. Perrine, Carl A. P. Ruck, « Mixing the Kykeon », 2000.
viiIn their book The Road to Eleusis, R. Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann and Carl A. P. Ruck believe that the hierophant priests used rye ergot Claviceps purpurea, which was abundant in the area around Eleusis.
viiiMt 13:25-26
ixMt 13:29-30
xCf. Mk 4:33-34
Secrets still Buried in the Dark Depths
Consciousness is capable of grasping abstract, immaterial ideas – for example, the principle of non-contradiction or the concept of universal attraction. Can we deduce from this that it is itself immaterial in nature?
Materialists deny this. Consciousness is not immaterial, they say; it is only ever the material emanation of the material substance of material bodies.
But then how can we explain the fact that ‘material’ entities are capable of conceiving pure abstractions, abstract ‘essences’ that are essentially unconnected with the material world? How could a consciousness that is only ‘material’ link up and interact adequately with the infinity of the various natures that make up the world, with all the beings of unknown essences that surround or subsume it?
What could be the nature of the links between a ‘material’ consciousness and natures, with beings a priori totally unrelated to its own matter?
In particular, how can a material consciousness, confined in a material body, interact effectively with other consciousnesses, confined in other bodies? How can we imagine that it could link up (materially) with beings existing in act, or in potential, throughout the world, and that it could penetrate (materially) their essence?
All these difficult questions were dealt with by Kant in his lively little work, Dreams of a Man Who Sees Spiritsi . In it, he asserts that consciousness (which he calls the ‘soul’) is immaterial, just as what he calls the ‘intelligible world’ (mundus intelligibilis), the world of ideas and thoughts, is immaterial. This ‘intelligible world’ is the proper ‘place’ of the thinking self, because the latter can go there at will, detaching itself from the material, sensible world. Kant also asserts that human consciousness, although immaterial, can be linked to a body, the body of the self, from which it receives material impressions and sensations from the organs of which it is composed. Consciousness therefore participates in two worlds, the material (sensible) world and the immaterial (intelligible) world, – the world of the visible and that of the invisible.
The representation that consciousness has of itself as being a spirit (Geist), when it considers itself in its relations with other consciousnesses, is quite different from the representation it has when it sees itself as being attached to a body. In both cases, it is undoubtedly the same subject who belongs at the same time to the sensible world and to the intelligible world; but it is not the same person, because the representations of the sensible world have nothing in common with the representations of the intelligible world, says Kant. What I think of myself as a living, feeling, carnal being is not on the same level, and has nothing to do with my representation as (pure) consciousness.
Conversely, the representations that I may hold of the intelligible world, however clear and intuitive they may be, are not sufficient to give me a representation of my consciousness as a human being. The representation of oneself as (pure) consciousness can be acquired to a certain extent by reasoning or induction, but it is not naturally an intuitive notion, and it is not obtained through experience.ii
Consciousness does indeed belong to a single subject, who participates in both the « sensible world » and the « intelligible world », but it is also twofold. It is not « the same person » when it represents itself as « pure consciousness » and when it represents itself as « attached to a (human) body ». The fact that it is not « the same » in these two cases implies an inherent, profound duality – it is a dual being.
Here, for the first time, Kant explicitly introduces the expression « duality of the person » (or « duality of the soul in relation to the bodyiii « ).
This duality can be inferred from the following observation. Some philosophers believe they can refer to the state of deep sleep when they want to prove the reality of ‘obscure representations’.
We can only observe that they are no longer clearly present in us when we wake up, but not that they were really ‘dark’ when we were asleep. We can only observe that they are no longer clearly present in us when we wake up, but not that they were really ‘obscure’ when we were asleep.
For example, we might well think that they were actually clearer and more extensive than the clearest representations we have in the waking state. This is indeed what we might expect of consciousness when it is perfectly at rest, and separated from the external senses, Kant concludes in a noteiii.
Hannah Arendt found this note ‘bizarre’iv , without further explaining or justifying this trenchant judgement. Perhaps it is indeed ‘bizarre’ to assert that consciousness thinks more clearly and more extensively in deep sleep, and that it is then more ‘active’ than in the waking state? Or does it seem ‘bizarre’ to present consciousness not as ‘one’ but as ‘dual’, this duality implying a contradiction with the unified idea that consciousness might a priori have of its own nature? Consciousness feels the intrinsic unity it possesses as a ‘subject’, and it also feels, as a ‘person’, endowed with a double perspective, one sensible and the other intelligible. It may therefore seem ‘strange’ that the soul should think of itself as both one and two, – ‘one’ (as subject) and ‘two’ (as person).
This intrinsic duality creates a distance between consciousness and itself, an inner gap within itself. It reflects a gap between the ‘waking’ state (where the feeling of duality is revealed) and the ‘deep sleep’ state, where the feeling of duality evaporates, revealing the true nature of consciousness.
To ward off this ‘oddity’, Hannah Arendt proposed an explanation, or rather a paraphrase of Kant’s note: « Kant compares the state of the thinking self to a deep sleep in which the senses are at complete rest. It seems to him that, during sleep, the ideas ‘may have been clearer and more extensive than the clearer ideas of the waking state’, precisely because ‘the sensation of man’s body was not included in it’. And when we wake up, none of these ideas remain.v
What seems ‘bizarre’ to Hannah Arendt, we then understand, is that after consciousness has been exposed to ‘clear and extensive’ ideas, none of this remains when it wakes up. Awakening erases all traces of the activity of consciousness (or of the ‘soul’) in the deep sleep of the body. Even if there is nothing left, there is at least the memory of an immaterial activity, which, unlike activities in the material world, does not encounter any resistance or inertia. There also remains the obscure memory of what was then clear and intense… There remains the (confused) memory of having experienced a feeling of total freedom of thought, freed from all contingencies. All these memories cannot be forgotten, even if the ideas conceived at the time seem to escape us. It is possible to conjecture that the accumulation of these kinds of memories, these kinds of experiences, will end up reinforcing the idea of the existence of a consciousness that is independent (of the body). By extension, and by analogy, these memories and experiences of deep sleep constitute in themselves an experience of ‘spirituality’, and reinforce the idea of a spirit world, an ‘intelligible’ world, separate from the material world. The consciousness (or spirit) that becomes aware of its power to think ‘clearly’ (during the body’s dark sleep) also begins to think of itself as being able to distance itself from the world around it, and from the matter that constitutes it. But its power to think ‘clearly’ does not allow it to leave this world, nor to transcend it (since waking up always happens – and with it forgetting the ‘clear’ thoughts of deep sleep).
What does this sense of distance from the world bring to consciousness?
Consciousness can see that reality is woven from appearances (and illusions). In spite of the very profusion of these appearances (and illusions), reality paradoxically remains stable, it continues unceasingly, it lasts in any case long enough for us to be led to recognise it not as a total illusion, but as an object, and even the object par excellence, offered to our gaze as conscious subjects.
If we do not feel able to consider reality as an object, we may at least be inclined to consider it as a state, durable, imposing its obviousness, unlike the other world, the ‘intelligible world’, whose very existence is always shrouded in doubt, and improbability (since its kingdom can only be reached in the night of deep sleep).
As subjects, we demand real objects in front of us, not chimeras or conjectures – hence the insignificant advantage given to the sensible world. Phenomenology teaches that the existence of a subject necessarily implies that of an object. The object is what embodies the subject’s intention, will and consciousness. The two are linked. The object (of intention) nourishes consciousness, more than consciousness can nourish itself – the object ultimately constitutes the very subjectivity of the subject, presenting itself to his attention, and even instituting itself as his conscious intention. Without consciousness, there can be neither project nor object. Without an object, there can be no consciousness. Every subject (every consciousness) carries intentions that are fixed on objects; in the same way, the objects (or ‘phenomena’) that appear in the world reveal the existence of subjects endowed with intentionalities, through and for whom the objects take on meaning.
This has a profound and unexpected consequence.
We are subjects, and we ‘appear’, from the very beginning of our lives, in a world of phenomena. Some of these phenomena also happen to be subjects. We then gradually learn to distinguish between phenomena that are merely phenomena (requiring subjects in order to appear), and phenomena that eventually reveal themselves to us as being not just phenomena, of which we would be the spectators, but as other subjects, and even ‘other’ subjects, subjects whose consciousness can be conjectured as ‘any other’. The reality of the world of phenomena is thus linked to the subjectivity of multiple subjects, and innumerable forms of consciousness, which are both phenomena and subjects. The world represents a ‘total phenomenon’, whose very existence requires at least one Subject, or Consciousness, that is not merely a ‘phenomenon’.
In other words, if a thought experiment were to presuppose the absence of any consciousness, the non-existence of any subject, in the original states of the world, would we necessarily have to conclude that the ‘phenomenal’ world did not exist in this time of ‘genesis’? Undoubtedly. The ‘phenomenal’ world would not then exist, insofar as ‘phenomenon,’ since no subject, no consciousness, would be able to observe it.
But another conjecture is still possible. Perhaps, in this time of ‘genesis’, there are subjects (or consciousnesses) that are part of another world, a non-‘phenomenal’ world, a ‘noumenal’ world, the ‘intelligible world’ evoked by Kant?
Since there can be no doubt that the world and reality began to exist long before any human subject appeared, we must conclude that other kinds of consciousness, other kinds of ‘subjects’ already existed then, for whom the world in the state of phenomenon, total and inchoate, constituted an ‘object’ and embodied an ‘intention’. In this case, the world has always been an object of subjectivity, of ‘intentionality’, of ‘desire’, right from its genesis.
It remains to try and imagine for which subjects, for which consciousnesses, the emerging world could then reveal itself as an object and as a phenomenon. We can hypothesise that this primal subjectivity, endowed with an ‘intentionality’, a ‘desire’, pre-existed the appearance of the world of phenomena, in the form of an original power to will, to desire, and to think. Man retains a ‘mysterious’ trace of this ancient, primal power, insofar as he is ‘thought made flesh’. « For the philosopher, speaking from the experience of the thinking self, man is, quite naturally, not only the Word, but thought made flesh; the always mysterious incarnation, never fully elucidated, of the ability to think ».vi Why is this incarnation ‘mysterious’? Because no one knows where thinking consciousness comes from, and even fewer can guess at the multiplicity of forms it has taken in the universe since the beginning, and may yet take in the future.
Since our only guide in this search is consciousness itself, we must return to it again and again. Every consciousness is unique because it recreates (in its own way) the conditions of the spirit’s original freedom. This freedom was not only that of the first man, but also of all that preceded him, of all that was before him and without him – of all that was non-human.
All consciousness is singular, and the solitary thinker recreates in his own way the absolute solitude of the first Man, the first Thinker. « While a man lets himself go and simply thinks, about anything for that matter, he lives totally in the singular, that is to say in complete solitude, as if the Earth were populated by a Man and not by men ».vii
Who was the first man, the first thinker to be « alone »? The one the Bible calls Adam? The one the Veda calls Puruṣa? Or some primal, original Spirit, creating in the thinker the living object of his living thought, and thereby creating the conditions for the engendering of a living multitude of other ideas (and other minds)?
We owe it to Parmenides and Plato, thinkers of the first depths, to have celebrated a few primordial spirits, among the most ancient of whom the world has preserved a memory. They admiringly quoted those sages who had lived long before them in ‘the life of intelligence and wisdom’, that life of Noûs and Sophia, which not all men know, but which all may wish to know.
Intelligence and wisdom indeed « live », in the literal sense, for they live by the life of the Spirit. From the beginning, Socrates asserts, the Spirit, the Noûs, has been the « King of heaven and earth »: νοῦς ἐστι βασιλεὺς ἡμῖν οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ γῆς.viii
In this the Sirach agrees with Socrates, and goes back even further: « Wisdom was created before all things, and the light of understanding from eternity ».ix
Paradoxically, this very ancient idea, both Greek and Hebrew, now seems to have once again become one of those « secrets still buried in the dark depths ».x
_______________
iKant. Dreams of a man who sees spirits, – explained by dreams of metaphysics (1766). Translated by J. Tissot. Ed. Ladrange, Paris, 1863
iiIbid. p.27
iiiIn a note appended to Dreams of a man who sees spirits, – explained by dreams of metaphysics.
ivH. Arendt. The life of the mind. Thought. The will. Translated in French by Lucienne Lotringer. PUF, 1981, p.68-69
vIbid.
viIbid. p.72
viiIbid.
viiiPlato, Philebus, 28c
ixSir. 1.4
x « Gods, whose empire is that of souls, silent shadows,
And Chaos, and Phlegethon, silent in the night and the limitless places,
May I have permission to say what I have heard,
May I, with your permission, reveal the secrets
buried in the dark depths of the earth.
Di, quibus imperium est animarum, umbraeque silentes
et Chaos et Phlegethon, loca nocte tacentia late,
Sit mihi fas audita loqui, sit numine vestro,
pandere res alta terra et caligine mersas.
Virgil, Aeneid VI, 264-7
The Unconscious God
The ultimate goal of the Veda is ‘knowledge’, according to the Upaniṣad-s. Some sages say that this knowledge is contained in a single sentence. Others, who are a bit more eloquent, indicate that it is all about the nature of the world and that of the Self. They teach that « the world is a triad consisting of name, form and action »i, but that the world is also « One », and that this « One » is the Self.
What is the Self? In appearance, the Self is ‘like’ the world, but it also possesses immortality. « The Self is one and is this triad. And it is the Immortal, hidden by reality. Verily, the Immortal is breath, reality is name and form. This breath is here hidden by both of them ».ii In the world, name and form ‘hide’ the immortal breath, which acts without word or form, remaining ‘hidden’.
What does this opposition between ‘name, form, action’ on the one hand, and ‘breath’ on the other, really mean? If everything is ‘one’, why this separation between mortal and immortal realities? Why is the reality of the world so unreal, why is it so obviously fleeting, ephemeral, separated from the One? Perhaps, in a way that is difficult for man to conceive, reality participates in some way in the One, and consequently participates in the Immortal? Reality is apparently separate from the One, but it is also said to ‘hide’ It, to ‘cover’ It with the veil of the very stuff of its so called ‘reality’, of its ‘appearance’. Reality is separate from the One, but in a way it remains in contact with It, just like a hiding place contains what it hides, as a garment covers nakedness, as illusion covers ignorance, as existence veils essence. Why is this so? Why are these grandiose entities, the Self, the World, Man, metaphysically disjointed, separated? If they are separate from the Self, what is the point of the World and Man, lost in an adventure that seems to go way beyond them? What is the profound raison d’être of this metaphysical disposition?
Though not answering directly to this question, and several centuries after Plotinus (cf. Ennead V,3) and Master Eckhart, C.G. Jung re-invigorated a promising avenue of research when he identified the Self and the Unconscious with God. « As far as the Self is concerned, I might say that it is an equivalent of God. »iii « The Self in its divinity (i.e. the archetype) is not conscious of this divinity (…) In man, God sees Himself from the « outside » and thus becomes conscious of His own form. »iv
The fundamental idea, here, is that God needs man’s consciousness, in some strange and mysterious manner. This is, in fact, the reason for man’s creation. Jung postulates « the existence of a [supreme] being that is essentially unconscious. Such a model would explain why God created a man endowed with consciousness and why He seeks to achieve His goal in him. On this point, the Old Testament, the New Testament and Buddhism agree. Master Eckhart says that ‘God is not happy in his divinity. He has to be born in man. That’s what happened with Job: the Creator sees himself through the eyes of human consciousness« .v
How can we explain the fact that the Self is not fully conscious of Itself, and even that It seems more unconscious than conscious? The Self is so infinite that It cannot have full, absolute awareness of Itself. All consciousness implies a focus on itself, an attention to itself. It would therefore be contrary to the essence of a consciousness, and even more so of an infinite consciousness, for it to be ‘aware’ at once of infinitely everything, of infinitely past times and infinitely future times. The idea of a complete, infinite consciousness, of an infinite omniscience, or ‘omni-consciousness’, is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction. Why? If the Self is truly, absolutely infinite, It is infinite both in act and in potential. But consciousness is only in act, since being conscious is an act. On the other hand, the unconscious is not in act, it is in potential. It is indeed conceivable that the Self can be put in act, everywhere in the world, in the heart of every human being. But we cannot imagine that the Self can put in act, here and now, everything that is still in potential (i.e. not yet realised) in the infinite range of possibilities. For example, the Self cannot be ‘put in act’, here and now, in the minds of men who do not yet exist, who may perhaps exist tomorrow, – these men of the countless generations to come, who are only ‘potentially’ yet to come into existence. Consequently, there is an important part of the unconscious in the Self. The Self does not have a total, absolute consciousness of Itself, but only an awareness of what is in act within Itself. It therefore ‘needs’ to realise the part of the unconscious that is in Itself, which remains in potential, and which it perhaps depends, to a certain extent, on the World and on Man to be realised.
The role of reality, the world and the triad ‘name, form, action’ is to help the Self to realise its share of unconscious power. Only ‘reality’ can ‘realise’ what the Self expects of it. This ‘realisation’ helps to bring out the part of the unconscious and the part of potential that the Self ‘hides’ in its in-finite unconscious. The Self has been walking its own path since eternity, and will continue to do so in the eternities to come. In this in-finite adventure, the Self wants to emerge from its own self-presence. It wants to ‘dream’ of what It ‘will be’. The Self ‘dreams’ creation, the World and Man, in order to continue to bring about ‘in act’ what is still ‘in potential’ within Itself. It is in this way that the Self knows Itself better – through the existence of that which is not the Self, but which participates in It. The Self thus learns more about Itself than if It remained alone. Its immortality and infinity live and are nourished by this power of renewal – an absolute renewal because it comes from that which is not absolutely the Self, but from that which is other than the Self (Man, the World). The World and Man ‘are’ in the dream of the God, says the Veda. But the Veda also gives Man the very name of the God, Puruṣa, also called Prajāpati, the ‘Lord of creatures’, and whom the Upaniṣad also call the Self, ātman. Man is the dream of the God who dreams that He does not yet know what He will be. This is not positive ignorance, only putative. What is ignored is only the in-finite of a future that remains to be made to happen.
On Mount Horeb, at another time, the Self made known another of Its names: « I will be who I will be ».vi God revealed himself to Moses through the verb « to be », conjugated with the « imperfect » tense. The Hebrew language lifts a part of the veil. From the grammatical point of view, God’s « being » is « imperfect », or « yet unaccomplished », like the verb (אֶהְיֶה) that He uses to designate Himself.
God made a « wager » when He created His creation, by accepting that the non-Self would coexist with the Self in the time of His dream. He gambled that Man, through names, forms and actions, would help the divinity to ‘perfect’, or to ‘accomplish’ the realisation of the Self, which is still to be made, still to be created, still in the making. God dreams that Man, placed in His presence, will deliver Him from His relative absence (from Himself). In the meantime, His power sleeps a dreamless sleep, resting in the dark abyss of His in-finite un-consciousness. His power conceals what God dreams of, and also conceals what He still longs for. In His own light, God knows no other night than His own.
____________
iB.U. 1.6.1
ii B.U. 1.6.1
iiiC.G. Jung. Letter to Prof. Gebhard Frei. 13 January 1948. The Divine in Man. Albin Michel.1999. p.191
ivC.G. Jung. Letter to Aniela Jaffé. 3 September 1943. The Divine in Man. Albin Michel.1999. p.185-186
vC.G. Jung. Letter to Rev Morton Kelsey. 3 May 1958. The Divine in Man. Albin Michel.1999. p.133
viאֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה . Ex 3,14
Surpassing the Sibyl
There were no ‘prophets’ in archaic and classical Greece, at least if we take this term in the sense of the nebîîm of Israel. On the other hand, there was a profusion of soothsayers, magicians, bacchae, pythias, sibyls and, more generally, a multitude of enthusiasts and initiates into the Mysteriesi … Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, author of a Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, emphasises the underlying unity of the sensibilities expressed through these various names: « The mystical effervescence which, with elements borrowed from the cult of the Nymphs, the religion of Dionysus and that of Apollo, had created prophetic enthusiasm, spread in all directions: it gave rise, wherever the cults generating divinatory intuition met, to the desire to inscribe in local traditions, as far back in time as possible and sheltered from any control, memories similar to those adorned by the oracle of Pytho. We can therefore consider these three instruments of the revealed word – pythias, chresmologists and sibyls – as having been created at the same time and as stemming from the same religious movement ».ii
However, it is important to appreciate the significant differences between these « three instruments of the revealed word ». For example, unlike the Pythia of Delphi, the sibyls were not linked to a particular sanctuary or a specific population. They were wanderers, individualists, free women. The character that best defined the sibyl, in comparison with the regular, appointed priestesses, was her « sombre, melancholy temperament, for she was dispossessed of her human and feminine nature, while possessed by the God ».iii The state of divine possession seemed to be a constant part of her nature, whereas the Pythia was visited only occasionally by inspiration.
Heraclitus was the first classical author to mention the Sibyl and the Bacchanalia. He left behind a few fragments that were clearly hostile to Dionysian orgies. He condemns the exaltation and exultation of excess because, as a philosopher of the balance of opposites, he knows that they multiply the deleterious effects and ultimately lead to destruction and death. However, two of his fragments exude a curious ambiguity, a kind of hidden, latent sympathy for the figure of the Sibyl. « The Sibyl, neither smiling, nor adorned, nor perfumed, with her delirious mouth, making herself heard, crossed a thousand years with her voice, thanks to the God ».iv The Sibyl does not smile because she is constantly in the grip of the God. This « possession » is an unbearable burden for her. Her innermost consciousness is crushed by the divine presence. A totally passive instrument of the God who controls and dominates her, she has neither the desire nor even the strength to wear make-up or perfume. In contrast, the priestesses of the temples and official sanctuaries, fully aware of their role and social rank, were obliged to make an effort to represent themselves and put on a show.
The Sibyl belongs entirely to God, even if she denies it. She is surrendered to him, in a trance, body and soul. She has broken all ties with the world, except that of publicly delivering the divine word. It is because she has surrendered herself entirely to the divine spirit that it can command her voice, her language, and make her utter the unheard of, say the unforeseeable, explore the depths of the distant future. In the time of an oracle, the Sibyl can cross a thousand years in spirit, by the grace of God. All the divine power, present or future, is revealed in her. We know, or we sense, that her words will prove far wiser in their ‘madness’ than all human wisdom, though perhaps only in the distant future.
The Pythia of Delphi was devoted to Apollo. But the Sibyl, in her fierce independence, had no exclusive divine allegiance. She might be in contact with other gods, Dionysus, Hades or Zeus himself. According to Pausaniasv , the Sibyl, Herophilia, prophesied to the Delphians to reveal to them the « mind of Zeus », without worrying about Apollo, the tutelary god of Delphi, towards whom she harboured an old grudge.
In fact, we already knew that these different names for the God covered the same mystery. Dionysus, Hades or Zeus are « the same », because everything divine is « the same ». « If it wasn’t for Dionysus that they were doing the procession and sing the hymn to the shameful parts, they would do the most shameless things. But he is the same as Hades and Dionysus, the one for whom they rave and lead the bacchanal. »vi
Heraclitus knows and affirms that Hades and Dionysus are « the same » God, because in their profound convergence, and despite their apparent opposition (Hades, god of death / Dionysus, god of life), their intrinsic unity and common essence emerge, and their true transcendence reveals itself. Those who live only in Dionysian enthusiasm, in bloody bacchanals, are inevitably doomed to death. On the other hand, those who know how to dominate and ride ecstasy can go far beyond the loss of self-consciousness. They can surpass even the initiated consciousness of the mystics, reach a transcendent level of revelation, and finally surpass the Mystery as such.
The Dionysian bacchanals, enthusiastic and ecstatic, ended wit the death of the victims, who were torn apart, butchered and devoured. Heraclitus recognises In ‘Dionysus/Hades’, a dual essence, two ‘opposites’ that are also ‘the same’, enabling us to transcend death through a genuine ecstasy that is not corporeal or sensual, but intuitive and spiritual. Heraclitus rejects the excesses of Dionysian ecstasy and the death that puts an end to them. He is fascinated by the Sibyl, for she alone, and singularly alone, stands alive and ecstatic at the crossroads of life and death. While she is awake, the Sibyl sees death still at work: « Death is all we see, awake… ».vii Made a Sibyl by the God, and possessed by him against her will, she is, in a way, dead to herself and her femininity. She allows herself to be passively « taken » by God, she abandons herself, to allow the life of God to live in her. Living in God by dying to herself, she also dies of this divine life, by giving life to his words. Heraclitus seems to have drawn inspiration from the Sibyl in this fragment: « Immortals, mortals, mortals, immortals; living from those death, dying from those life ».viii Given its unique position as an intermediary between the living and the dead, between the divine and the human, it has been said that the Sibylline type was « one of the most original and noble creations of religious sentiment in Greece ».ix In ancient Greece, the Sibyl certainly represented a new state of consciousness, which it is important to highlight.
Isidore of Seville reports that, according to the best-informed authors, there were historically ten sibyls. The first appeared in Persia, or Chaldeax , the second in Libya, the third in Delphi, the fourth was Cimmerian from Italy. The fifth, « the noblest and most honoured of them all », was Eritrean and called Herophilia, and is thought to be of Babylonian origin. The sixth lived on the island of Samos, the seventh in the city of Cumae in Campania. The eighth came from the plains of Troy and radiated out over the Hellespont, the ninth was Phrygian and the tenth Tiburtine [i.e. operating in Tivoli, the ancient name of Tibur, in the province of Rome].xi Isidore also points out that, in the Aeolian dialect, God was said to be Σιός (Sios) and the word βουλή meant ‘spirit’. From this he deduced that sibyl, in Greek Σιϐυλλα, would be the Greek name for a function, not a proper name, and would be equivalent to Διὸς βουλή or θεοϐουλή (‘the spirit of God’). This etymology was also adopted by several Ancients (Varron, Lactantius,…). But this was not the opinion of everyone. Pausanias, noting that the prophetess Herophilia, cited by Plutarchxii and, as we have just seen, by Isidore, was called ‘Sibyl’ by the Libyansxiii , suggests that Σιϐυλλα, Sibyl, would be the metathesis or anagram of Λίϐυσσα, Libyssa, ‘the Libyan’, which would be an indication of the Libyan origin of the word sibyl. This name was later altered to Elyssa, which became the proper name of the Libyan sibylxiv . There have been many other etymologies in the past, more or less far-fetched or contrived, which preferred to turn to Semitic, Hebrew or Arabic roots, without winning conviction. In short, the problem of the etymology of sibyl is « for the moment a hopeless problem »xv . The history of the sibyl’s name, and the variety of places where it has been used around the Mediterranean and in the Middle East, bear witness to its influence on people’s minds, and to the strength of its personality.
But who was she really?
The Sibyl was first and foremost a woman’s voice in a trance, a voice that seemed to emanate from an abstract, invisible being of divine origin. Witnesses on the lookout wrote down everything that came out of this ‘delirious mouth’. Collections of Sibylline oracles were produced, free from any priestly intervention or established political or religious interests, at least at the origin of the Sibylline phenomenon. Much later, because of its centuries-long success, it was used to serve specific or apologetic interests.xvi In essence, the Sibyl manifested a pure prophetic spirit, contrasting with the conventional, regulated techniques of divination emanating from priestly guilds duly supervised by the powers of the day. It highlighted the structural antagonism between free inspiration, expressing the words of God himself without mediation or pretense, and the deductive divinatory practices of clerical oracles, taking advantage of the privileges of the priests attached to the Temples. Sibylline manticism could also be interpreted as a reaction against the monopoly of the Apollonian clergy, the lucrative privileges of professional diviners and competition from other ‘chresmologists’, whether Dionysian or Orphic.
The latent hostility between the Sibyl and Apollo can be explained by the constant efforts of the Sibyl to take away from the Apollonian priests the monopoly of intuitive and ceremonial divination and replace it with the testimony of direct revelation.
But there is another, more fundamental, and more psychological reading. The Sibyl is a nymph enslaved, submissive to the God. Her intelligence is literally « possessed » by Apollo, she is « furious » about it, but her heart is not takenxvii . In her trance, the Sibyl is dominated by what I would call her « unhappy consciousness ». We know that Hegel defines unhappy consciousness as consciousness that is at once « unique, undivided » and « double »xviii .
The Sibyl is ‘unhappy’ because she is aware that a consciousness other than her own is present within her, in this case that of God. What’s worse, it’s a God she doesn’t love, and who has taken complete possession of her consciousness. And her consciousness is as aware as she is of these two consciousnesses at once.
If you feel that referring to Hegel is too anachronistic, you can turn to authors from the 3rd century BC: Arctinos of Miletus, Lesches of Lesbos, Stasinos, or Hegesinos of Cyprusxix who portrayed Cassandra as the type of unhappy, sad, abandoned sibyl who was thought to be mad. Cassandra became the archetypal model of the sibyl, both messenger and victim of Apollo. According to the myth, Cassandra (or ‘Alexandra’, a name which means « she who drives men away or repels them »xx ) was given the gift of divination and foreknowledge by the grace of Apollo, who fell in love with her and wished to possess her. However, having accepted this gift, Cassandra was unwilling to give him her virginity in return, and « repulsed » him. Dejected by this refusal, he spat in her mouth, condemning her to an inability to express herself intelligibly and never to be believed. Lycophron, in his poem Alexandra, describes Cassandra as « the Sibyl’s interpreter », speaking in « confused, muddled, unintelligible words »xxi . The expression « the Sibyl’s interpreter » found in several translations is itself an interpretation… In Lycophron’s original text, we read: ἢ Μελαγκραίρας κόπις, literally « the sacrificial knife (κόπις) of Melankraira (Μελαγκραίρα) ». The sacrificial knife, as an instrument of divination, can be interpreted metonymically as ‘interpretation’ of the divine message, or as ‘the interpreter’ herself. Melankraira is one of the Sibyl’s nicknames. It literally means « black head ». This nickname is no doubt explained by the obscurity of her oracles or the unintelligibility of her words. A. Bouché-Leclercq hypothesises that Lycophron, in using this nickname, had been reminded of Aristotle’s doctrine associating the prophetic faculty with « melancholy », i.e. the « black bile », the melancholikè krasis xxii, whose role in visionaries, prophets and other « enthusiasts » has already been mentioned.
We could perhaps also see here, more than two millennia ahead of time, a sort of anticipation of the idea of the unconscious, as the « black head » could be associated by metonymy with the idea of « black » thought, i.e. « obscure » thought, and thus with the psychology of the depths.
In any case, Cassandra’s confusion of expression and her inability to make herself understood were a consequence of Apollo’s vengeance, as was her condemnation to being able to predict the future only in terms of misfortune, death and ruin.xxiii
Cassandra, the « knife » of the Melankraira, sung by Lycophron (320 BC – 280 BC) had then become the poetic reincarnation of a much older archetype. When the religious current of Orphism, which emerged in the 6th century BC, began to gain momentum in the 5th century BC, authors opposed to the Orphics were already saying that the Sibyl was « older than Orpheus » to refute the latter’s claims. It was even possible to trace the Sibyl back to before the birth of Zeus himself, and therefore before all the Olympian gods… The Sibyl was identified with Amalthea, a nymph who, according to Cretan and Pelasgian traditions, had been Zeus’ nurse. The choice of Amalthea was very fortunate, because it gave the Sibyl an age that exceeded that of the Olympian gods themselves. Secondly, it did not prevent us from recognising the Ionian origin of the Sibyl, Amalthea being linked indirectly, through the Cretan Ida, to the Trojan « Ida », where Rhea, the mother of Zeus, also dwelled. In other words, Amalthea was linked to the Phrygian Kybele or the Hellenised Great Mother.xxiv I think it is essential to emphasise that this ascent to the origins of the gods reveals that gods as lofty as Apollo and even Zeus also had a ‘mother’ and a ‘nurse’. Their mothers or nurses were, therefore, before them, because they gave them lifexxv .
The awareness of a pre-existing anteriority to the divine (in its mythical aspect) can also be interpreted as a radical advance in consciousness : i.e. as the symptom of a surpassing of mythological thought by itself, – as a surpassing by human consciousness of any prior representation on what constitutes the essence of the Gods.
This surpassing highlights an essential characteristic of consciousness, that of being an obscure power, or a power emanating from the Obscure, as the Sibyl’s name Melankraira explicitly indicates. Sibyl’s consciousness discovers that she must confront at once both the pervasive, dominant presence of the God, and her own, obscure, abyssmal depth. She discovers that she can free herself from the former, and that she can also surpass herself, and all her own profound darkness.
____________
iHeraclitus, Fragment 14: « Wanderers in the night: magi, bacchants, bacchantes, initiates. In things considered by men as Mysteries, they are initiated into impiety. »
iiA. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, Tome II, Ed. Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1880, p.142
iiiMarcel Conche, in Heraclitus, Fragments, PUF, 1987, p. 154, note 1
ivHeraclitus. Fragment 92
vPausanias, X,12,6
viHeraclitus. Fragment 15
viiHeraclitus. Fragment 21
viiiHeraclitus. Fragment 62
ixA. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, Tome II, Ed. Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1880, p.133
xIt should be noted that three centuries after Isidore of Seville (~565-636), the Encyclopaedia Souda (10th century), while repeating the rest of the information provided by Isidore, nevertheless states that the first Sibyl was among the Hebrews and that she bore the name Sambethe, according to certain sources: « She is called Hebrew by some, also Persian, and she is called by the proper name Sambethe from the race of the most blessed Noah; she prophesied about those things said with regard to Alexander [sc. the Great] of Macedon; Nikanor, who wrote a Life of Alexander, mentions her;[1] she also prophesied countless things about the lord Christ and his advent. But the other [Sibyls] agree with her, except that there are 24 books of hers, covering every race and region. As for the fact that her verses are unfinished and unmetrical, the fault is not that of the prophetess but of the shorthand-writers, unable to keep up with the rush of her speech or else uneducated and illiterate; for her remembrance of what she had said faded along with the inspiration. And on account of this the verses appear incomplete and the train of thought clumsy — even if this happened by divine management, so that her oracles would not be understood by the unworthy masses.
[Note] that there were Sibyls in different places and times and they numbered ten.[2] First then was the Chaldaean Sibyl, also [known as] Persian, who was called Sambethe by name. Second was the Libyan. Third was the Delphian, the one born in Delphi. Fourth was the Italian, born in Italian Kimmeria. Fifth was the Erythraian, who prophesied about the Trojan war. Sixth was the Samian, whose proper name was Phyto; Eratosthenes wrote about her.[3] Seventh was the Cumaean, also [called] Amalthia and also Hierophile. Eighth was the Hellespontian, born in the village of Marmissos near the town of Gergition — which were once in the territory of the Troad — in the time of Solon and Cyrus. Ninth was the Phrygian. Tenth was the Tiburtine, Abounaia by name. They say that the Cumaean brought nine books of her own oracles to Tarquinus Priscus, then the king of the Romans; and when he did not approve, she burned two books. [Note] that Sibylla is a Roman word, interpreted as « prophetess », or rather « seer »; hence female seers were called by this one name. Sibyls, therefore, as many have written, were born in different times and places and numbered ten. »
xiIsidore of Seville. The Etymologies. VIII,viii. Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 181
xiiPlutarch. « Why the Pythia no longer renders her oracles in verse ». Moral works. Translation from the Greek by Ricard. Tome II , Paris, 1844, p.268
xiiiPausanias, X, 12, 1
xivIt is also another name of Queen Dido.
xvA. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, Tome II, Publisher Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1880, p.139, Note 1.
xviThe article « sibyl » in the Thesaurus of the Encyclopaedia Universalis (Paris, 1985) states, for example, on page 2048: « The Jewish sibyl corresponds to the literature of the Sibylline Oracles. The Hellenistic Jews, like the Christians, reworked the existing Sibylline Books, and then composed their own. As early as the 2nd century, the Jews of Alexandria used the sibylline genre as a means of propaganda. Twelve books of these collections of oracles are in our possession (…) The third book of the Sibylline Oracles is the most important of the collection, from which it is the source and model; it is also the most typically Jewish. A pure Homeric pastiche, it reflects Greek traditions, beliefs and ideas (Hesiod’s myth of the races) and Eastern ones (the ancient Babylonian doctrine of the cosmic year). Despite this cultural gap, it remains a Jewish work of apocalypse. It is similar to the Ethiopian Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. Israel’s monotheistic credo runs throughout.
xviiPausanias, X,12,2-3 : « [ the sibyl] Herophilus flourished before the siege of Troy, for she announced in her oracles that Helen would be born and brought up in Sparta to the misfortune of Asia and Europe, and that Troy would be taken by the Greeks because of her. The Delians recall a hymn by this woman about Apollo; in her verses she calls herself not only Herophilus but also Diana; in one place she claims to be Apollo’s lawful wife, in another her sister and then her daughter; she says all this as if she were furious and possessed by the god. In another part of her oracles, she claims that she was born of an immortal mother, one of the nymphs of Mount Ida, and of a mortal father. Here are her expressions: I was born of a race half mortal, half divine; my mother is immortal, my father lived on coarse food. Through my mother I come from Mount Ida; my homeland is the red Marpesse, consecrated to the mother of the gods and watered by the river Aïdonéus« .
xviiiThe unhappy consciousness remains « as an undivided, unique consciousness, and it is at the same time a doubled consciousness; itself is the act of one self-consciousness looking into another, and itself is both; and the unity of the two is also its own essence; but for itself it is not yet this very essence, it is not yet the unity of the two self-consciousnesses… ». G.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.177
xixQuoted in A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, Tome II, Éditeur Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1880, p.148.
xxThe name Alexandra (Alex-andra) can be interpreted as meaning « she who repels or pushes aside men » from the verb άλεξω, to push aside, to repel, and from ἀνήρ, man (as opposed to woman). Cf. Pa ul Wathelet, Les Troyens de l’Iliade. Mythe et Histoire, Paris, les Belles lettres, 1989.
xxi« From the interior of her prison there still escaped a last Siren song which, from her groaning heart, like a maenad of Claros, like the interpreter of the Sibyl, daughter of Neso, like another Sphinx, she exhaled in confused, muddled, unintelligible words. And I have come, O my king, to repeat to you the words of the young prophetess ». Lycophron. Alexandra. Translation by F.D. Dehèque. Ed. A. Durand and F. Klincksieck. Paris, 1853
xxiiRobert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, Oxford, 1621 (Original title: The Anatomy of Melancholy, What it is: With all the Kinds, Causes, Symptoms, Prognostickes, and Several Cures of it. In Three Maine Partitions with their several Sections, Members, and Subsections. Philosophically, Medicinally, Historically, Opened and Cut Up)
xxiii« In Cassandra, the prototype of the sibyls, mantic inspiration, while deriving from Apollo, bears the mark of a fierce and unequal struggle between the god and his interpreter. What’s more, not only was Cassandra pursued by Apollo’s vengeance, but she could only foretell misfortune. All she could see in the future was the ruin of her homeland, the bloody demise of her people and, at the end of her horizon, the tragic conclusion of her own destiny. Hence the sombre character and harshness of the Sibylline prophecies, which hardly foretold anything but calamities, and which undoubtedly owed to this pessimistic spirit the faith with which Heraclitus honoured them ». A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, Tome II, Éditeur Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1880, p.149
xxivA. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, Tome II, Éditeur Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1880, p.160
xxvZeus is begotten by his mother and nourished by the milk of his nurse, which can be represented by this diagram: (Cybèle) = Rhéa → Zeus ← Sibylle = (Almathéa)
About Secrets still Buried in the Dark Depths of the Earth
Consciousness, obviously, is capable of grasping abstract, immaterial ideas – for example, the principle of non-contradiction or the concept of universal attraction. Can we deduce from this that consciousness is itself immaterial in nature? Materialists deny it. Consciousness is not immaterial, they say; it is only ever the material emanation of the material substance of material bodies. But then, how can we explain the fact that purely ‘material’ entities are capable of conceiving pure abstractions that are essentially unconnected with the material world? How could a consciousness that is only ‘material’ link up and interact adequately with all the beings of unknown essences that make up the world, with the various natures that surround or subsume it? What could be the stuff of the links between a ‘material’ consciousness with beings a priori totally unrelated to its own ‘matter’? In particular, how can a ‘material’ consciousness, confined in a ‘material’ body, interact effectively with other consciousnesses, themselves confined in other bodies? How can we imagine that a consciousness could link up (materially) with other beings existing in act, or in potential, throughout the world, and that it could penetrate (materially) their essence?
All these difficult questions were dealt with by Kant in his lively little work, Dreams of a Man Who Sees Spiritsi. But Kant does not adopt a materialist point of view. Quite the contrary. In this book, he asserts that consciousness (which he calls the ‘soul’) is immaterial, just as what he calls the ‘intelligible world’ (mundus intelligibilis, the world of ideas and thoughts), – immaterial. This ‘intelligible world’ is the proper ‘place’ of the thinking self, because the latter can go there at will, detaching itself from the material, sensible world. Kant also asserts that human consciousness, although immaterial, can be linked to a body, the body of the self, from which it receives material impressions and sensations from the organs of which it is composed. Consciousness therefore participates in two worlds, the material and sensible world and the immaterial and intelligible world, – the world of the visible and that of the invisible.
The representation that consciousness has of itself as being a ‘spirit’ (Geist), when it considers itself in its relations with other consciousnesses, is quite different from the representation it has when it sees itself as being attached to a body. In both cases, it is undoubtedly the same subject who belongs at the same time to the sensible world and to the intelligible world; but it is not the same person, because the representations of the sensible world have nothing in common with the representations of the intelligible world, says Kant. What I think of myself as a living, feeling, carnal being is not on the same level, and has nothing to do with my representation as (pure) consciousness.
Conversely, the representations that I may hold of the intelligible world, however clear and intuitive they may be, are not sufficient to give me a representation of my consciousness as a human being. The representation of oneself as (pure) consciousness can be acquired to a certain extent by reasoning or induction, but it is not naturally an intuitive notion, and it is not obtained through experience.ii
Consciousness does indeed belong to a single subject, who participates in both the « sensible world » and the « intelligible world », but consciousness is also twofold. It is not « the same person » when it represents itself as « pure consciousness » and when it represents itself as « attached to a (human) body ». The fact that it is not « the same » in these two cases implies an inherent, profound duality – consciousness is a dual being. Here, for the first time, Kant explicitly introduces the expression « duality of the person » (or « duality of the soul in relation to the body »iii). This duality can be inferred from the following observation. Some philosophers believe they can refer to the state of deep sleep when they want to prove the reality of ‘obscure representations’. We can only observe that they are no longer clearly present in us when we wake up, but not that they were really ‘dark’ when we were asleep.
For example, we might well think that they were actually clearer and more extensive than the clearest representations we have in the waking state. This is indeed what we might expect of consciousness when it is perfectly at rest, and separated from the external senses, Kant concludes.
Hannah Arendt found this particular idea ‘bizarre’iv, without further explaining or justifying her trenchant judgment. Perhaps it seems indeed ‘bizarre’ to assert that consciousness thinks more clearly and more extensively in deep sleep, and that it is then more ‘active’ than in the waking state? Or does it seem ‘bizarre’ to present consciousness not as ‘one’ but as ‘two’, this duality implying a contradiction with the unified idea that consciousness might a priori have of its own nature? Consciousness feels the intrinsic unity it possesses as a ‘subject’, and it also feels, as a ‘person’, endowed with a double perspective, one sensible and the other intelligible. It may therefore seem ‘strange’ that the soul should think of itself as both one and two, – ‘one’ (as subject) and ‘two’ (as person).
This intrinsic duality creates a distance between consciousness and itself, an inner gap within itself. It reflects a gap between the ‘waking’ state (where the feeling of duality is revealed) and the ‘deep sleep’ state, where the feeling of duality evaporates, revealing the true nature of consciousness.v
To ward off this ‘oddity’, Hannah Arendt proposed an explanation, or rather a paraphrase of Kant’s note: « Kant compares the state of the thinking self to a deep sleep in which the senses are at complete rest. It seems to him that, during sleep, the ideas ‘may have been clearer and more extensive than the clearer ideas of the waking state’, precisely because ‘the sensation of man’s body was not included in it’. And when we wake up, none of these ideas remain ».vi What seems ‘bizarre’ to Hannah Arendt, we then understand, is that after consciousness has been exposed to ‘clear and extensive’ ideas, none of this remains when it wakes up. Awakening erases all traces of the activity of consciousness (or of the ‘soul’) in the deep sleep of the body. Even if there is nothing left, there is at least the memory of an immaterial activity, which, unlike activities in the material world, does not encounter any resistance or inertia. There also remains the obscure memory of what was then clear and intense… There remains the (confused) memory of having experienced a feeling of total freedom of thought, freed from all contingencies. All these memories cannot be forgotten, even if the ideas conceived at the time seem to escape us. It is possible to conjecture that the accumulation of these kinds of memories, these kinds of experiences, will end up reinforcing the idea of the existence of a consciousness that is independent (of the body). By extension, and by analogy, these memories and experiences of deep sleep constitute in themselves an experience of ‘spirituality’, and reinforce the idea of a spirit world, an ‘intelligible’ world, separate from the material world. The consciousness (or spirit) that becomes aware of its power to think ‘clearly’ (during the body’s deep sleep) also begins to think of itself as being able to distance itself from the world around it, and from the matter that constitutes it. But its power to think ‘clearly’ does not allow it to leave this world, nor to transcend it (since waking up always happens – and with it forgetting the ‘clear’ thoughts of deep sleep).
What does this sense of distance from the world bring to consciousness?
Consciousness can see that reality is woven from appearances (and illusions). In spite of the very profusion of these appearances (and illusions), reality paradoxically remains stable, it continues unceasingly, it lasts in any case long enough for us to be led to recognise it not as a total illusion, but as an object, and even the object par excellence, offered to our gaze as conscious subjects.
If we do not feel able to consider reality as an object, we may at least be inclined to consider it as a state, durable, imposing its obviousness, unlike the other world, the ‘intelligible world’, whose very existence is always shrouded in doubt, of improbability (since his kingdom can only be reached in the abyss of deep sleep).
As subjects, we demand real objects in front of us, not chimeras or conjectures – hence the insignificant advantage given to the sensible world. Phenomenology teaches that the existence of a subject necessarily implies that of an object. The object is what embodies the subject’s intention, will and consciousness. The two are linked. The object (of intention) nourishes consciousness, more than consciousness can nourish itself – the object ultimately constitutes the very subjectivity of the subject, presenting itself to her attention, and even instituting itself as her conscious intention. Without consciousness, there can be neither project nor object. Without an object, there can be no consciousness. Every subject (every consciousness) carries intentions that are fixed on objects; in the same way, the objects (or ‘phenomena’) that appear in the world reveal the existence of subjects endowed with intentionalities, through and for whom the objects take on meaning.
This has a profound and unexpected consequence.
We are subjects, and we ‘appear’, from the very beginning of our lives, in a world of phenomena. Some of these phenomena also happen to be subjects. We then gradually learn to distinguish between phenomena that are merely phenomena (requiring subjects in order to appear), and phenomena that eventually reveal themselves to us as being not just phenomena, of which we would be the spectators, but as other subjects, and even subjects who are intrinsically ‘other‘, subjects whose consciousness can be conjectured as radically ‘other‘. The reality of the world of phenomena is thus linked to the subjectivity of multiple subjects, and innumerable forms of consciousness, which are both phenomena and subjects. The world represents a ‘total phenomenon’, whose very existence requires at least one Subject, or Consciousness, that is not merely a ‘phenomenon’.
In other words, if a thought experiment were to presuppose the absence of any consciousness, the non-existence of any subject, in the original states of the world, would we necessarily have to conclude that the ‘phenomenal’ world did not exist in this time of ‘genesis’? Undoubtedly. The ‘phenomenal’ world would not then exist, insofar as phenomenon, since no subject, no consciousness, would be able to observe it.
But another conjecture is still possible. Perhaps, in this time of ‘genesis’, there are subjects (or consciousnesses) that are part of another world, a non-‘phenomenal’ world, a ‘noumenal’ world, the ‘intelligible world’ evoked by Kant?
Since there can be no doubt that the world and reality began to exist long before any human subject appeared, we must conclude that other kinds of consciousness, other kinds of ‘subjects’ already existed then, for whom the world in the state of phenomenon, total and inchoate, constituted an ‘object’ and embodied an ‘intention’. In this case, the world has always been an object of subjectivity, of ‘intentionality’, of ‘desire’, right from its genesis.
It remains to try and imagine for which subjects, for which consciousnesses, the emerging world could then reveal itself as an object and as a phenomenon. We can hypothesise that this primal subjectivity, endowed with an ‘intentionality’, a ‘desire’, pre-existed the appearance of the world of phenomena, in the form of an original power to will, to desire, and to think. Man retains a ‘mysterious’ trace of this ancient, primal power, insofar as he is ‘thought made flesh’. « For the philosopher, speaking from the experience of the thinking self, man is, quite naturally, not only the Word, but Thought made Flesh; the always mysterious incarnation, never fully elucidated, of the ability to think ».vii Why is this incarnation ‘mysterious’? Because no one knows where thinking consciousness comes from, and even fewer can guess at the multiplicity of forms it has taken in the universe since the beginning, and may yet take in the future.
Since our only guide in this search is consciousness itself, we must return to it again and again. Every consciousness is unique because it recreates (in its own way) the conditions of the spirit’s original freedom. This freedom was not only that of the first man, but also of all that preceded him, of all that was before him and without him – of all that was non-human.
All consciousness is singular, and the solitary thinker recreates in his own way the absolute solitude of the first Man, the first Thinker. « While a man lets himself go and simply thinks, about anything for that matter, he lives totally in the singular, that is to say in complete solitude, as if the Earth were populated by one Man and not by men ».viii
Who was the first man, the first thinker to be « alone »? The one the Bible calls Adam? The one the Veda calls Puruṣa? Or some primal, original Spirit, creating in the thinker the living object of his living thought, and thereby creating the conditions for the engendering of a living multitude of other ideas (and other minds)?
We owe it to Parmenides and Plato, thinkers of the first depths, to have celebrated a few primordial spirits, among the most ancient of whom the world has preserved a memory. They admiringly quoted those sages who had lived long before them in ‘the life of intelligence and wisdom’, that life of Noûs and Sophia, which not all men know, but which all may wish to know. Intelligence and wisdom indeed « live », in the literal sense, for they live by the life of the Spirit. From the beginning, Socrates asserts, the Spirit, the Noûs, has been the « King of heaven and earth »: νοῦς ἐστι βασιλεὺς ἡμῖν οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ γῆς.ix
In this the Sirach agrees with Socrates, and goes back even further: « Wisdom was created before all things, and the light of understanding from eternity ».x
Paradoxically, this very ancient idea (that the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Hebrews shared) now seems to have once again become one of those « secrets still buried in the dark depths of the earth ».xi
_____________________
iKant. Dreams of a Man who sees spirits, – explained by Dreams of Metaphysics (1766). Translated by J. Tissot. Ed. Ladrange, Paris, 1863
iiIbid. p.27
iiiIn a note appended to Dreams of a Man who sees Spirits, – explained by Dreams of Metaphysics.
ivH. Arendt. The Life of the Mind. Thought. The will. Translated by Lucienne Lotringer. PUF, 1981, p.68-69
vOne finds similar observations on the duality of the transient “ego” and the eternal “Self”, made by Indian thinkers and “rishis” such as Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda or Ramana Maharshi.
viIbid.
viiIbid. p.72
viiiIbid.
ixPlato, Philebus, 28c
xSir. 1.4
xi « Gods, whose empire is that of souls, silent shadows,
And Chaos, and Phlegethon, silent in the night and the limitless places,
May I have permission to say what I have heard,
May I, with your permission, reveal the secrets
buried in the dark depths of the earth.”
Di, quibus imperium est animarum, umbraeque silentes
et Chaos et Phlegethon, loca nocte tacentia late,
Sit mihi fas audita loqui, sit numine vestro,
pandere res alta terra et caligine mersas.
Virgil, Aeneid VI, 264-7
Doubt and I
Conceptions of the ‘I’, the ‘ego’, the ‘person’, the ‘subject’, the ‘individual’ or the ‘self’ have become increasingly important in Western philosophy since Descartes and his cogito. By asserting « I think », and even more so « I doubt », Descartes placed the singular existence of the « I » and the pre-eminence of the « ego » at the centre of his philosophy. Before him, no doubt, other philosophers had an idea of the ‘self’, but they did not have the idea of basing this idea on the assurance of a doubt about it.
Take Montaigne, for example. Pascal described, with a kind of light-hearted irony, the nature of the doubt that assailed the author of the Essays, a doubt so doubtful that it made him doubt even his own doubt: « Montaigne places all things in such universal and general doubt that this doubt carries itself away, that is to say, if he doubts, and doubting even this last proposition, his uncertainty rolls over itself in a perpetual circle without rest; opposing equally those who assure that everything is uncertain and those who assure that everything is not, because he does not want to assure anything. The essence of his opinion, which he has not been able to express by any positive term, is to be found in this self-doubting and self-ignoring ignorance, which he calls his master form. For if he says he doubts, he betrays himself, by at least assuring that he doubts; which being formally against his intention, he could only explain by interrogation; so that, not wanting to say ‘I don’t know’ he says ‘What do I know?’ of which he makes his motto. »i
After Descartes, the so-called ‘modern’ philosophical systems that followed, and especially the German idealist philosophies, amplified interest in the figures of ‘I’, ‘ego’ and ‘self’. These personal pronouns, in their deceptive simplicity, embodied various attempts, literally semantic and grammatical, to denote what human beings ‘are’, or rather appear to be, and thus more conveniently designate, at least in appearance, ‘what makes each of us what we are’ii .
But there is nothing less timeless than ‘modernity’. Modern philosophies, as the latest arrivals in the history of thought, are predictably doomed to have to pass the baton in their turn at some point in the future. In their passing glitter, their assertive arrogance, their piecemeal questioning, their contrived theses, they can never make us forget that the conceptions on which they are based are not in themselves universal or absolutely necessary. Other thinkers, of whom we have no idea, will perhaps, in the centuries to come, come up with other points of view. There is no doubt that, on a subject as obscure, profound and abysmal as that of the subject or consciousness, alternative views will flourish and bear new fruit.
If we look briefly at the past, neither the Hebrews nor the ancient Greeks, to take these two examples, attached to the personal pronouns in use in the grammars of their languages, Semitic and Indo-European respectively, an ontological weight comparable to that which they took on in modern philosophies of the ‘subject’, such as those of Descartes, Kant, Fichte or Hegel. But in the absence of ontological weight, their pronouns possessed other qualities, more evanescent, intangible or implicit, perhaps, but nonetheless highly significant, allusive and challenging.
As far as the ancient Hebrews are concerned, several grammatical treatises would not exhaust the subject of ‘subject’. To give an idea of the resources of Hebrew grammatical forms, I will limit myself here to the example of the three personal pronouns juxtaposed one after the other, אֲנִי אֲנִי הוּא , ani, ani, hu’, (« me, me, him »), when God (YHVH) used them to name himself in Deuteronomy, 32,39. This Trinitarian and strange combination of two ‘me’ and one ‘him’ seems designed to reveal a kind of latent, abysmal power in these pronouns intended to define the essence of God.
As for the ancient Greeks, the role of the ‘self’ is nothing less than simple or elusive in Hesiod, Homer, the pre-Socratic philosophers and Plato. But it is not ‘modern’. Frédérique Ildefonse, in her book Le multiple dans l’âme. Sur l’intériorité comme problème, makes a point of expressing her reluctance in principle to use the very word ‘self’ in the context of Greek mythology or philosophy. She considers that the philosophical use of the word ‘I’ is inadvisable, because it is tantamount to « reproducing grammatical categories in the order of the concept, in this case transforming a personal pronoun into a concept »iv . In her view, the ‘I’ has the character of a ‘false end’. It fixes or freezes reflection prematurely. « Rather, the concept of the self artificially blocks the analysis, when it could be developed further ».v
She refers to Lacan, who does not believe in the ‘I’ either. Lacan refers to it in a curiously Anglo-Latin phrase, ‘autonomous ego’, and believes that belief in its existence is ‘a rather common folly’…
« What inner necessity does it serve to say that somewhere there must be an autonomous ego? This conviction goes beyond the individual naivety of the subject who believes in himself, who believes that he is himself – a fairly common folly, and not a complete folly, because it is part of the order of beliefs. Obviously we all tend to believe that we are us. But we’re not as sure as that, if you look closely enough. In many very specific circumstances, we doubt it, without undergoing any depersonalisation ».vi
The Latin word ego comes from the Greek ἐγώ whose Indo-European root is *aghamvii , which gave rise to several other derivatives in various Indo-European languages, including the Gothic ik, the German ich and, most originally, the Sanskrit अहम्, aham. The latter form is also, it should be noted, the origin of the pronouns moi in French and me in English. Notwithstanding the existence of the word ἐγώ, ‘me’, it remains a matter of debate how the ancient Greeks conceptualised the nature of what it covered. For example, the Athenian states in Plato’s Laws, according to the translation by Auguste Diès: ‘The soul is entirely superior to the body, and, in this very life, what constitutes our self is nothing other than the soul: the body is, for each of us, only the concomitant image; thus we are quite right to say that the lifeless body is only the image of the dead, and that the real self of each of us, what we call the immortal soul, goes to give account before other gods, as our ancestral law declares. »viii In this translation, we see that the word ‘me’ appears twice, although the Greek word ἐγώ is in fact completely absent from the Greek original… On this ground, F. Ildefonse criticises the classical translations of Platoix , which render the expression ‘τὸ παρεχόμενον ἡμῶν ἕκαστον τοῦτ’εἶναι’ (to parekhomenon hèmôn hékaston toût’eïnai) by: « the real self of each of us », or by: « what constitutes our self ». She recommends sticking to a more literal version, and suggests translating ‘τὸ παρεχόμενον ἡμῶν ἕκαστον τοῦτ’εἶναι μηδὲν ἀλλ’ᾒ τὴν ψυχήν’ by « what makes each of us what we are, it is nothing other than our soul ». In doing so, she is moreover in full agreement with Léon Robin’s translation, published in 1950 in the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, and which is almost identical: « ce qui fait de chacun de nous ce qu’il est, n’est rien d’autre que son âme ».x F. Ildefonse also quotes Michel Narcyxi who also questions the translation of ἡμῶν ἕκαστον (hèmôn hékaston) as « self ». In fact, there is nothing in the original Greek text to suggest that for Plato ‘the true self is the soul’. Without using the word ἐγώ, ‘I, self’, Plato invites us to explore other avenues, such as that of the ‘immortal principle of the soul’ (arkhen psukhès athanaton) or that of the inner ‘demon’ (daimon) supposed to inhabit the soul.
By way of comparison with these resolutely non-modern Platonic ideas, Michel Narcy refers to the definition of the self as given by Adolphe Franck’s Dictionnaire des sciences philosophiques: « The self is the name by which modern philosophers are accustomed to designate the soul insofar as it is aware of itself and conceives of its own operations, or that it is both the subject and the object of its thought ».xii This definition establishes a link between the concept of self and that of consciousness, a link notoriously absent in Plato. Adolphe Franck’s article reinforces the idea of an identity equation between the self, the soul and consciousness. In Kantian philosophy, this identity takes on a more abstract meaning, that of the pure self or self-reflective consciousness. For Fichte, the abstract self will even identify with the idea of the absolute, insofar as it thinks itself. For Schelling and Hegel, it embodies the particular form or manifestation of the absolute insofar as this form reveals it to itself. « When Descartes defined himself as something that thinks, res cogitans, or enunciated the famous proposition: I think, therefore I am, he was really putting the self in the place of the soul; and this substitution or, to put it more accurately, this equation, he did not content himself with establishing it in the substance of things, he also made it pass into language. Because, ‘on the one hand’, he says (Sixth Meditation, § 8), ‘I have a clear and distinct idea of myself in so far as I am only a thing that thinks and is not extended, and because, on the other hand, I have a distinct idea of the body in so far as it is only an extended thing and does not think, it is certain that this self, that is to say my soul, through which I am what I am, is entirely and truly distinct from my body, and that it can be or exist without it. »xiii However, we do not see that this expression ever took on the rigorous and absolute meaning that was later attached to it, either by him or by any of his disciples. He does intentionally say ‘I’ instead of ‘my soul’, but he does not use theword ‘I’ to designate the soul or the spirit in general. It is only in the German school of thought that we come across this expression for the first time, and it is also there that it reaches a degree of abstraction that the psychological or experimental method, brought in by Descartes, cannot authorise. The self, in Kant’s system, is not the soul or the human person, but consciousness only, thought insofar as it reflects itself, i.e. its own acts, and the phenomena on which it is exercised. Hence, for the founder of critical philosophy, two kinds of self: the pure self (das reine ich) and the empirical self. The first, as we have just said, is the consciousness that thought has of itself and of the functions that are entirely its own; the second is the consciousness applied to the phenomena of sensibility and experience. Fichte makes the ego the absolute being itself, thought substituted for the creative power and drawing everything from its own bosom, mind and matter, soul and body, humanity and nature, after it has made itself, or posited its own existence. Finally, in the doctrine of Schelling and Hegel, the self isneither the human soul, nor human consciousness, nor thought taken in its absolute unity and placed in the place of God; it is only one of the forms or manifestations of the absolute, that which reveals it to itself, when, after having spread out as it were in nature, it returns to itself or collects itself in humanity. » xiv
If we were to undertake a general history of the word « I » and of the conceptions attached to it, we could undoubtedly determine that the « I » has never been considered to be perfectly identical with what is called the soul or consciousness. The self can certainly represent the soul, but only when it has reached a state of development where it is truly aware of itself and its various ways of being. But the « I » doesnot embody the very essence of the soul, nor the whole range of its manifestations. It does not show it to us in all its possible states and in all the putative forms of its existence. There are certainly states in which the soul does not yet know itself. Thus the soul in infancy, and before that during the uterine life that precedes birth. There are also states in which it ceases to know itself, as in the time of dreams, deep sleep, and the various states of unconsciousness that can affect life, without the soul necessarily being aware of being a self. If we wish to affirm that the notion of self is formally linked to that of consciousness, what then becomes of the identity of the human person in cases where this consciousness is not complete, or is more or less obscured? Is not the soul then distinct from the self, when it is immersed in the obscure sensations of a relative or absolute unconsciousness, or when it is dominated by instinctive faculties, in which consciousness plays no assured role?
The modern preeminence of the ego over the notion of the soul, – downgraded to the status of a Platonic essence, and as such discredited –, is now apparently predominant. But for how much longer? Neuroscience research has not found the slightest trace of soul in synaptic microtubules. Is this the end of the story? It’s doubtful.
It is certain, on the other hand, that the dominance of the ego leads moderns to dismiss any role for the soul in thought, and to postulate that thought is in some way identical to the ego. The ego becomes the ultimate symbol of the human person who has reached the full development of her ‘consciousness’. This eminent role of ‘consciousness’ was also undoubtedly one of the main reasons for the emergence of the ego, the reason why the human person could be considered by the idealist philosophies already mentioned as a simple ‘mode’ of divine thought, becoming aware of itself.
But there are many other avenues open to us if we are prepared to stray from the beaten track. Firstly, consciousness could be considered as pure energy, and not as a state. From this point of view, it would not be a mode of being of the ego or the subject. Its own movement could be conceptualised as essentially incessant, autonomous, and therefore essentially infinite. The essence of consciousness-energy would be that it always surpasses and increases itself, from its own point of view, in its own world, different from the material world, that ontologically static world where, it is said, ‘nothing is lost, nothing is created’.
Secondly, we cannot exclude a priori the idea that the soul does exist, as a substance, as an irreducible monad. The conceptual annihilation of the soul by modernists could itself be conceptually annihilated in the coming centuries, or millennia, as a result of discoveries that are unimaginable today.
If we follow these lines of thought, we may find that the conceptions of the German idealists (Fichte, Hegel, Schelling), who see in the human soul a kind of incarnate figure of the Absolute, are too simple. Their conclusions are too hasty, too premature. Nothing has yet been absolutely finalised in the great metaphysical and pan-cosmic drama that continues to unfold. Everything remains to be done.
The question of the self isproving to be a thorny one – much more so than a bush of burning thorns.
_____________
iPascal. L’entretien avec M. de Saci sur Épictète et Montaigne. Delagrave, Paris, 1875, p.25
iiTo use Plato’s expression, Laws XII, 959 a, in Léon Robin’s translation.
ivFrédérique Ildefonse The multiple in the soul. On interiority as a problem. Vrin. Paris, 2022, p. 32
vFrédérique Ildefonse The multiple in the soul. On interiority as a problem. Vrin. Paris, 2022, p. 32
viJ. Lacan. The Seminar, Book II. The ego in Freud’s theory and in the technique of psychoanalysis. Paris, Seuil, 1978, p.24
viiMichel Bréal and Anatole Bailly. Latin etymological dictionary. Latin words, grouped according to meaning and etymology. Hachette, Paris, 1918, s.v. « ego ».
viiiPlato, Laws XII, 959 a-b, in the translation by Auguste Diès, quoted by F. Ildefonse.
ixLike those of Joseph de Maistre and Auguste Diès.
x« Between the soul and the body there is a radical difference, and in life precisely what makes each of us what we are is nothing other than our soul, whereas the body is a semblance with which each of us is individually accompanied ; and it is rightly said of the body of a dead man that it is a simulacrum of that man, whereas what each of us really is, that imperishable thing to which we give the name of soul, goes off to other Gods to give account to them, as our national traditions state. » Plato, Laws XII, 959 a-b. Translated by Léon Robin, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Paris, 1950, p.1114.
xiM. Narcy, « En quête du moi chez Platon », in Le moi et l’intériorité, p.58.
xiiDictionnaire des sciences philosophiques by a society of professors and scholars under the direction of M. Adolphe Franck, Paris, Hachette, 1875, p.1122
xiiiDescartes. Méditations métaphysiques. GF Flammarion, Paris, 2009, p.190
xivDictionnaire des sciences philosophiques by a society of professors and scholars under the direction of M. Adolphe Franck, Paris, Hachette, 1875, p.1122
Origins of Consciousness
Long before the Cambrian explosion, the world’s genetic heritage had already begun its long, slow genesis. It was being built up, as it continues to be, through all forms of life, experiences and unfathomable memories, including the double embrace of DNA.
For more than four billion years, tenuous, repeated, tenacious and resilient genetic achievements and countless mutations have increased the common treasure, modified and transformed it, condemning dead-ends and rushing off in new directions.
All living things have contributed, to a greater or lesser extent, – fungi and oomycetes, amoebas and sea urchins, corals and earthworms, pterodactyls and stegosaurids, buzzards and bison, bonobos and aïsi , hominids and hominins…
Planet Earth, a tiny drop of mud and fire in the cosmic night, shelters and transports these lives, like a noetic ark.
An ark, because it is facing the flood of millennia and the threat of mass extinctions (five since the end of the Cambrian, and a sixth underway since the start of the Anthropocene).
Noetic, because all biological life ultimately boils down to information, in terms of its transmission. This information carries a meaning that needs to be heard. DNA molecules are therefore more than just a series of nucleotides. They convey ‘meaning’, they ‘signify’ living forms, past and future, – plant essences or animal ways of existing. Each gene embodies a ‘mode’ of existence, and each gamete potentially contains a certain ‘idea’ of being. The global noetic ark takes with it all sorts of ideas about living beings, those whose memory has been preserved and transmitted. But it has no awareness of this. It continues, impassive, its journey through time, a wandering vessel, without end or reason, given over to unconsciousness. It is the fragile, floating symbol of life thrown into the cosmic void in order to survive.
It is not alone. The ark of life here below is the local, earthly figure of a vaster, universal, cosmic life. We know neither its origin nor its end. We only know that this total, unconscious life must have preceded the appearance of all the proto-conscious forms of life in the cosmos, because it contained them all in potential.
The arch is a very general idea, representing a paradigm, an image of the self, a figure of separation between the interior and the vast, dangerous and stimulating exterior. The smallest paramecium is already a kind of arch, enveloping the cytoplasm, macronucleus, micronuclei, vacuoles, peristome, cytostome, cytopharynx and cytoprotect with its plasma membrane… But this protective envelope is not watertight. The cell absorbs water by osmosis and evacuates it through the pulsatile vacuoles. It feeds on bacteria that it ingests through the peristome and cytostome.
Let’s use a metaphor. Yet another arch, made of iron and fire, occupies the centre of the Earthii.The enormous mass of molten metal in the outer core is continually stirred by convection; it interacts with the Earth’s rotation and influences its precessional movement.
In the same way, the arch of life, like a telluric power, but of noetic and even psychoid essence, metamorphoses in its depths and is constantly renewed over millions of millennia. In this living orogeny, life forms emerge in slow, subconscious extrusions. Since the dawn of time, deep, chthonic layers of subterranean life have been set in motion. They erupt in crustal flows; their subductions never cease to melt and remelt; they bring to light, as the case may be, gneisses or migmatites, nuggets of native gold or diamonds in their gangue – all poor metaphors for the infinite variety of proto-consciousness.
Perhaps it would take a Hesiod or a Homer to evoke the cosmogonic, original power of these forms of subconsciousness or proto-consciousness, criss-crossed by hadal strata, riddled with dykes and intrusions, cut by sills…
We imagine them populated by mental plutons, shrouded in strange dreams, half-liquid half-solid intuitions, slowly traversing metamorphic abysses, with no imaginable depth or origin.
Floating lightly on the ocean of these consciousnesses in gestation, like a wind or a vapour, we could call ‘spirit’ that which, in them, blindly seeks the light, that which always precedes them, that which comes from below and from the depths, that which wants the distant and the wide, that which binds itself to the future, that which dislaces itself from the past without tiring of it.
The ark is a local metaphor for the self. But we can of course assume that there are other consciousnesses scattered throughout the universe, proto-, para- or even supra-consciousnesses, of which exo- or xeno-biology gives us an initial idea.
These elusive, exotic, exogenous consciousnesses undoubtedly traverse worlds and universes, infusing them, spying on them, watching them, feeding on them or brooding over them, wounding them or healing them, and who knows? enlivening them, elevating them and transcending them. We begin to dream that, higher up, far above the cosmological horizon, unheard-of nebulae of supra-consciousness, sapiential layers, seraphic ethers, impalpable flashes of light, swirl silently like goshawks or pilgrims. From such a considerable pile of ontic leaps, from heavy magmas to starry gases, from DNA to the soul, from flint to cherubim, how can we convey in words the dynamics of the thrills, the power of the transformations?
The use of ellipsis, allusion and trope is an expedient. We form the hypothesis that throughout the cosmos all sorts of levels of consciousness and subconsciousness fold endlessly, rise or fall, disjoin or rejoin. As they lower, sink or rise, they bind together forgotten places. By unfolding or folding, by compressing their cores, made of dreamy granites or dreamy gabbros, the most stratospheric layers of supra-consciousness envelop all the intermediate strata like swaddling clothes; these celestial entities encompass within them chthonic fires, which pulsate far below, as well as centres of the void.
Or, conversely, according to the topological archetypes of the ball, the sphere and the ‘whole’, it is the deep layers that fold in on themselves, that give birth to shreds of emerging consciousness, and at their heart give rise to the fire that engenders the subsequent spheres, which are difficult to decipher. In other words, whether the Self is at the centre of the sphere it has unified, at the heart of the total One, or whether it is itself the Encompassing, the Totalising, topologically amounts to the same thing. Like the mystical serpent, the Ouroboros, the Self (or the God who is its symbol) sacrifices itself by devouring itself through its end, and through its beginning. It feeds its centre from its periphery.
We need to see this process in its totality and understand it in its essence, and not just consider its local forms, be they fleeting, stacked, spherical, serpentine, metamorphic, spiral or perforated. This totality of consciousnesses in motion is clearly animated by an original, primal energy, albeit a conjectural one.
It can be represented as follows. All consciousness, the highest and most significant, as well as the smallest and most humble, is only the local, singular manifestation of a total, common energy. Human consciousness, for its part, is neither the highest nor the humblest consciousness in the universe. It is of an intermediate nature, combining a biological heritage (genetic, bodily and sensory memory) and the psychic, archetypal forms of the general unconscious, in the making since the time of Prehumansiii.
In every human consciousness there coexists the ‘conscious’ self and an ancient, deep memory, that of the Self. This memory comes partly from the proto-consciousness of generations of hominids and hominins. Added to this are memories of more assertive, more recent consciousnesses, for example those of generations of individuals of the genus Paranthropus, or Australopithecus, which preceded the genus Homo. This accumulated, additive, recapitulative memory is added to the body of unconscious representations, archetypes and symbolic forms that dot the consciousness of Homo sapiens. Symbolic, archetypal and ‘instinctual’ forms constantly mold the human psyche. The psyche is an immaterial substance that exists separately from the body. It even appears to be one of its organizing principles, a driving force for movement and metamorphosis. Other archetypal forms, known as ‘instinctive’, remain linked to the biological substratum, and derive their nature from living matter, insofar as it is more organized and teleological than non-living matter.
Tradition has bequeathed to us a great principle, that of the continuous transformation of psychic forms, analogous in a sense to the less perennial transformation of bodies. Ovid once sang of these metamorphoses:
I mean shapes changed into new bodies.
Gods, you who make changes, inspire my project.iv
In its multi-millennial movement, human consciousness does not know the nature of its own matter, its intimate substance, even though it is constantly experiencing its effects. It does not know the nature and essence of the psychic archetypes that structure and orient it. It is trapped in its own reality, which links the biological and the psychic. It does not have the means to represent them clearly, since all its representations are obscurely based on them, induced by them, and not the other way round. It comes from a psychic mold whose nature escapes it entirely. How could a form taken from a mold conceive the essence of that mold, and the conditions of the molding? How could a ‘moving’ thing conceive of the essence of the ‘motor’ that moves and animates it?
Human consciousness can represent ideas, images, symbols and forms. But it cannot represent where these ideas, images, symbols and forms emerge from. It only perceives the effects of the psychic energy in which it is immersed. It cannot conceive of the nature of what nourishes it, or its origin, let alone its purpose. Can we draw comparisons between instincts (linked to the biological substratum) and archetypes (which belong to a sphere that encompasses the psychic, but is not necessarily limited to it)?
Is there any analogy between instinctive, biological forms and symbolic, archetypal, psychological representations?
There are two very different hypotheses on this subject. The first is that instincts and archetypes are energetic phenomena, and are basically of the same nature. Although of distinct origin, they could represent modulations, at very different frequencies, of the same primal, fundamental energy.
In contrast, the second hypothesis draws a radical dividing line between instincts and archetypes, between matter and spirit. In the first case, we can conjecture that an intimate fusion or partial entanglement is possible between instincts and archetypes, between the biosphere and the ‘noosphere’, within the Whole. They would only represent different aspects of the same reality, the same substance.
In the second case, the Whole would contain an internal rupture, a break in continuity, an ontological cut between, on the one hand, what belongs to matter and biology and, on the other, what belongs to spirit and psychology.
In both cases, the archetype of the Whole is not called into question. Its presence in the psyche is obvious. What is open to conjecture is its very nature: is the essence of the Whole entangled or broken?
In the first hypothesis, the Whole is presented as an entity in fusion, apparently inwardly mobile, but basically totally unified. The essence of the Whole, insofar as it is also the One, the only One, is a fine entanglement of the One and the Whole.
In the second hypothesis, the Whole is constantly renewed by an interplay of contradictory forces and partial, provisional, open syntheses. Nothing about its power, its metamorphoses or its end is known or knowable. Everything is always possible, and the surest hypothesis is that something new eternally transfigures the Whole into the Very Other…
Two ideas of the Whole, then: a unified (and globally perennial, self-sufficient) fusion, or a living, agonistic and dialogical polarization.
These two models of the Whole also present two archetypal models of the divine: the oceanic model (final fusion), and the dual or bipolar model (the internal, ever-creative dialogue of the Theos with the Cosmos and the Anthropos). In the oceanic, fusion model, we need to be able to explain the irreducible presence of evil as a neighbor of good. We need to understand whether evil can ultimately be ‘reabsorbed’ or metabolized by the ultimate victory of unity-totality. In the dual model, we might consider that the dialectics of good/evil or God/man are only provisional representations of a dialectic of a much higher order: that of the Divine with Itself.
The very existence of such a dialectic, internal and proper to the Divinity, would imply that it is neither perfect nor complete (in its own eyes, if not in ours). It would always be in the process of becoming, in the act of self-fulfillment and always progressing in the illumination of its own night, in the exploration of its abysses and its heavens.
We could then add that the Divine eternally includes in itself, in its source, in its depth, in its very origin, entities such as ‘nothingness’ or ‘evil’.
From this we can deduce that It draws from this nothingness or evil in Itself the reasons for Its becoming – in other words, the means to exercise Its ‘will’ again and again in order to consolidate Its ‘reign’.
Since Jung, we have known that the psyche lives essentially through and in theexpression of the will. It is the will that is the essence of consciousness, the essence of the mind. If we suppose that the Divinity is ‘Spirit’, then is the essence of this Spirit its will? Let’s look at human consciousness. It cannot take an external view of itself. It can only observe itself from its own point of view. If we analyze our own consciousness scrupulously, we quickly realize that its nature changes at the very moment it becomes aware that it is observing itself. Like the instant, it cannot grasp itself as such; it can only grasp itself insofar as it is withdrawn from itself. It is difficult for consciousness to see its limits, its scope. Where does its power of elucidation end? Will it be able to move freely, carrying its light to the highest summits and to the depths of the abyss? It doesn’t know. Will it be able to determine whether this very bottom, this abyssal goal, actually exists, or whether it is in fact endless? It doesn’t know. As it explores itself, will the psyche reveal itself as ultimately ‘infinite’, ‘in the image’ and ‘likeness’ of the creative divinity who created it, according to Tradition? The answer is unknown.
It is equally difficult for consciousness to determine the conditions of its anchorage in living matter, which forms its biological substratum. To do so, it would have to be capable of placing itself outside itself, in order to consider objectively what, within it, makes possible the articulation between the biological and the psychic, between living matter and living consciousness. Are their respective ‘lives’ of the same nature? Or are they two distinct forms of life, similar in appearance but in reality distinct in essence?
The psyche does not clearly represent itself; it does not clearly represent the blurring of its boundary with matter, with the world of instinct, with the realm of archetypes, nor its ambiguous interface with the realm of spirit. It has no clear idea of who it is, what drives it, or the nature of its will.
The will that unfolds in consciousness would need to reach a supra-consciousness in order to ‘see’ itself at work, to become aware of itself, to consider itself in its choices, and if necessary, to be able to modify or confirm them.
The conscious will must have within itself, and for itself, a representation of what it ‘wants’ but also a representation of what it ‘does not want’, or of what it ‘no longer wants’, representations that it must keep subconsciously in its memory, in the flower of its consciousness, to give itself the means to regain its freedom at any moment, if the urge takes it. But where would this desire come from, from what source would it arise?
How does self-awareness, this higher supervision of consciousness, this conscious ‘knowledge’, emerge? How does it forge a purpose other than instinctual? How does some ‘desire’ for freedom actually take over again? Consciousness appears as a kind of continuous flow of energy, flowing upwards, downwards, in all directions. An endless flow of waves and ripples. Magma folds and unfolds. Consciousness twists and turns around itself, curls up, folds up, unfolds, and its deep levels, kneaded, mingle in new ways, knot into new forms, from which psychic potentials are suddenly discharged, unexpected sparks dazzle, instantaneous flashes of light illuminate, rapid conflagrations erupt…
Every consciousness lives its own Odyssey – it weaves and unweaves its desires, its dreams. Consciousness is at once a wanderer and a voyage; it is a ship made of light and obscurity, both an Argo and a Jason, constantly inventing its bearings, its brilliant constellations, its shadowy abysses and its golden fleece.
_________________
i Aï: Three-toed sloth. South American quadruped, mammal of the toothless family, of the genus Bradypus, which moves extremely slowly.
iiWe know that the Earth’s core, which is liquid on the outside and solid on the inside (called the « seed »), is separated from the Earth’s mantle by the « Gutenberg discontinuity ».
iii« The lineage of the Prechimpanzees and that of the Prehumans separated some ten million years ago, the latter settling in a less wooded environment than the former. Here we see these prehumans standing up, walking and even climbing. Six genera and a dozen species illustrate this extraordinary radiation that flourished between 7 and 2 million years ago in the intertropical arc, from Chad to South Africa, via Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi. » Yves Coppens and Amélie Vialet (eds.). Un bouquet d’ancêtres. Premiers humains: qui était qui, qui a fait quoi, où et quand? Pontifical Academy of Sciences and CNRS Éditions. Paris, 2021
ivOvid. The Metamorphoses. Book I, 1-2. Translated from the Latin by Marie Cosnay. Ed. de l’Ogre, 2017
God’s Imperfect Consciousness
Plato claims that the oldest inhabitants of Greece, the Pelasgians, gave their gods the name ‘Runners’ (θεούς, theous), because they saw the stellar and planetary gods ‘running’ across the sky. The name is said to come from the verb θέω, theo, ‘to run’.i The Cratylus abounds in somewhat fanciful etymologies, in the service of Platonic verve and irony. However, one of the meanings of the verb θέω is indeed ‘to run’. But there is a second, no less relevant: ‘to shine’.
The first meaning (‘to run; to rush; to extend, to develop’) allows Plato to consider this link, established by the Pelasgians, between the name of the gods and their celestial ‘course’. According to Chantraine’s Greek dictionary, this meaning of the verb θέω is etymologically related to a Sanskrit verb, dhavate, ‘to flow’. However, the second meaning of θέω, theo, ‘to shine’, would also be compatible with the ancient way of representing the divine essence. It is closer to another Sanskrit root, dyaus, द्यौष्, which is in fact the origin of the French word ‘dieu’, the English word ‘divine’ and the Greek name ‘Zeus’. In the Veda, the word ‘god’ (deva) meant the ‘Brilliant One’.
In other, even older traditions, the orderly march of the stars has been interpreted as an immense ‘army’ setting out to battle. This metaphor combines the two meanings of the verb θέω, evoking both the regular ‘course’ of the starry vault and the brilliant ‘brilliance’ of the ‘gods’ in arms. Schelling proposed giving the name ‘Sabaeism’ to this ‘astral’ religion, which he said should be recognised as the oldest religion of mankind. « This astral religion, which is universally and unquestionably recognised as the first and oldest of mankind, and which I call Sabaeism, from saba, army, and in particular the celestial army, was subsequently identified with the idea of a kingdom of spirits radiating around the throne of the supreme king of the heavens, who did not so much see the stars as gods, as vice versa in the gods, the stars ».ii In other texts, Schelling calls it « sabism » (Zabismus), retrospectively considering that the word sabism (Sabeismus) could lead to misunderstanding by implying that the name could come from the Sabaeans, the people of happy Arabia known for its astrolatry.iii The word saba, which Schelling mentions in passing without giving any further details, certainly refers to the Hebrew word צָבָא, tsaba‘, « army ». This word is actually used in the Hebrew Bible to denote the stars, tsaba ha-chamaïm, as being « the army of heaven » (Jer. 33:22), an expression that is also applied to denote the sun, the moon and the stars (Deut. 4:19). It also refers to the angels as the « host of heaven » (1 Kings 22:19). In the Hebrew Bible, the Lord is often called « YHVH of hosts » (YHVH Tsebaoth), or « Lord of hosts » (Elohim Tsebaoth), and even « YHVH Lord of hosts » (YHVH Elohim Tsebaoth).
The expression « the armies from the height », in Hebrew צְבָא הַמָּרוֹם , tseba ha-marom, is also used by Isaiah, but in an unexpected, paradoxical context. For Isaiah, the « armies from the height » will not be used by YHVH to punish the kings of the earth on the day of judgement, but they themselves, just as much as the latter, will be the object of His wrath: « On that day, YHVH will punish the armies of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on the earth. » (Is. 24:21). Be that as it may, a kind of historical and conceptual continuity links the « astral armies » of ancient religions and the « armies (tsebaoth) », celestial or angelic, gathered under the law of YHVH in Hebrew tradition.
In parallel, so to speak, in the Greek world, the mythological tradition portrayed the intense, passionate and exuberant lives of the gods. Hesiod’s Theogony describes in detail their war against the Titans, and their final victory, under the aegis of Zeus. Homeric polytheism presented many aspects of the divine pleroma, while also recognising the primacy of the greatest of them all, Zeus, in terms of power, intelligence and wisdom. In the Mysteries of Eleusis or Samothrace, it has been said that the initiation was in fact about the esoteric revelation of the supreme God, subsuming the exoteric multiplicity of gods and their various figures or attributes.
The unity of the Divine, insofar as it is called the One, was undoubtedly evoked very early on in the Greek tradition by pre-Socratic philosophers such as Heraclitus, Parmenides and Empedocles.
Heraclitus said, for example:
« The One, the only wise One, does not want to be called and wants the name of Zeus. »iv
« Law too, obey the will of the One.v
He wrote these lines, which earned him the epithet Obscure:
« Embracing all and not all
In tune and out of tune
Consonant and dissonant
And of all things the One
And from the One all things ».vi
He was aware of the esoteric nature of divine truths:
« The Logos, that which is, men are always unable to understand, either before hearing it or after hearing it for the first time ».vii
As for Parmenides, he was the first philosopher to assert that the path to Divinity is that of ‘it is’.
« But now there’s only one way left
Of which we can speak; it is that of ‘it is’.
As for the path of non-being, it leads nowhere. »viii
For his part, Empedocles, in the first book of his Physics, dialectically combines the being of the One and the being of the Multiple:
« I have two points to make. Indeed, sometimes the One
Increases to the point of existing alone
From the Multiple; and then again
Divides, and so out of the One comes the Many ».ix
In archaic times, long before the pre-Socratics, human consciousness was undoubtedly still undivided and fundamentally unified. The idea of divine multiplicity was meaningless then, compared with the immediate intuition of cosmic unity, the unity of the human world, nature and spirit. In ancient times, people worshipped rough stones or meteors as sacred images. This original cult symbolised the divine as a formless material, a ‘raw’ material, lithic, unalterable, shapeless stone, which sometimes fell from the sky. It corresponded to an immanent, muted, auroral consciousness. It represented the divine presence, unique, undivided, unbroken.
Originally, man’s first religion was naturally oriented towards the One and the All. Later, the cult and contemplative erection of individual sculptures, detached from the mass of the mountains or carved into the walls of caves, and the staging of idols made by human hands, visible and tangible, corresponded to another stage in religious awareness. The more visible the idols, the more paradoxically people became aware of the mystery hidden in the invisible.
Consciousness became freer, because it became more aware of its capacity to apprehend the existence of mystery behind the appearance of symbols, and all the more so because it had visible symbols in front of it. Visible, and therefore powerless to show the hidden, the concealed, the buried, the invisible essence. In so doing, consciousness began to divide itself; it oscillated between the exotericism of the visible, accessible to all, to ordinary mortals, and the esotericism of the ineffable, the indescribable, which only the rare initiated could conceive and contemplate. For the uninitiated, the multiplication of visible representations diffracted the light of the divine down here. They were specific, singular, vernacular, linked to the countless needs and vicissitudes of human existence.
Much later, other, more abstract ideas appeared, enriching the conception inherent in the single idea of « the One », with which they were associated. They represented the divine powers that accompanied the One, even before the Creation of the world. These powers were called ‘Wisdom’, ‘Intelligence’ or ‘Finesse’, and they are respectively quoted in the Hebrew Bible as חָכְמָה, ḥokhmah, בִינוּ , binah, and עָרְמָה , ‘ormah, The Scriptures also revealed that these divine powers were created before all things: « YHVH created me in the beginning of His ways »x . From this verse, we deduce that there was a time when YHVH began in his ways. So, before the world began its genesis, after having been created by Elohim, there was another « beginning » (rechit), a beginning of the « ways » (darakh) of which YHVH was the author.
To sum up: at the very beginning of the history of human consciousness, there was the intuition of the embracing of the One and the All. Then, after the muted intuition of this divine and immobile unity of the Whole, came the idea of the divine in movement, in action, in this world and in the next. This idea spread to the Vedic, Egyptian and Greek worlds, as well as to the Hebrew world. From this we can infer the genesis of a similar, overarching idea, that of the movement or overcoming of human consciousness, in its relationship to the divine and in its relationship with itself. What does this overcoming of consciousness mean? How can consciousness abandon itself and go beyond itself? For consciousness to be able to surpass itself, it must make itself surpassable, it must prepare to welcome within itself a power greater than its essence. ‘Rebirth’ could be an image of this potential overcoming.
The history of the divine in consciousness has only just begun. The next steps may seem all the more obscure for being so far away. But some Prophets see far ahead. David sung that, one day, « it will be said that in Zion every man is born' »xi . One may add: one day, every man will be born again, in consciousness, and will surpass himself by being « reborn ». All consciousness is both ‘in act’ and ‘in potential’. In essence, it is an « intermediary being », a metaxuxii , meaning that its function is « to make known and transmit to the Gods what comes from men, and to men what comes from the Gods »xiii . This ability to link worlds can be interpreted as belonging simultaneously, and without contradiction, to different orders of reality. An intermediate being is a ‘being’ from one point of view and a ‘non-being’ from another.
When YHVH revealed his name: « I will be who I will be »xiv , did He not imply that He too was both, in a sense, « being » and « non-being »? This name, « I will be » (Ehyeh), is grammatically, in Hebrew, the first person of the verb to be, conjugated in the imperfect (used generally to describe actions that are not completed or actions that occur in the present or future). One could argue that the Hebrew grammar then recognizes that God’s name is in essence ‘imperfect’ or ‘uncompleted’xv . As a being, He is still a non-being in relation to what He will be. But is not God also the Whole? We could conjecture that this Whole does not yet exist in its entirety, and that it is not entirely in action. In essence, a large part of the Whole remains unfinished, imperfect, and is perhaps still inconceivable, given the freedom of the actors who contribute to it and will contribute in the future. All that can be said is that the Whole exists partly « in act » and partly, « in potential ». The Whole is therefore also an « intermediate being », a metaxu.
As for God, what we can say is that there is a principle in Him according to which « He is who He is », and there is another principle, according to which « He will be who He will be », which the grammar of biblical Hebrew expresses by the imperfect conjugation of the verb to be, as we said.
Could it be that the very existence of everything God is not contributes to the emergence of His ‘power’, as yet unfulfilled and always in the process of becoming?
Creation evolves in temporal tandem with the timelessness of divine eternity. Does temporal creation play a role in God’s timeless ‘power’?
In consciousness there is already a substantial principle at work, which literally underlies consciousness (the English word ‘sub-stantial‘ comes form the Latin sub-stare, « to stand under »). It can be considered as a material principle, to which consciousness adds a formal principle. It is also a maternal principle (etymologically, mother = matter = matrix), through which consciousness generates a new principle, succeeding the previous one, and through which consciousness increases and surpasses itself. The feminisation of consciousness is the occasion for a transition from the old to the new, from the virgin to the wife, from the wife to the mother, and from the couple to the new-born child.
The separation of consciousness between a masculine and a feminine aspect (symbolised in mythology by the contrast between the male gods and the virgin goddesses, the wives and mothers goddesses) has been the occasion, in certain cultures, for the emergence of the idea of dualism, which links in absolute unity two apparently opposed principles, – one excluding the new creature and being hostile to it, and the other being benevolent to it.
___________________
i« The men who first lived in Hellas knew no other gods than those who are now the gods of most Barbarians: Sun, Moon, Earth, Stars, Sky. Also, because they saw them all running in an endless race, theonta, they took this property, the property of ‘running’, theïn, as the basis for calling them ‘gods’, theoï. » Plato , Cratylus, 397d
iiF.W.J. Schelling. Philosophy of Revelation. Translation edited by J.F. Marquet and J.F. Courtine. PUF, 1991, Book II, p.244
iii F.W.J. Schelling. Philosophy of Mythology. Translated by Alain Pernet. Ed. Millon, Grenoble, 2018, Lesson 9, p.119
ivHeraclitus, Fragment XXXII. The Presocratics. Gallimard, 1988, p.154
vHeraclitus, Fragment XXXIII. The Presocratics. Gallimard, 1988, p.154
viHeraclitus, Fragment X. The Presocratics. Gallimard, 1988, p.148
viiHeraclitus, Fragment I. The Presocratics. Gallimard, 1988, p.145
viiiParmenides. Fragment II, Les Présocratiques. Gallimard, 1988, p. 257-258
ixEmpedocles. Fragment XVII. The Presocratics. Gallimard, 1988, p.379
x יְהוָה–קָנָנִי, רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ: (Prov. 8,22)
xiPs 87,5 : וּלְצִיּוֹן, יֵאָמַר– אִישׁ וְאִישׁ, יֻלַּד-בָּהּ; Vé l-Zion yamar – ich v-ich youlad bah « And they will say of Zion, every man was born there ».
xiiPlato, The Symposium, 201d-212c
xiiiPlato. The Symposium, 202nd
xivEx. 3,14
xvIn his Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Paul Joüon explains: « The temporal forms of Hebrew express both tenses and certain modalities of action. As in our languages, they mainly express tenses, namely past, future and present; but they often express them less perfectly than in our languages because they also express certain modes of action, or aspects. These aspects are 1) the unicity and plurality of the action, depending on whether the action is represented as unique or as repeated; 2) the instantaneity and duration of the action, depending on whether the action is represented as being accomplished in an instant or over a more or less prolonged period of time. » Paul Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, Rome, 1923, p. 111 c
Something has to break…
In his Carnets de la drôle de guerre (1939-1940), Sartre wrote, day after day, that consciousness is « captive », « naked », « inhuman », « absurd », « poisoned », « duplicitous », « lying » and « non-thetic ». He also wrote that consciousness is « infinite » (because it envelops the infinite) and « transcendental » (because it transcends itself).
Finally, perhaps as a high point of consciousness’ transcendence, he wrote that it is « absolute ». In Being and Nothingness, Sartre’s masterpiece, published four years later, in 1943, the question of consciousness is dealt with in some seven hundred pages, rough, dry and chiselled. One gleans in it that consciousness is « pure appearance », « total emptiness », « reflection », « exhaustive », « lack », « slippery slope », « interrogative », « awareness of being other ». Consciousness also is « bad faith ». But it is also ‘revelation-revealed’, and even ‘ontico-ontological’ (i.e. it is in movement, it moves from ‘being’ towards ‘knowledge about being’). It is the « self », it is an « infinite », and also the « neantisation in itself »; it is « presence to oneself » and it is also « at a distance from oneself as presence to oneself ». A strong formula sums up all these apparent contradictions: « consciousness is what it is not and it is not what it is », — which is another way of saying that it is « bad faith ».
This is not to say that consciousness is, since it is not (what it is). Nor is it to say that consciousness is not, since it is what it is not. So what is it? To try to answer, let us analyse some of the qualifiers Sarte attributes to it.
« Captive »
Consciousness is ‘captive’ to the body, but it is also ‘captive’ to the finitude imposed on it by death. It is captive to the nonsense that death imposes on its present. However, this captivity is only relative, because consciousness also knows itself to be infinitely transcendent, and therefore infinitely capable of breaking all the ties that death or finitude seem to bind it.
« Now the man I am is at once consciousness captive in the body and the body itself and the acts-objects of consciousness and the culture-object and creative spontaneity of its acts. As such, he is both abandoned in the infinite world and the creator of his own infinite transcendence (…) It is through transcendental consciousness that man is abandoned in the world. »i
« On the subject of what I have just written: one factor is missing, and that is death. If consciousness exists only through its transcendence, it refers to the infinity of itself. But it is precisely the fact of death that brings this infinite reference to a halt. At every moment, consciousness has meaning only through this infinity, but the fact of death cuts off this infinity and deprives consciousness of its very meaning. However, the fact of death is not learned in the same way as the infinite transcendence of consciousness. The latter is experienced; the fact of death is learned. We know only the death of others, and therefore our death is an object of belief. In the end, therefore, it is transcendence that triumphs. »ii
If, in the end, it is « transcendence that triumphs », does that mean that in the end (i.e. in death?) we must find transcendence, and the infinite triumphant?
But isn’t Sartre an atheist? Of course he is, but he is an ambiguous atheist, who likes to make ‘transcendence’ triumph in the end, against all odds.
Could it be an atheistic transcendence? Undoubtedly, yes. But what is atheistic transcendence? Undoubtedly a non-theistic transcendence, unencumbered by all the theological baggage that millennia have weighed down our beliefs. In any case, this transcendence transcends consciousness, but also constitutes it.
« Naked »
Naked consciousness is a consciousness that demands the greatest possible ‘purity’ of itself. But this search is endless, or tragic. As the behaviour of a friend of Sartre and Beauvoir reveals, consciousness « entangled in itself » ends up becoming « mad », in other words « poisoned ». It goes round in circles, wants to get out of itself, then gives up, because it sees at the same time that it would be a false exit, a ‘comedy’. And then the trap closes. Consciousness is only ever laid bare in appearance; it always remains clothed in some clinging garment, or rather a Nessus tunic, a poisoned and burning gift that it has clothed itself in, on the pretext of saving itself. « That’s what strikes me about Dostoyevsky: I always get the impression that I’m dealing not with the ‘heart’ or the ‘deep unconscious’ of his characters, but with their naked conscience, entangled in itself and struggling against itself. In this sense, R.B., a madwoman, was unwittingly doing Dostoyevsky at his best. She would say to us, very simply: « Well, I’ll put on my hat and come downstairs with you, I’ll buy the newspapers to read the small ads » (she had just told us that she had resigned and was looking for a new job). She took a few steps and then threw her hat on the sofa: « No, I’m not going out, it’s an act. Then, lost and with both hands to her face: « But what I’ve just said is also an act! My God, how can I get out of this? » But it wasn’t because she was mad that she was « doing » Dostoyevsky – but because her madness had temporarily taken the form of a great demand for purity, which revealed to her the necessary poisoning of conscience ».iii
« Poisoned »
Conscience is poisoned by its own passion, which tears it apart and drives it to fight ever harder against itself. It is a poison that does not come from some external vial poured by an assassin. Poison, like any pharmakon, is at first seen only as a medicine, supposed to cure consciousness of itself. But as soon as it begins to act, it reveals its true, deadly nature. Consciousness in search of purity and nakedness poisons itself. « About Nastasia Philippovna, a character in The Idiot: I think: what could be greater than what she does? What place would she have in the Holy Russia he dreams of? And isn’t she better this way, passionate, torn apart, fighting against her passion, against her poisoned conscience, poisoning herself at every level of the struggle and finally dying victorious over herself? »iv
« Inhuman and absurd »
War fills all consciousness with its own « fullness », in order to deny it. It organises the world and human beings according to its laws, turning them into inert objects. « To destroy is not to annihilate, it is to dehumanise man and mankind. world. Man and the world become, or rather make themselves, inert objects in the face of transcendental consciousness. We now find the absurd fullness of inhuman existence in the face of inhuman and absurd consciousness ».v War adds to the « absurd » side of existence, by « making things » of human reality. But the more this reality becomes « reified » (chosifiée), the more transcendental consciousness becomes « purified ». « The man of war is to reify himself in the face of transcendental consciousness, in the midst of a world to be disorganised ».vi The man of war reifies himself and the world, everything becomes a thing-for-war, everything becomes disorganised, with a view to organising war. But in the face of this reified world, transcendental consciousness takes flight all the more.
« Duplicitous and lying »
The expression ‘duplicitous and lying’ is found in a note written by Juliette Simont about a text by Sartre on his mescaline injection in February 1935 at the Hôpital Sainte-Anne. « For Sartre, the ‘lies’ of the madman mean: all consciousness is in some way duplicitous and lying, but the madman [lies] to himself in a specific way — which is also a mode of consciousness and not an absolutely opaque night. »vii Juliette Simont explains that, according to Sartre, « ‘normal’ consciousness is already in itself depersonalised, duplicitous, insubstantial, elusive, conducive to the lies to oneself for which Being and Nothingness will elaborate the concept: that of ‘bad faith’. »
The expression ‘bad faith’ is used 172 times in L’Être et le Néant, but the word ‘duplicity’ is used only twice, first in connection with a coquettish woman who flirts with a suitor, without really wanting to give in to him, but without wanting to break the spell of the ‘first approaches’ either.viii It is also used to refer to the type of homosexual who has difficulty admitting his condition.ix
Duplicity is not a Sartrean concept. Bad faith is.
« Non-thetical »
In a note, Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre explains that the non-thetical(or non-positional) consciousness of something is « a consciousness that does not return on itself to posit the existence of what it is aware of. »x This consciousness « which does not return on itself » is therefore partly unaware of itself, or at least partly unaware of what it is aware of.
Sartre says more briefly that it does not know itself. « If [consciousness] has only a non-thetical consciousness of itself, it does not know itself. What remains is recourse to a reflexive consciousness directed at the mobile consciousness ».xi
Non-thetical consciousness « does not know itself », it has no « position » as to what it is or knows of itself. It does not return to itself to « posit » (or weigh) its own existence, its origin or its end.
On the other hand, of a consciousness that is « positional », we could say that it « poses » itself, at the same time as it « poses » what it is aware of, that is, what it perceives as external to itself.
When it ‘poses’ itself, it certainly returns to itself, but it does not yet know itself; it only ‘poses’ what it perceives and what it believes it knows. The true essence of consciousness is precisely to be able not to pose itself, to be able to remain outside the world, apart from its immediate presence in the world. In short, its essence is to be ‘non-thetical’.
« Infinite »
Consciousness envelops the infinite, since it transcends itself, and never ceases to transcend itself. xii
But how do we know this? We cannot know it directly, only indirectly. What we do know is that the essence of consciousness is to transcend itself, because if it ceases to transcend itself, then it is no longer ‘consciousness’, it is a ‘thing’, it is reified. And if it always transcends itself, then, mathematically, if I may say so, because it is a reasoning by recurrence, it can only go on to infinity, unless of course it is stopped by death. But who can say what happens to consciousness after death? Materialists claim that at death the brain stops, and that the flow of consciousness ceases incontinently. But there are other theories that are difficult to refute a priori. It is perfectly possible, in theory, that the consciousness we possess results from the interaction of a material substrate (the neurons in our brain) with an immaterial principle (the soul). At death, the material support dissolves, but the immaterial principle may fly off into some ether, who knows? Perhaps it will then interact with other types of substrate, of which we have no idea? But how can such an immaterial principle interact with a material substrate? One might reply that matter is only ‘material’ for materialists. Matter itself could possess an immaterial essence, but simply lacking the specific form with which the soul is endowed. The union of form with matter is a general and generic principle, once defined by Aristotle. The existence of this principle explains the plausibility and possibility of the specific union of a singular soul with matter (cerebral matter, for example), in which it is called upon to immerse itself, for a time.
« Transcendental »
Consciousness needs a finite point of view, » says Sartre. That is the body. But consciousness cannot be satisfied with a finite object, because that would be a death sentence for it. It needs to be open to the infinite. Bringing these two needs together is the role of ‘transcendental’ consciousness. It ‘completes’ one with the other. « It is not possible to conceive of any finite object, because that would be a halt for consciousness. Any object that is finite in its size will be infinite in its smallness, and so on. But in this infinite world,consciousness needs a finite point of view. This point of view is the body. Infinite if it is taken as an object by others, finite if it is my body felt as mine. We therefore find this antithesis of the finite and the infinite at the level of things, but here it is no longer created but suffered; it is the antithesis between things and the thing in itself. In other words, here the finite and the infinite oppose and repel each other instead of complementing each other as they do at the level of transcendental consciousness. » xiii
Transcendental consciousness is not static or contemplative. It must become, it must make itself human-reality. « Wisdom is immortal. Authenticity, on the other hand, can only be achieved in and through historicity. That’s more or less what Heidegger says. But where does this ever-present hesitation between wisdom and authenticity, between timelessness and history, come from? It is because we are not only, as Heidegger believes, human-reality. We are transcendental consciousness that becomes human-reality ».xiv Sartre can therefore be considered neither a materialist nor an idealist. Transcendental consciousness hovers far above matter. So out with materialism. But it is not a pure or ideal abstraction, so out with idealism. On the other hand, consciousness must become a « human reality ». It’s as if we were reading a rewriting of the Christian dogma of the Incarnation in Sartre’s pen. Consciousness is like a god who must become incarnate in « human reality ».
« Absolute »
Sartre does more than claim genius for himself. He claims an « absolute awareness » of the world. « Sometimes I even have the impression that by attributing genius to myself I am falling short of my standards. To be content with that is to fall short. This pride, in fact, is nothing other than the pride of having an absolute conscience in the face of the world. Sometimes I marvel at being a consciousness and sometimes at knowing an entire world. A consciousness supporting the world, that is what I pride myself on being and, finally, when I condemn myself harshly and without emotion, it is to a primitive state of supporting the world that I return. But, it will be said, this state of supporting the world is common to all men. Precisely so. So this pride oscillates between the singularity of each consciousness and the generality of the human condition. I am proud to be a consciousness that assumes its condition of human consciousness; I am proud to be an absolute.xv
This statement (« I am proud to be an absolute ») opens the way to all freedoms of thought and being. It implies that every human being is also an absolute. Each of the billions of humans crammed into our drop of blue water and dry mud is entitled to be seen as an ‘absolute’, as an absolutely singular, singularly absolute being.
From this idea, which is itself absolute, we have only just begun to perceive the distant, unimaginable implications, and the close, imperative consequences, which require action hic et nunc.
There is nothing materialist or idealist about the idea of ‘the absolute’, whether it be Sartrean or metaphysical, or whatever form we are given to conceive or perceive it in. The absolute is beyond the perceptible and the conceivable. But it is not beyond intuition and feeling. It is no pleonasm to say that the absolute abolishes absolutely everything that is relative. It challenges the singular. It forces all singular consciousness to measure itself against the very yardstick of its absolute transcendence…
How can a simple consciousness, alone and singular, look the absolute light of absolute transcendence in the face without dying? In absolute terms, it has to be said, there is nothing to ‘see’ straight away. All you need is silence. To take a breath. And then begin to move slowly, in its infinite infinity.
In Sartre’s pride in being « an absolute », I am tempted to detect a deliberately emphatic exaggeration, or a tragi-comic provocation, intended to impress the « bourgeois », — whether this « bourgeois » corresponds to the intimate part of Sartre which was perfectly aware of his intrinsic « bad faith » (to which we shall return in another blog), or that this ‘bourgeois’ represents his readership in the broadest sense, — a public eager for soft thrills, ephemeral disdain, pusillanimous impulses, soft revolts against the masters of thought under whose yoke, dazed, they have an irremissible tendency to masochistically place themselves.
But Sartre, this ‘genius’, this ‘proud’ and ‘absolute’ mind, had more than one trick up his sleeve. He knew that no matter how full of absolutes he was, he had to tone it down, lose his superbness, crack the shell of his considerable ego.
« With Gauguin, Van Gogh and Rimbaud, I have a clear inferiority complex because they knew how to lose themselves. Gauguin by his exile, Van Gogh by his madness, and Rimbaud, more than all of them, because he knew how to give up even writing. I think more and more that, to achieve authenticity, something has to break. »xvi
________________
iJuliette Simont notes that « Sartre here sketches out an attempt at conciliation between Husserl and Heidegger on the relationship between man and the world ». She also notes that « the word ‘infinite’ does not appear in Heidegger’s writings, or only to be challenged. The ‘abandonment’ — ‘dereliction’ in Corbin’s translation — is experienced not in the presence of the infinite, but of ustensility, where human reality ‘is assigned to a ‘world’ and […] actually exists with others’ (Being and Time, p.187). In other words, the abandonment is not due to that which infinitely transcends consciousness, but to that which prevents it from being permanently face to face with its most proper possibility, death. » Ibid. note 181, p.1411-1412
iiJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Tuesday 10 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.223-225
iiiJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Monday 16 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.238-239
ivJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Monday 16 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.239
vJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Wednesday 18 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.250
viJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Wednesday 18 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.251
viiNote on ‘Notes sur la prise de mescaline’. In Jean-Paul Sartre, Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.1609
viiiJean-Paul Sartre, L’Être et le Néant, Gallimard, Paris, 1943, p.92
ix« This is certainly a man of bad faith that borders on the comical, since, while acknowledging all the facts imputed to him, he refuses to draw the necessary conclusions. His friend, who is his most severe censor, is annoyed by this duplicity: the censor asks only one thing – and perhaps then he will show himself indulgent: that the guilty party admit his guilt, that the homosexual declare openly – in humility or claim, it doesn’t matter – « I am a pederast ». We ask here: who is acting in bad faith? The homosexual or the champion of sincerity? » Jean-Paul Sartre, L’Être et le Néant, Gallimard, p.98
xNote 259, p. 1418, in op.cit.
xiJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Monday 16 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.275
xii« Indeed consciousness, as we intuitively conceive it, after phenomenological reduction, envelops the infinite by nature. This is what we must first understand. Consciousness, at every moment, can only exist insofar as it refers to itself (intentionality: to perceive this ashtray is to refer to subsequent consciousnesses of this ashtray) and insofar as it refers to itself, it transcends itself. In this way, each consciousness envelops the infinite insofar as it transcends itself. It can only exist by transcending itself, and it can only transcend itself through the infinite. Jean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Tuesday 10 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.222-223
xiiiJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Tuesday 10 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.223
xivJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook 1, Tuesday 17 October 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.244
xvJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Carnet 1, Vendredi 13 octobre 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.235-236
xviJean-Paul Sartre, Carnets de la drôle de guerre, Notebook III, Wednesday 22 November 1939, in Les Mots et autres écrits autobiographiques, Gallimard, 2010, p.307
The Absolute, the Abyss and Persephone
« The Absolute hovers eternally around us, but as Fichte put it so well, it is only there when we don’t have it, and as soon as we have it it disappears ».i
(F.W.J. Schelling)
« An immense river of oblivion drags us into a nameless abyss. O Abyss, you are the only God. The tears of all peoples are true tears; the dreams of all wise men contain a measure of truth. Everything here below is but a symbol and a dream. The gods pass away like men, and it would not be good if they were eternal. Faith should never be a chain. One is even with it when one has carefully rolled it up in the purple shroud where the dead gods sleep. »ii
(Ernest Renan)
The sum total of the mythologies invented by man can be compared to a sort of immense theatre, in which a multitude of cases of consciousness, divine or human, are presented in the face of their gaps, their rises, their falls or their metamorphoses. In their profuse richness and unexpected turns, mythologies bear witness to the ongoing evolution of consciousness, its attempts to represent what it cannot fully and clearly imagine. It doesn’t know what it’s looking for, but it knows it has to keep looking. Once it has started, all it wants to do is go further and further. For consciousness to continue to surpass itself, until it reaches what we might call a ‘completely different consciousness’, it must become aware of this desire, which is in its nature. It must understand what this desire to surpass implies, and what requires this demand for flight. He needs to penetrate the essence of surpassing himself.
Philosophy, both ancient and modern, generally assumes that human consciousness is the only valid, the only conceivable, the only reasonable, that it is the universal reference, and that there is no other. Under these conditions, it seems clear that philosophy is ill-equipped to understand what, in theory or in practice, could go entirely beyond it. It seems obvious that it cannot even imagine the putative nature of some radical overcoming that would transcend the present condition of consciousness, or rather that would go beyond the way in which it is usually conceived.
However, ‘philosophical’ reflection on the birth of ancient mythology, the contemplation of its history and the observation of its decadence can teach us a great deal about what other human consciousnesses were once capable of. By inference, it can point to other paths for the future of a philosophy of consciousness. For mythological discourse to exist, and then to be transmitted, from ancient times onwards, consciousness had to look back on itself, and thereby distance itself from the origins of beliefs and the nature of the aspirations or fears to which they responded. Today’s analysis of mythology allows us to consider not only the reason for the multiplicity of gods, or the thousands of names of the One Divinity, but the way in which they were invented, the motivations of their creators (the Poets or Prophets), and the orientation of their consciousness in their acts of mythological creation.
Hesiod and Homer recounted the genesis of the gods, their battles and their loves, but above all they helped to establish a critical, poetic, literary and even literal distance between their object and their subject.
Never losing sight of the ancient gods, remembered, feared or revered, the poets dared to create new gods; they conceptualised their new essence, highlighting it in contrast to that of the first gods. The creation of mythology by poets belongs to a ‘completely different consciousness’ from philosophy – not to deny it, but to accompany it. The sustained, free invention of a Heraclitus or a Plato went beyond poetry in a sense, but was not completely freed from it. Unlike philosophy, true creation, poetic creation, creates worlds that are truly alive. Through this truly living life, imagination liberates thought, frees it from all hindrance, gives it movement, leaves the field entirely open to invention, and breathes into the mind an essentially demiurgic impulse.
There are several levels or strata of consciousness that are active in a consciousness that creates and, in so doing, questions its nature, either striving to move forward or sinking into its night. When we speak of the Poet’s ‘other consciousness’, what exactly do we mean? Is it a subliminal consciousness, a latent preconsciousness, an underlying subconsciousness – all symptomatic forms of the unconscious’s own life? Is it an intuition of other states of consciousness, which might be defined as ‘non-human’, far removed from the usual condition of human consciousness? Or is it a supra-consciousness, a meta-noesis?
If we needed a classical term to fix ideas, we could call all ‘non-human’ states of consciousness ‘demonic’ (I mean the word ‘demonic’ in the sense of the ‘daimon’, the Demon or the ‘Genius’ of Socrates)iii .
Following in the footsteps of Hesiod and Homer, we could also describe these states as ‘divine’, giving this term the meaning of a projection of everything in the human being that tends towards the supra-human. Mythologies take it for granted that there are other types of consciousness than simply human. They also show that man is not in reality only what he appears to be. In theory at least, he could potentially be ‘something else’. The mythologies suggest that the (provisional) awareness that human consciousness attains of itself and of the world in general is still far from being aware of all the potential that it actually possesses. Human consciousness sets before it and develops the destiny of ‘divine’ entities that serve as models, or rather paradigms. The gods it imagines are avatars of consciousness itself, figures of its potential states. These imagined divine entities project consciousness into a world beyond its grasp, but of which it is, if not the very author (since it is the poet who creates it), at least the fervent spectator – or sometimes, which amounts to almost the same thing, the fierce critic. Mythology and its colourful fictions show the human conscience that it can be entirely other than what it is, that it can continue its journey indefinitely, and that, by mobilising its intelligence and its will, it will be able to go beyond all the places and all the heavens, which are within it in potential, but not yet in deed.
From the very beginning of the history of mythology, and throughout its development, consciousness has been the willing prey of the power that inhabits it in secret, a power that is blind and incomprehensible, but whose potentialities the myths gradually reveal to it.
Mythological awareness, that is to say, man’s awareness of the essence of the mythology he constructs for himself, his awareness of what it can teach him about the deepest nature of human consciousness, his awareness that it can give him a glimpse of the abyss of his origins and make him guess at some unimaginable peaks yet to be reached, is not, as far as the beginnings are concerned, very clear. It is, in fact, intrinsically obscure, even when illuminated by the violent, crude construction of poets like Hesiod or Homer, or under the veil of the thunderous flashes of inspired texts (like the Veda, Genesis or the Prophets).
Mythological consciousness will understand itself better at the end of the mythological era, when the gods appear more as literary or spiritual fictions than as flesh-and-blood realities. It will understand itself better when the blind power that has long inspired it in singular souls, diverse peoples and specific cultures is finally itself surpassed by the awareness of a new era, a new ‘genesis’, more philosophical and more critical than Genesis. When the inevitable death of the myths and the gods that have sustained them occurs, a powerful fire and breath will spring forth. This new fire, this fresh breath, will bring to light in the awareness of all that mythology concealed beneath its lukewarm ashes and the phoenixes that begged to be born.
So human consciousness is never merely in an ‘original’ state. Mythology shows that it never ceases to constitute its own future. The original essence of human consciousness is to appear to be master of itself, master of the self. It seems to possess itself, to reign undivided over the inner self. It reigns over itself. It is both this inner self (noted A) and the consciousness (noted B) that it has of this A. Consciousness is this B which has this A in itself, as a kind of matter of its own, open to all kinds of possibilities, and in particular to the possibilities of being-other, to the perspectives of not ‘being-only-A’, but ‘being-B-considering-A’, or even ‘being-B-considering-that-not-A’, or ‘being-anything-other-than-A-or-not-A’, and which we could call C, or X or Z.
It would be tempting to use the metaphor of gender here, to create an image. Consciousness B of the inner self A could be compared to the detached, controlled, controlling consciousness of the masculine being, whereas the consciousness of ‘being able to be-other’ (C, X or Z) could be compared to that intuition and that specifically feminine power of desiring, conceiving and really carrying within oneself a being-other, for a time, before giving it a life of its own. It is undoubtedly artificial to make a clear distinction between the masculine being of consciousness (consciousness B that says it is and sees itself as conscious of A) and the feminine consciousness of ‘being-other’ (the feminine possibility of conceiving and carrying within itself a being-other). The masculine and feminine are not only separable, they are also united in consciousness, which is fundamentally androgynous in nature, both animus and anima, to use Jung’s terms.iv
In all mythology, there are inflection points, key moments, caesuras, where meaning opens up and unfolds. For example, the sudden appearance of the character of Persephone forces Zeus himself to come out of his Olympus and forge a compromise between Demeter, the grieving mother, and the captor God, « the miserly Hades ».
From another point of view, not mythological but poetic, Persephone symbolises the light soul, seduced only by the scent of saffron, iris and narcissus, whose sweet perfume makes heaven, earth and sea smile.v … According to Simone Weil’s frankly metaphysical interpretation of the myth of Persephone, « beauty is the most frequent trap used by God to open the soul to the breath from above. » vi
But how can we explain the universal silence that responded to the cries of distress of the raped and kidnapped virgin? Could it be that there are some « falls » from which there is no coming back, for they are the kind that elevate and unite the soul to the « living God » himself, and bind it to him like a bride to her husband: « The fragrance of the narcissus made the whole sky above smile, and the whole earth, and all the swelling of the sea. No sooner had the poor girl stretched out her hand than she was trapped. She had fallen into the hands of the living God. When she came out, she had eaten the pomegranate seed that bound her forever. She was no longer a virgin. She was the bride of God »vii . For S. Weil, the subterranean world into which Persephone was dragged symbolises suffering, the pain of the soul, its atonement for an incomprehensible sin. The pomegranate seed is the seed of her renewed life and the promise of future metamorphoses, according to some invisible grace. For Schelling, on the other hand, Persephone represents the power of original consciousness. She is pure consciousness, virgin consciousness, but ravished, placed naked in the Divinity, hidden in a safe place. She is the consciousness on which God rests, the consciousness that founds him in the underworld of the Underworld. It embodies the subterranean interior, the innermost depths of divinity, its first hollow, its ancient crypt, above which cathedrals exult and harvests germinate.
It is consciousness sent to the world of the dead. There it withdraws, hides, merges and marries not the ‘living God’ invoked by Weil, but the God of the dead, the God of Hell, Hades, the taciturn brother of Zeus.
With the appearance of the pure virgin Persephone in the Underworld, the great story of mythology suddenly becomes aware of man’s still obscure impulses, his unfulfilled desires, his unacknowledged fears. The poet who sings of the love of the God of Death and the pure Persephone also realises that the mythology he invents can silence terrors and transport spirits. What dominated pre-mythological consciousness before him was the reign of the single, jealous, exclusive God – the God who, in order to remain unique, denied divinity to all the other gods. other « powers ». All these powers, including Wisdom or Intelligence, for example, or other Sefirot (to use a vocabulary that is more cabalistic than Hellenic), are not in themselves the true God, since only the one God is the true God. However, they are not ‘non-divine’ either, since they are admitted into His presence, and since they constitute avatars of that very Presence, the Shekhina, as the Jewish cabal alleges.
He is accompanied not only by his own Presence (Shekhina), as we have just said, but also by his Wisdom (Hokhmah) and his Spirit (Ruaḥ), according to Jewish Tradition, which, as we know, claims to be strictly monotheistic.
We could venture to assign a more abstract, more ‘structural’ role, signified by the conceptual triad of founding, separating and suturing, to the three divine powers just mentioned, which are apparently the most original, the most essential.viii
The Presence of the divine corresponds to its immanent power, its capacity for foundation, which, after Creation, is embodied in a primordial, original foundation – Matter.
Divine Wisdom, whose primary image is that of the Wind (or also the Breath), can be compared to a power of spiration, aspiration or inspiration, whose structural role is that of Separation, or Tearing (between the Divine and the non-Divine, or between Spirit and Matter, allowing in both cases the advent of the Other).
Finally, the divine Spirit represents the power of the Suture. The age of the Spirit, yet to come, could be conceptualised as that of the great cosmic Repair (Tikkun ‘olam).
These powers, and perhaps others, have undoubtedly inhabited human consciousness for thousands of years. They can be interpreted as avatars or representations of the one God.
What dominates in the consciousness of the One is very different from what dominated in the consciousness of the God Pan, which the Greeks conceived in their time. Pan is the God who excludes nothing, who encompasses everything, and who is All, who is also in essence the true πᾶν, of philosophical and cosmological essence. It could be argued that the consciousness of the one God is in fact conscious only of a partial πᾶν, a πᾶν of circumstances, a divine πᾶν, certainly, but an exclusive πᾶν, a non-inclusive πᾶν, a ‘whole’ that is far from containing within itself everything that is not divine, still less everything that is anti-divine. In the absolute exclusivity of the God of origins, there is not much room for an Other Being, who would have absolute freedom to be other, to live a truly other life, that is, one that would not be woven from the very substance of the origin.
The exclusive situation given to the one God could not last forever, at least if we consider the poles of the Cosmos and the Anthropos, and their proper roles. The God of origins cannot remain unique and alone in origin. Nor can he remain unique and alone in consciousness or in nature. He must abandon himself, and allow himself to be surpassed by the creation of the World that he himself initiated; he must also abandon himself by allowing the consciousnesses that emerge from it to be, whatever their forms.
The question is, what are we really saying when we say that God abandons himself and allows himself to be surpassed?
Before being effectively surpassed, the Almighty God must have allowed himself to be made surpassable by some power, hidden within himself, but only asking to be raised to consciousness. He must have had the power to surpass himself, before being brought into the presence of this surpassing.
What was this power to surpass hidden in God? To answer that question, we would have to invent a myth that could evoke what came before the myths. Here’s a suggestion: the life of mankind before myth, before history, before the Law, was undoubtedly fleeting, wandering, nomadic, ephemeral. Man was always running, from near to far, in search of the open sea, within the limits of the limitless. The absence of any place in his consciousness was his ‘place’. He inhabited this wandering. Nomadism was his sojourn. A stranger to himself, he had no idea where he had come from or where he was going. On the run, he was always a migrant on the earth, moving endlessly and without consciousness, like a shooting star that soon disappeared. When consciousness finally began to make its movement felt in Man, he conceived the existence of a possible relationship between the wandering of his race and the movement of his thought, between his wandering and the race of his consciousness. He saw a link between movement, transport, wandering, and crossing, overcoming, emancipation. In other words, he saw a resemblance between movement on the earth and the movement of the spirit in consciousness. This image never left him. The myths that his consciousness began to invent, for example, were based not on the near, but on the far, the intangible, the Sky. In the immense heavens, whether at night or during the day, movements seem to obey determined laws. For the conscience, agitated by constant mobility and anxiety at all times, the regular movement of the stars contrasted with the irregular wanderings of the planets and the random fall of meteors. For a long time, the conscience pondered this dual mode of movement, one in accordance with the rules, the other without them.
Mythology also appropriated this double movement. The orderly, regular movement of the stars and constellations in a fixed sky was the image of the One God. But the erratic movement of the planets and meteors also revealed another, hidden power of which the One God was seemingly unaware.
_______
iF.W.J. Schelling. Essays. Philosophy and Religion (1804). Translated by S. Jankélévitch, Aubier, 1946, p.180
iiE. Renan. « Prayer on the Acropolis ». Souvenirs of Childhood and Youth. Calmann-Lévy, 1883, p.72
iiiCf. Plutarch. « On the Demon of Socrates », Moral Works. Translation from the Greek by Ricard. Tome III , Paris, 1844, p.73
iv « Consciousness is a kind of androgynous nature, » says Schelling, who, more than a century before C.-G. Jung, prefigured the dual nature of consciousness as animus and anima. Cf. F.-W. Schelling. Philosophy of Mythology. Translated from the German by Alain Pernet. Ed. Jérôme Millon. Grenoble. 2018, Lesson IX, p.104.
vThe Homeric Hymn to Demeter gives this image:
« First I’ll sing of Demeter with her beautiful hair, venerable goddess, and of her light-footed daughter, once taken by Hades. Zeus, king of lightning, granted her this when, far from her mother with the golden sword, goddess of yellow harvests, playing with the maidens of the ocean, dressed in flowing tunics, she was looking for flowers in a soft meadow and picking the rose, the saffron, the sweet violets, the iris, the hyacinth and the narcissus. By the advice of Zeus, to seduce this lovable virgin, the earth, favourable to the avaricious Hades, gave birth to the narcissus, that charming plant admired equally by men and immortals: from its root rise a hundred flowers; the vast sky, the fertile earth and the waves of the sea smile at its sweet perfumes. The enchanted Goddess snatches this precious ornament from her two hands; immediately the earth opens up in the Nysian field, and the son of Cronos, King Hades, rides forth on his immortal horses. Despite her groans, the god seizes the young virgin and carries her away in a chariot glittering with gold. But she cried out loudly to her father, Zeus, the first and most powerful of the gods: no immortal, no man, none of her companions could hear her voice ».
viSimone Weil, Attente de Dieu, Fayard, 1977, p. 152-153.
viiSimone Weil, Attente de Dieu, Fayard, 1977, p. 152-153.
viiiThis triad is reminiscent of the Indo-European tripartite functions famously suggested by G. Dumézil, and can be found in the organisation of medieval society, which distinguished between oratores, bellatores and laboratores, those who prayed, those who fought and those who worked.
Glue and consciousness
To describe the journey of consciousness through the stages of its development, Hegel likens it to a kind of hunt – the hunt for ‘absolute’ knowledge, – absolute knowledge about oneself and absolute knowledge about the Absolute.i In this hunt, knowledge is merely a means, a « ruse », to « seize the absolute essence », to capture it « like a bird caught in glue« ii . But why should the absolute, this ‘bird’ that we can imagine as free and wild, allow itself to be so easily trapped? Why shouldn’t it soar high, far from the wiles of reason and the clutches of knowledge?
Moreover, is the metaphor of consciousness chasing the absolute with some kind of ‘glue’ relevant? To want to capture the « absolute » by a « means » (the « ruse ») is in itself contradictory, and self-defeating. « To win to consciousness what is in itself, by the mediation of knowledge, is a counter-sense ».iii Isn’t any knowledge obtained by such a « means » necessarily partial? The hunt for the absolute will yield only relative game. Moreover, any knowledge aimed at the absolute can only lead to a relative truth, because « the absolute alone is true or the true alone is absolute ».iv
Consciousness nevertheless follows its impulse, seeking knowledge that it believes will lead it to true knowledge. In so doing, « it rises to the spirit and, through the complete experience of itself, comes to the knowledge of what it is in itself ».v It believes itself capable of real knowledge. But along the way, it gradually discovers that it is only capable of a « concept of knowledge »vi .
As it advances along the path of ‘knowledge’, consciousness begins to lose itself. It is gripped by a growing doubt, which can go as far as despair. It doubts its own truth. It moves forward, but it also becomes aware of the non-truth of its phenomenal knowledge. The ‘supreme reality’ itself no longer appears as anything more than ‘an unrealized concept’vii . To grasp this (as yet unrealized) concept is the whole ‘science’ that consciousness eventually acquires. The journey of consciousness, studded with doubts, reaches only an intermediate goal: the realisation of the need to train itself in the pursuit of the ‘science’ …viii
What is this ‘science’? It is the ‘science’ of the very path of consciousness. It results from the « effectively real development » of consciousness, of which each of the stages along the way, each of the moments of development, is only a passing figure.
All these stages, these figures, must be ‘experienced’ and then ‘surpassed’. Consciousness must not cease to surpass itself in the knowledge it has of itself. Consciousness is constituted in the act of going beyond itself. « Consciousness is for itself its own concept; it is therefore immediately the act of going beyond the limited, and, when this limited belongs to it, the act of going beyond itself ».ix For consciousness that goes beyond itself, there is no longer any object or subject to examine. Consciousness goes beyond itself because it is aware that the true is always beyond what it is aware of.x
Consciousness splits into two. It becomes aware of what it knows, of what it takes to be true, then it measures its relativity, and then, of its own accord, it wants to go beyond this relativised knowledge, and thereby also wants to go beyond itself.xi At each moment, the knowledge that consciousness acquires about new objects changes, and changes it too. From such and such an object, it obtains knowledge about what that object is ‘in itself’, and it integrates this knowledge as knowledge ‘in itself for itself’, knowledge that it considers to be ‘the true’, to be the very essence of the object. This ‘true’ essence is what consciousness really ‘experiences’, in the face of the object.
The essence of the object comes to be known as an object of ‘experience’, but only at the price of a ‘conversion of consciousness’ itself (ümkehrung des Bewußtseins)xii .
It is ‘converted’, metamorphosed, by the new assimilation of a new object. The ‘conversion of consciousness’ is continually at work. It fills consciousness with new essences and new births.
Let’s recap. A new object appears before consciousness. It transforms this object into a certain knowledge of what it appears to be ‘in itself’. This knowledge itself becomes a living, autonomous part of consciousness, a being-for-consciousness of this in-itselfxiii . It is a new being-for-consciousness, a new ‘figure of consciousness’xiv . This figure has a different essence from all the other figures that preceded it. At the moment when consciousness grasps this new figure, it situates it in « the whole succession of figures » that it carries within itself. The birth of a new figure in consciousness occurs « without its knowing how it came about ». For, being immersed in the world, how could it foresee everything that happens to it? This birth is what « happens behind its back, so to speak »xv .
Consciousness is, as it were, relatively unaware that this new birth has taken place. The « moment » of birth is not glimpsed by consciousness, which remains « immersed in experience ». The content of what ‘we’ see being born is indeed acquired by consciousness, but not its concept, nor its essence. We do not yet conceive this content that is being born; we see it being born, but we do not conceive what is being born, we conceive only its pure movement of being bornxvi . At this point, then, there is a clear differentiation between « us » (« uns« ) and « it », the « consciousness » (« Bewußtsein« ).xvii
What is the ‘we’ in us that distinguishes itself from ‘consciousness’ and puts us in a position to observe it as it ‘moves’ and ‘becomes’?
Hegel says nothing about this.
Let’s try an explanation, however. We are undoubtedly made up of the sum total of all the moments of ‘consciousness’, past and future. We ‘constitute’ ourselves through the entire succession of figures born in consciousness.
It is up to ‘us’ to bring together all these moments, all these ‘figures’, and to gradually aggregate them into knowledge, in order to finally subsume them under an absolute knowledge, or perhaps even under a knowledge of the absolute. We observe consciousness giving birth to new ‘objects’ and new ‘figures’, and ‘we’ are aware of the continuous becoming of ‘consciousness’. We embody, as it were, a higher level of consciousness: the awareness that ‘consciousness’ is essentially in movement, in becoming, and that it must keep the memory of this becoming, in its progression towards the absolute. At each ‘moment’, ‘consciousness’ experiences new objects, and it is ‘up to us’ to transform these experiences into a ‘science’ – the ‘science of the experience of consciousness’xviii . It is « up to us » to compare the successive moments of consciousness with all the other moments already experienced, to add each experience to the totality of all the experiences that consciousness has already had, in order to « lead us » towards the « realm of the truth of the mind ».xix Consciousness hunts, it seeks to seize this essence of its own, and only then will it be able to « designate the nature of absolute knowledge itself ».xx
Pointing to the nature of absolute knowledge? Sketching it in one swift stroke? Or just glimpsing it from a distance, following its silhouette for a moment, like that of the divine bird, decidedly subtle, that has decided not to get caught up in our human glue?
________________
iIn his Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit.
iiG.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.66
iiiG.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.65
ivIbid. p.67
vIbid. p.69
viIbid. p.69
viiIbid. p.69
viii« The series of figures that consciousness traverses on this path is rather the detailed history of the formation of consciousness itself in science. » I bid. p.70
ix« Das Bewußtsein aber ist für sich selbst sein Begriff, dadurch unmittelbar das Hinausgehen über das Beschränkte und, da ihm dies Beschränkte angehört, über sich selbst. » G.W.F. Hegel. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Leipzig, 1907, p.55
x« When consciousness examines itself, we are left with the pure act of seeing what is happening. For consciousness is on the one hand consciousness of the object, on the other hand consciousness of itself; it is consciousness of what is true for it and consciousness of its knowledge of this truth. Since both are for it, it is itself their comparison: it is for it that its knowledge of the object corresponds to this object or does not correspond to it. The object seems, to tell the truth, to be only for her as she knows it; she seems incapable of going behind the object, so to speak, to see it as it is not for her, and therefore as it is in itself. » G.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.74
xi« Consciousness knows something; this object is the essence or the in-itself; but it is also the in-itself for consciousness; with this comes into play the ambiguity of this truth. We see that consciousness now has two objects, one, the first-in-itself, the second, the being-for-itself of this in-itself. The latter appears to be only first the reflection of consciousness in itself, a representation not of an object, but only of its knowledge of the first object. » G.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.75
xiiCf. G.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.76
xiii« Das Ansich zu einem Für-das-Bewußtsein-Sein des Ansich wird » Ibid.
xiv« Eine neue Gestalt des Bewußtseins auftritt« . « When the in-itself becomes a being-for-the-consciousness-of-the-in-itself, this is then the new object by means of which a new figure of consciousness arises; and this figure has an essence different from the essence of the preceding figure ». Ibid. p.76
xv« Die Entstehung (…) ist es, was für uns gleichsam hinter seinem Rücken » G.W.F. Hegel. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Leipzig, 1907, p.60. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.77
xvi« For it [for consciousness] what is born is only as an object, for us it is at the same time as movement and becoming ». The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.77
xviiJean Hyppolite notes in this regard: « In the Phenomenology there will therefore be two dialectics, one is that of consciousness immersed in experience, the other, which is only for us, is the necessary development of all the figures of consciousness. The philosopher sees the birth of that which only presents itself to consciousness as a ‘found’ content ». Ibid. p.77, Note 27
xviii Wissenschaft der Erfahrung des Bewußtseins » (« Wissenschaft of the Experience of the Bewußtseins »)
xix« The experience that consciousness makes of itself cannot, according to the concept of experience itself, include anything less in it than the total system of consciousness or the total realm of the truth of spirit. « G.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by Jean Hyppolite. Aubier. 1941, p.77. « Die Erfahrung, welche das Bewußtsein über sich macht. kann ihrem Begriffe nach nichts weniger in sich begreifen als das ganze System desselben, oder das ganze Reich der Wahrheit des Geistes, » Phänomenologie des Geistes. Leipzig, 1907, p.60-61
xx« Und endlich, indem es selbst dies sein Wesen erfaßt, wird es die Natur des absoluten Wissens selbst bezeichnen. » Phänomenologie des Geistes. Leipzig, 1907, p.61
Free Will, the Self and Quantum Theory
In the 1970s, the neurologist Benjamin Libet sought to determine the precise timing between conscious awareness of a voluntary decision and electrical activity in the brain.i
Common sense normally expects that the awareness of a decision to act precedes the neural activity allowing the action itself. The very surprising result of Libet’s experiments is that it seems to be the opposite…
These experiments, which are now famous, involved the observation of the temporal link between the subjective sensation associated with the decisional « threshold » (the moment of « awareness » of the decision) and the neural activity associated with the motor movements that are supposed to follow this decision.
The results of Libet’s experiments, which are highly paradoxical and have been confirmed many times, have been commented on by neuroscientists, mostly as a confirmation of the internal autonomy of the brain with respect to consciousness, and subsequently as a confirmation of the absence of free will…
These results can be summarized as follows: unconscious cerebral events precede by a time that can vary from several tenths of a second to several seconds, the conscious sensation of having made a voluntary decision to perform a motor action (for example, pressing a button)ii.
These « unconscious brain events » are observable in the form of electrical potentials, called « readiness potentials » or « premotor potentials ». These electrical potentials measure the activity of the motor cortex and of the brain region involved in the preparation of voluntary muscle movements.
For most commentators, Libet’s experiments confirm the absence of any human free will, because, according to them, they highlight the fact that the brain itself autonomously produces « preparatory potentials » for motor movement before the decision to act reaches consciousness.
Everything happens, therefore, as if the « consciousness of acting » were a simple « illusion », consecutive to the decision taken unconsciously by the brain itself, independently of any conscious involvement of the subjectiii.
In other words, unconscious neurological processes would first provoke the motor act (its preparation and initialization) and then the « conscious » sensation in the subject of having taken the decision to act, by his own (« conscious ») will.
The general conclusion drawn by Libet from these observations is that brain processes determine decisions, which are then perceived as subjective by the brain through the phenomenon of consciousness.
Libet does, however, consider the notion of a veto – the ability of « consciousness » to block an act that is being prepared or even already committed – as possible. This would be the only space of free will or « free will » that remains at the disposal of « consciousness », that of blocking the action, always possibly possible in the very short time (a few hundred milliseconds) that takes place between the subjective perception of the decision and the execution of the act itself.
The deterministic interpretation of Libet’s findings, culminating in the radical questioning of the idea of free will, is currently largely predominant among neuroscientists and biologists. Biologist Anthony Cashmore summarizes the majority thinking by saying that belief in free will « is nothing less than a continuation of belief in vitalism »iv.
There are some skeptics, however, who still resist.
Some question the implicit assumption that decisions must be initiated by consciousness in order to be considered « free ». The idea is that ultimately free will is not related to consciousness but only to « control », and that one could assume the existence of a « pre-conscious free will « .v
Others consider that the role of the experimental context should not be neglected, in particular the conscious choice, made by the subjects undergoing the experiments, to pay special attention to bodily signals which usually remain subconscious.
On the other hand, it must be emphasized, as Alexander Wendt does, that no one really knows what « readiness potentials » are, or how they can be the cause of a behaviorvi. For example, they might only serve to present the occurrence of a choice (rather than embodying the choice itself), which would amount to saving the idea of free will.
Alexander Wendt believes that quantum perspectives potentially renew the debate around Libet’s experiments, but that precisely they have never been considered for their interpretation until now.
However, he mentions Roger Penrose’s opinion that these results show the inadequacy of the classical conception of time. Penrose suggests that Libet’s results could be explained by a kind of « retro-causation » or « advanced action » that is allowed by quantum theory.vii
For his part, Henry Stapp establishes a link between the Libet experiments and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox on the question of non-locality. Stuart Hameroff, based on his own theory of the quantum brain, believes that « non-local temporality and the backward time referral of quantum information [advanced action] can provide real-time conscious control of a voluntary action ».viii
The most argued criticism of Libet’s results on the basis of quantum theories is that of Fred Alan Wolfix who also relies on the quantum notion of temporal non-locality. But he adds considerations related to the evolutionary advantage. Being able to sense an impending experience has an obvious value in terms of survival chances in case of danger, especially if this pre-awareness capacity allows to gain more than half a second, without waiting for full consciousness to be acquired.
Furthermore, he proposes the image of the brain as « a giant delayed choice machine ».
Finally, Wolf shows that the time-symmetric quantum perspective can explain an important anomaly in Libet’s experiment: the subjective anti-dating. In fact, not only does the quantum perspective account for it, but it predicts it.
Concluding his study on this question, Alexander Wendt clearly states his rejection of deterministic and materialistic theories: « So my point is not that human behavior cannot be made more predictable – more ‘classical’ – through coercion, discipline, or incentives, but rather that no matter how successful such schemes are, there is a spontaneous vital force in the human being that fundamentally eludes causal determination »x.
Would Wendt demonstrate « vitalism »?
I would opt for the belief in an irreducible entity, present in the depths of the human being.
By consulting the multi-millennial traditions of humanity, one can note the multiple ways in which one has given an account, since the dawn of humanity, of this irreducible entity, constitutive of our deepest being, this absolute, secret, hidden, abyssal entity, which stands in the depths of the being, and which is infinitely more original than what we call the « me », or the « consciousness ».
The Veda calls it ātman, the Hebrew Bible uses several words, which have their own nuances, נִשְׁמַת (neshmah), נֶפֶשׁ (néfèsh), רוּחַ (rouaḥ), the Greeks speak of νοῦς (noûs) and ψυχή (psyche).
To make an image, we could call it the « self », the « soul », or the « fine point of the spirit ». The word is not the most important thing, it is the idea itself that is important, – the idea that all cultures have known how to express it in their own way, by means of words that have all in some way their own genius.
Only modern science, positivist, causalist (but also with a strong materialist and determinist tendency) has not only no word but no conception of this « entity », by nature immaterial (thus obviously escaping EEG, fMRI, PET Scan, TMS…), and above all conceptually elusive in the frame of reference of science, namely the experimental and rationalist epistemology.
I would only like, in the framework of this short article, to indicate briefly, but forcefully, that the results of Libet’s experiment could perfectly well be interpreted in a way that is radically opposed to the conventional interpretation (causalist, materialist, physicalist… and determinist).
Let us assume for a moment, for the purpose of establishing my hypothesis, that:
Far below the immense, abysmal depths of consciousness, far beyond even that underlying continent, the Unconscious, which Sigmund Freud and C.-G. Jung, the first explorers, the first cartographers, only scratched the surface of, there exists, for each of us, an entity that I will call « ι » (the Greek iota).
Why this name?
This entity, named » ι « , summarizes in a way a great number of concepts already consecrated by the tradition.
A few expressions can be quoted, chosen in their multiplicity: scintilla animae (« spark of the soul »), scintilla conscientiae (« spark of the conscience »)xi, « fine point of the soul » (Teresa of Avila), « living flame » or even « hair » (John of the Cross)xii.
In De Veritate, Thomas Aquinas states: « Just as the spark is the purest thing in fire and the highest thing in the judgment of the conscience ».xiii
Master Eckhart also uses the image of the spark, but to refine it by reducing it to freedom itself, freedom seen as an absolutely one and simple entity:
« This little stronghold of the soul, I said it was a spark, but now I say this: it is free of all names, devoid of all forms, absolutely uncluttered and free, as God is uncluttered and free in himself. He is as absolutely one and simple as God is one and simple. »
Francis de Sales speaks of « the point of the spirit », « the depth of the soul » or « the high region of the spirit ».
To gather this bundle of approaches, in a simple and unique image, I propose to concentrate them in this » ι « , this Greek iota. Totally immaterial, infinitely elusive, » ι » is the initial spark that makes you yourself, and not another. It is the first germ around which the successive layers of consciousness and being have slowly accumulated, since conception, and which have not ceased, day after day, to grow, to unfold, to become more complex by epigenesis. This » ι » is the tiny seed, resisting to all the storms, to all the winds, to all the storms, and which, stubborn, trusting, ineradicable, pushes at every moment in the solitude of its own I-ness. This » ι » remains , as I remain. The » ι » remains, but in order to leave, to fly towards the top, towards the elsewhere, towards the absolutely-other.
Let us consider now the relation between the » ι « , the consciousness and the (neuronal) brain.
The » ι » holds under its calm glance the whole of the abysses of the unconscious, just like the lapping of the consciousness. The » ι » is alive, the very spark of the life. The » ι » lives and wants, freely. There is no one freer than him. What « ι » really wants, God also wants, I would even say. It is their very alliance.
What happens then in a human brain, when the « ι » of such and such a particular person, starts to « want », either to escape in urgency from a hungry tiger, or to dedicate himself to some distant goal, or to participate in a neurological experiment of the good professor Libet?
Well, the « ι » enters in quantum resonance (in a non-local and intricate way) with the whole of the receptors of its « body » (for example the micro-tubules whose putative role in the emergence of consciousness we owe to Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff).
This results in a rapid mobilization of the « preparation potentials », the premotor potentials acting on the motor cortex, and a parallel mobilization of the « consciousness » initiating centers (there are several of them, which function in parallel, but which are activated in conscious mode only when necessary, often remaining in subconscious mode, and most of the time in unconscious mode)
Here is my provisional interpretation of Libet’s experiments: the fact that the activation of the preparatory potentials precedes by 350ms the sensation of « awareness » has no meaning in relation to the hidden, undetectable, but implacably prevalent presence of the « ι ».
The » ι » is there. It watches. It wants. It lives. It always lives.
All the rest, the microtubules, the neurons, the cortex, the self, the consciousness, are simply its devoted, more or less obedient, skillful or sleepy, servants.
_______________
iBenjamin Libet (1985), « Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action », The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-566. Benjamin Libet (2004), Mind Time, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
iiBenjamin Libet found that the readiness potential appears 350-400ms before the awareness of the intention to act and 550ms before the initiation of the act itself.
iiiCf. Daniel Wegner (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
ivQuoted by Sven Walter, « Willusionism, Epiphenomenalism and the Feeling of the Conscious Will », Synthese, 191(10), 2215-2238
vCf. Alexander Wendt. Quantum Mind and Social Science. Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 186, Note 59.
viAlexander Wendt. Quantum Mind and Social Science. Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 186
viiRoger Penrose (1994), Shadows of the Mind : A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness, Oxford University Press, p. 383-390
viiiStuart Hameroff, « How Quantum Brain Biology Can Rescue Conscious Free Will », Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, article 93, p. 14, quoted buy Alexander Wendt. Quantum Mind and Social Science. Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 187
ixFred Alan Wolf (1998), « The Timing of Conscious Experience », Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(4), 511-542
xAlexander Wendt. Quantum Mind and Social Science. Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 188
xiA term coined by Jerome of Stridon
xii« The hair is the will of the soul ». John of the Cross. Spiritual Canticle B, 30,9
xiiiThomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 17, art. 2, ad. 3
The Quantum Theory of Proto-Consciousness: a Critique and some Perspectives
Paramecia are organisms composed of a single cell. They can swim, find food, mate, reproduce, remember their past experiences, derive patterns of behavior, and thus « learn », – all this without having a nervous system, having neither neurons nor synapses. How are such behaviors requiring a form of consciousness and even intelligence possible in a single-cell organism without neural networks?
The question is important because it opens new perspectives on the nature of « consciousness ». Indeed, one could infer from these observations that part of our own cognitive capacities are not of neuronal origin, but are based on other, more fundamental, biological phenomena below the level of neural networks.
According to the hypothesis of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrosei, the ability to learn from single-cell organisms and the emergence of elementary forms of consciousness within our own neuronal cells could originate in the microtubules that form their cytoskeleton, at the level of the dendrites and the cell body (soma).
The microtubules would be the place where tiny moments of « proto-consciousness » hatch, – tiny moments but constantly repeated, millions of times a second, and whose aggregation and integration at a higher level by the neural networks would constitute the « consciousness » itself.
One could also assume that these moments of « proto-consciousness » that constantly emerge in the billions of microtubules of the dendrites of each of our neurons form not only the source of consciousness but also the basis of our unconscious (or at least of its biological substrate).
It has been shown that the brain waves detected by electroencephalography (EEG) actually derive from the deep vibrations that are produced at the level of the microtubules composing the cytoskeleton of the dendrites and the cell bodies of the neurons.
Neuronal membrane activities can also resonate throughout the various regions of the brain, depending on gamma wave frequencies that can range from 30 to 90 Hz.ii
The vibratory phenomena that are initiated within the microtubules (more precisely at the level of the « tubulins » of which they are composed) modify the reactions and action potentials of neurons and synapses. They participate in the initial emergence of neurobiological processes leading to consciousness.
However, these resonance phenomena, considered from the point of view of their profound nature, are essentially quantum in nature, according to the thesis presented by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroffiii.
The molecules of the membranes of neuronal cells possess a dipolar moment and behave like oscillators with excitation quanta. Moreover, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, they can give rise to quantum entanglement phenomena linking and correlating in this way the particles of the microtubules of several adjacent neurons, allowing an increasing integration of networks at the neuronal scale.
Hameroff and Penrose assert that proto-consciousness events are thus somehow the result of « quantum computations » performed in the microtubules (this term ‘quantum computation’ is associated with the image of the microtubule as a quantum computer). The results of these ‘calculations’ are ‘objectified’ after their quantum ‘reduction’ (hence the term ‘objective reduction’, or Diósi-Penrose’s ‘Objective Reduction’, noted O.R., to qualify this theory).
But does it make sense to speak of ‘moments of proto-consciousness’? Isn’t consciousness precisely first of all the feeling of a unity subsuming a whole, a whole made of myriads of continuously integrated possibilities?
Consciousness is described by these theorists of quantum neurology as a sequence of discontinuous micro-moments, quanta of emerging consciousness.
However, consciousness is also defined, macroscopically, as a presence to oneself, as an intuition of the reality of the self, as an ability to make choices, to have a memory founding the persistence of the feeling of the self, and as ‘thought’, capable of preparing and projecting the expression of a will.
Are the two positions, that of the succession of discontinuous, quantum, proto-consciousness moments and that of the unitive consciousness of the Self, compatible?
The Sarvāstivāda school, one of the major currents of ancient Buddhism, goes in this direction, since it affirms that 6,480,000 « moments » of consciousness occur in 24 hours, that is, a micro-salve of consciousness every 13.3 ms (frequency of 75 Hz). Other Buddhist schools describe the appearance of a thought every 20ms (50 Hz)iv.
Consciousness would thus consist of a succession of discontinuous events, synchronizing different parts of the brain, according to various frequencies.
From a philosophical point of view, we can distinguish three main classes of theories of the origin and place of consciousness in the universe, as Penrose and Hameroff do:
A. Consciousness is not an independent phenomenon, but appears as a natural, evolutionary consequence of the biological adaptation of the brain and nervous system. According to this view, prevalent in science, consciousness emerges as a property of complex biological combinations, and as an epiphenomenon, a side effect, without independent existence. It is therefore fundamentally illusory, that is, it constructs its own reality rather than actually perceiving it. It may have arisen spontaneously, and then be preserved because it brings a comparative advantage to the species that benefit from it. In this view, consciousness is not an intrinsic characteristic of the universe, but results from a simple chance of evolution.
B. Consciousness is a separate phenomenon, it is distinct from the physical world, not controlled by it, and it has always been present in the universe. Plato’s idealism, Descartes’ dualism, religious views and other spiritual approaches posit that consciousness has always been present in the universe, as the support of being, as a creative entity, or as an attribute of an omnipresent « God ». In this view consciousness can causally influence physical matter and human behavior but has no (yet) scientific basis. In another approach ‘panpsychism’ attributes a form of consciousness to matter, but without scientific identity or causal influence. Idealism asserts that consciousness is all that exists, the material world (and science) being only an illusion. In this view, consciousness is outside and beyond the cognitive capacities of ‘scientists’ (but not of philosophers, mystics or poets).
C. Consciousness results from distinct physical events, which have always existed in the universe, and which have always given rise to forms of ‘proto-consciousness’, resulting from precise physical laws, but which are not yet fully understood. Biology has evolved to take advantage of these events by ‘orchestrating’ them and coupling them with neural activity. The result is ‘moments’ of consciousness, capable of bringing out ‘meaning’. These events of consciousness are also carriers of ‘cognition’, and thus capable of causally controlling behaviour. These moments are associated with the reduction of quantum states. This position was presented in a general way by A.N. Whiteheadv and is now explicitly defended in the theory of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, which they call the « Orch O.R. » theory (acronym for « orchestrated objective reduction »).
The three main classes of theory on consciousness that have just been described can be summarized as follows:
A. Science/Materialism. Consciousness plays no distinct role, not independent of matter.
B. Dualism/Spirituality. Consciousness remains beyond the cognitive capacities of science.
C. Science/Consciousness. Consciousness in fact plays an essential role in physical laws, although this role is not (yet) elucidated.
One could add a theory D, I would suggest, which would take up some salient aspects of the three previous theories, but to derive an original synthesis from them, by finding a way to eliminate the apparently dire incompatibilities that seem to radically distance them from each other.
Personally, this seems to me to be the most promising path for the future.
The Orch O.R. theory represents a first step towards the integration of the theories A, B and C.
It tries to explain how consciousness can emerge from what Penrose and Hameroff call neuronal ‘computation’.
But how can proto-consciousness events arise spontaneously from a computational complexity synchronized by successive ‘flashes’, and cooperatively bringing together diverse regions of the brain?
The observation shows that gamma-wave EEGs (above 30 Hz) are the best correlate of consciousness events, in that they denote synchronicity with the integrated potentials of dendrites and neuronal cell bodies.
Microtubule Associated Proteins (MAPs) interconnect the microtubules of neuronal cells in recursive networks. They facilitate the « integration » of dendrite and soma activity of these cells.
The Orch OR theory innovates by positing that this complex integration, in time and space, is in fact made possible by quantum entanglement phenomena of the tubulin particles of microtubules belonging to adjacent neurons.
Through these quantum entanglement phenomena, dendrite networks thus collectively integrate their own computational capabilities. This integration is not deterministic, passive. It involves complex computational treatments that use lateral connections between neurons and the differentiated polarization synchronization of their membranes.
The neurons connected by their dendrites synchronize their local field potentials (LFPs) during the integration phase, but they do not necessarily synchronize their electrical discharges in the axons afterwards. Other factors are therefore at work.
It can be observed that molecules used in anesthesia selectively ‘erase’ consciousness by associating with specific sites in the post-synaptic dendrites and soma.
What is established is that dendritic and somatic integration is thus closely related to consciousness, and it is this integration that is at the origin of the electric bursts of the axons that ‘convey’ the carrier processes of ‘proto-consciousness’, which will eventually be integrated by the brain to allow ‘conscious’ control of behavior.
Descartes considered the pineal gland as the possible seat of consciousness; Penrose and Hameroff believe that this seat is in fact delocalized in the microtubules.
This theory also has the advantage of explaining how intracellular processing in the cyto-skeletons of unicellular organisms is the means by which they can have cognitive functions even when they are devoid of synapses.
However, this theory does not explain at all the nature of « proto-consciousness ». It only describes the conjunction of two phenomena, the reduction of quantum states linking by entanglement sets of microtubules, and the appearance of supposed moments of proto-consciousness.
But the causal relationship between « orchestrated objective reduction » and proto-consciousness is not proven. There is no evidence of the « production » of proto-consciousness during this « reduction ».
It could just as well be that there is a « transmission » of proto-consciousness elements, coming from a sphere other than material.
This is where theory D seems to me to be able to come to the rescue, by proposing an active synthesis between the theories A, B and C.
As theory B posits, we can consider consciousness as a pre-existing « web » in the entire universe, surrounding matter on all sides.
Universal consciousness can be represented as a « web » of connected points of existence, of connected quanta of consciousness.
Matter, on the other hand, can be interpreted as a « web » of energetic existence points.
These various kinds of existences (spiritual/conscious and material/energetic) have in common the fact of « being ».
The reality of « being » would then be their fundamental basis, their common « ontic » essence, and consequently also the framework of their potential mutual interactions.
In some cases, for example during the instantaneous change of state (such as during the quantum reduction occurring in the microtubules of neuronal cells), the layers of consciousness and matter interact within what I would call a « qubit of existence ».
This qubit would not be unrelated to certain fundamental constants, such as Planck’s constant, or to the dimensionless relationships that exist between the fundamental phenomena of the universe (such as the relationship between the influence of universal gravitation and electromagnetic fields in all parts of the universe).
In the qubit of existence, or qubit ontic, two forms of being coexist, the « being » based on energy associated with consciousness or spirit, and the « being » based on energy associated with matter.
These two forms of energy, which are probably also two phases of the same more fundamental and even more original energy, can interact or resonate under certain conditions.
Since their common point is « being », according to the two energetic modalities mentioned, one material, the other spiritual, it is not unimaginable to suppose that these two energetic modalities can intertwine with each other.
We know Einstein’s famous formula, E=MC², where E is energy, M is mass and c is the speed of light. This formula represents a kind of quintessential result of hard science.
I would like to propose a comparable formula, which would be an attempt by soft science to transcend the separations of worlds:
E=M©²
E here represents spiritual energy. M stands for spiritual ‘substance’, i.e. consciousness. And the © sign represents the « speed », the « wind », the « breath » of the Spirit.
The Spirit, which moves at speed ©, creates a sheet or field of consciousness that envelops the universe in its smallest crevices and farthest confines.
The speed © is much greater than the speed of light, c, which does not exceed 300.000 km/s.
The speed © may even be infinite. We know at least experimentally that we can think much faster than the speed of light. Thus a metaphor can instantly bring two worldviews as far apart as one wants to go. … In a flash, the mind of man can link the barking little dog and the Great Dog star, or Canis Major constellation, which is 25,000 light years away from the solar system…
If we continue the analogy, a qubit of primordial energy can be modulated, at any point in the Universe, into a spiritual qubit and a material qubit, according to several phases, combining in various proportions, and which can occasionally enter into resonance, as has been suggested.
The energetic (spirit/matter) vibrations are the means of coupling the two material and spiritual worlds through their « ontic » vibrations (the vibrations associated with their way of « being »).
The place where this coupling takes place is, for example, in the microtubules which concentrate an extraordinary density of active molecules, and which are, through the resonant forces of Van der Waals, intertwined.
The appearance of consciousness within the microtubules would therefore not be the result of a local production of proto-consciousness, initiated by quantum reduction, as Penrose and Hameroff posit.
It would be the result of a transmission between the pre-existing world of consciousness and the material world, here interfaced at the microtubule level.
This is the hypothesis known as the theory of transmission, which was formulated by William James in 1898vi.
« The brain is represented as a transmissive organ. (…) Matter is not that which produces Consciousness, but that which limits it, and confines its intensity within certain limits: material organization does not construct consciousness out of arrangements of atoms, but contracts its manifestation within the sphere which it permits. (…) One’s finite mundane consciousness would be an extract from one’s larger, truer personality, the latter having even now some sort of reality behind the scenes. One’s brain would also leave effects upon the part remaining behind the veil; for when a thing is torn, both fragments feel the operation. »vii
The brain can then be represented as an organ of transmission.
It can be argued that Matter is not what produces Consciousness, but what limits it, and what confines its intensity within certain limits. Material organization does not construct Consciousness from arrangements of atoms, but reduces its manifestation to the sphere it constructs. Everyone’s consciousness, finite, common, would only be an extract of a greater consciousness, of a truer nature, which would possess a kind of reality behind the scene. Our brain could produce effects, leave traces, on this greater level of consciousness that remains behind the veil.
After death, this greater consciousness would keep alive theses traces, left over. For when something is torn, both fragments undergo the operation.
The consciousness that we have when we are awake, and which we renounce when we sleep or die, is only one of the faces, one of the phases of a much larger consciousness to which we are permanently linked (for example through quantum reduction of microtubules…).
This greater, much larger consciousness is still ours. Its other name is the “Self”.
It extends our consciousness from here below, and is perhaps also the origin of it. It feeds on our earthly consciousness, and in return feeds us also, permanently, subliminally, or sometimes, illuminatingly.
It should not be confused with an infinite ‘ocean’ of undifferentiated consciousness in which we are only ‘dead swimmers’ following its course ‘to other nebulae’viii.
Mind can thus interfere with matter in the form of waves or shocks of proto-consciousness, on the occasion of ‘quantum reduction’.
What is the metaphor of this « reduction »?
I would gladly argue that the spiritual influences the so-called « real » world by means of the « reduction » of the possible, and precisely its « reduction » to the real, the « reduction » of the potential to the actual.
A « reduction » represents a certain closing of local quantum indeterminism, but also the infinitely rapid opening of an immense field of new potentialities, to come.
_____
iStuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 31, December 2019, Pages 86-103
ii « The best measurable correlate of consciousness through modern science is gamma synchrony electro-encephalography (EEG), 30 to 90Hz coherent neuronal membrane activities occurring across various synchronized brain regions ». Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 31, December 2019, Page 41
iiiStuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 31, December 2019, Pages 86-103
ivA. von Rospatt. The Buddhist doctrine of Momentariness : a Survey of of of the origins and early phase of this doctrine up to Vasubandha. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995
vA.N. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 1929. Adventures of Ideas, 1933.
viWilliam James. Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine.Ed. by Houghton, Mifflin and Company, The Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1898.
viiWilliam James. Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine.Ed. by Houghton, Mifflin and Company, The Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1898.
viiiGuillaume Apollinaire. The Song of the Unloved
The Power of the Past and the Seed of the Future
The Rig Veda is the most ancient source from which to draw in an attempt to understand the state of the first conceptual representations of humanity by itself, more than four millennia ago. Religion and society, then, were in an infancy that did not exclude a profound wisdom, more original than what Greek and Roman antiquity were able to conceive later, and of which the Hebrew wisdom itself was a later heir.
The memory of the Veda, long unwritten and transmitted orally for thousands of years by pure thinkers and rigorous ascetics, bears witness to an intellectual and moral state of humanity in an age much earlier than the time of Abraham. When this prophet left Ur in Chaldea, around 1200 B.C., for his exile to the south, many centuries had already nourished the valleys of the Oxus and watered the Indus basin. Several millennia before him, time had sedimented layers of human memory, ever deeper. The Vedic priests celebrated the idea of a unique and universal deity long before the « monotheisms ». Melchisedec himself, the oldest prophetic figure in the Bible, is a newcomer, if we place him in the obscure sequence of times that preceded him.
This observation must be taken into account if we want to put an end to the drama of exceptions and the drifts of history, and understand what humanity as a whole carries within it, since the beginning.
Homo sapiens has always been possessed by multiple intuitions, immanent, of the Divine, and even, for some individuals of this species, by singular ‘transcendent’ visions that they have sometimes been able to share and transmit. We must try to grasp these intuitions and visions today, by questioning what remains of their memory, if we want to draw prospective lines towards the distant future that is looming in the dark shadow of the future.
The Hebrew Bible is a fairly recent document, and its price should not make us forget its relative youth. Its age goes back at most to a thousand years before our era. In contrast, the Veda is one or even two millennia older. This seniority, in fact rather short, should certainly not make us forget that it is itself based on much more remote memories, of which the Chauvet cave (~30 000 years) is only a simple marker, pointing out the mystery of the very origins of the Homo genus, as for the specific nature of its « consciousness ».
This is why it is important to consider what remains of the memory of the Veda, in order to try to draw more general lessons from it, and to try to understand the unity of the human adventure, in order to foresee its possible evolutions – so much so that the past is one of the forms in power of the future.
To illustrate this point, I would like to propose here a brief review of some of the symbols and paradigms of the Veda, to weigh and consider their potential universality.
Butter, oil and sacred anointings.
In those ancient times, melted butter (ghṛita) alone represented a kind of cosmic miracle. It embodied the cosmic alliance of the sun, nature and life: the sun, the source of all life in nature, makes the grass grow, which feeds the cow, which exudes its intimate juice, the milk, which becomes butter by the action of man (the churning), and finally comes to flow freely as sôma on the altar of the sacrifice to mingle with the sacred fire, and nourish the flame, engender light, and spread the odor capable of rising to the heavens, concluding the cycle. A simple and profound ceremony, originating in the mists of time, and already possessing the vision of the universal cohesion between the divine, the cosmos and the human.
« From the ocean, the wave of honey arose, with the sôma, it took on the form of ambrosia. This is the secret name of the Butter, language of the Gods, navel of the immortal. (…) Arranged in three parts, the Gods discovered in the cow the Butter that the Paṇi had hidden. Indra begat one of these parts, the Sun the second, the third was extracted from the sage, and prepared by rite. (…) They spring from the ocean of the Spirit, these flows of Butter a hundred times enclosed, invisible to the enemy. I consider them, the golden rod is in their midst (…) They leap before Agni, beautiful and smiling like young women at the rendezvous; the flows of Butter caress the flaming logs, the Fire welcomes them, satisfied. « i
If one finds in Butter connotations too domestic to be able to bear the presence of the sacred, let it be thought that the Priests, the Prophets and the Kings of Israel, for example, were not afraid to be anointed with a sacred oil, Shemen Hamish’hah, a « chrism », a maximum concentration of meaning, where the product of the Cosmos, the work of men, and the life-giving power of the God magically converge.
Hair and divine links
Hair is one of the oldest metaphors that the human brain has ever conceived. It is also a metonymy. The hair is on the head, on top of the man, above his very thoughts, links also with the divine sphere (this is why the Jews cover themselves with the yarmulke). But the hair also covers the lower abdomen, and announces the deep transformation of the body, for life, love and generation. Finally, the fertile earth itself is covered with a kind of hair when the harvest is coming. Here again, the ancient genius combines in a single image, the Divine, Man and Nature.
A hymn in the Veda combines these images in a single formula:
« Make the grass grow on these three surfaces, O Indra, the Father’s head, and the field there, and my belly! This Field over here, which is ours, and my body here, and the Father’s head, make it all hairy! »ii
But the hair has other connotations as well, which go further than mere metonymic circulation. The hair in the Veda also serves as an image to describe the action of God himself. It is one of the metaphors that allow to qualify him indirectly, as, much later, other monotheistic religions will do, choosing his power, his mercy, or his clemency.
« The Hairy One carries the Fire, the Hairy One carries the Soma, the Hairy One carries the worlds. The Hairy One carries all that is seen from heaven. The Hairy One is called Light. »iii
The Word, divinized.
More than five thousand years ago, the Word was already considered by the Veda as having a life of « her » own, of divine essence. The Word is a « Person, » says the Veda. The Word (vāc) is the very essence of the Veda.
« More than one who sees has not seen the Word. More than one who hears has not heard it. To this one She has opened Her body as to her husband a loving wife in rich attire. « iv
Is this not a foreshadowing, two thousand years earlier, of the Psalms of David which personify Wisdom as a figure, divine and « feminine », associated as a goddess with the unique God?
Thought, image of freedom
In the Veda, Thought (manas) is one of the most powerful metaphors that man has ever conceived for the essence of the Divine. Many other religions, millennia later, also celebrated the divine « Thought » and sought to define certain attributes of « her ». But, in the Veda, this original intuition, developed in all its emergent force, confirms Man in the idea that his own thought, his own faculty of thinking, has always been and remains in power the source of a radical astonishment, and the intimate certainty of a primary freedom.
« She in whom prayers, melodies and formulas rest, like the grapes at the hub of the chariot, she in whom all the reflection of creatures is woven, the Thought: may what She conceives be propitious to me! »v
The Infinite, so old and always young…
The idea of an « infinite », « hidden » God, on whom everything rests, was conceived by Man long before Abraham or Moses. The Veda attests that this idea was already celebrated millennia before these famous figures.
« Manifest, he is hidden. Ancient is his name. Vast is his concept. All this universe is based on him. On him rests all that moves and breathes (…) The Infinite is extended in many directions, the Infinite and the finite have common borders. The Guardian of the Vault of Heaven travels through them, separating them, he who knows what is past and what is to come. (…) Desireless, wise, immortal, self-born, satiated with vital sap, suffering no lack – he does not fear death who has recognized the wise Ātman, unaged, ever young. « vi
The Love of the Creator for the Created
The Bible, with the famous Shir ha-Chirim, the Song of Songs, has accustomed us to the idea that the celebration of love, with human words and crude images, could also be a metaphor for the love between the soul and God. This very idea is already found in the Veda, to describe the cry of love between the God and his creature, the human soul:
« As the creeper holds the tree embraced through and through, so embrace me, be my lover, and do not depart from me! As the eagle, in order to soar, strikes at the ground with its two wings, so I strike at your soul, be my lover and do not depart from me! As the sun one day surrounds the sky and the earth, so I surround your soul. Be my lover and do not depart from me! Desire my body, my feet, desire my thighs; let your eyes, your hair, lover, be consumed with passion for me! »vii
From this brief return to Vedic memory, and from these few allusions to much more ancient and immanent memories (going back to the origin of the Sapiens species), I conclude that a comparative anthropology of the culture of the depths and that a paleontology of the intuitions of the sacred is not only possible, but indispensable. They are necessary first of all to relativize at last the excessive claims of such or such late religious or philosophical traditions, unduly arrogating themselves specious privileges. Above all, they confirm the necessity and the fruitfulness of a research on the very essence of the human conscience, outside the current framework of thought, materialist, positivist, nominalist, and of which the crushed, wounded modernity suffers so much from the absence of recognition.
___________
i ṚgVeda IV,58.
ii ṚgVeda VIII,91
iii RgVeda X,136
iv ṚgVeda X,71
v ṚgVeda X,71
vi A.V. X,8.
viiA.V. VI,8-9.
Wisdom and י
In the Hebrew Bible, the word חָכְמָה, ḥokhmah, refers to a stealthy and mysterious entity, sometimes defined by the article (the ḥokhmah)i but more often undefined, usually as a singular and sometimes as a pluralii. She may ‘dwell’ in the minds of men or among peoples. We do not know where she comes from.iii
She is said to have helped the Most High in his work of Creation.iv
Here is a brief anthology of her furtive appearances:
She brings life.v
She makes the face glow.vi
She is a torrent or a spring.vii
She can be from the East or from Egypt.viii
She can fill Joshuaix or Solomonx.
She may be found in the humblexi and the oldxii, in the simple manxiii or in the righteousxiv.
She may come with knowledgexv or with powerxvi, or with intelligencexvii. But she is far better than strength.xviii
She may hide in a whisperxix, in a cryxx, or in secrecyxxi.
She can be called ‘friend’xxii, ‘sister’xxiii or ‘mother’ or ‘wife’.
She makes one happy.xxiv
She leads to royalty.xxv
She is ‘spirit’.xxvi
She is bright, and she does not fade.xxvii
Faster than any movement, she is infinitely mobile.xxviii
She dwells in her own house, and he who dwells with her, is the only one God loves.xxix
She can do anything.xxx
She can diexxxi…
She accompanies the angel of « Elohim », and also the Lord called « Adonai « xxxii..
She is in Thôtxxxiii, but it is YHVH who gives herxxxiv..
She shares the throne of the Lord.xxxv
She is with Him, and she knows His works.xxxvi
She was created before all things.xxxvii
It is through her that men were formed.xxxviii
And it is she who saves them.xxxix
These snippets, these flashes, are only a tiny part of her infinite essence.
But a simple letter, the smallest in the Hebrew alphabet, י, Yod, can understand and embody her (symbolically) in her entirety.
Yod is the first letter of the Tetragrammaton: יהוה. In the Jewish kabbalah, and perhaps for this reason, the Yod corresponds primarily to the sefira Ḥokhmahxl, ‘Wisdom’, which brings us to the heart of the matter.
The Tetragrammaton יהוה, an admittedly unspeakable name, can at least, in principle, be transcribed in Latin letters: YHVH.
Y for י, H for ה, V for ו, H for ה.
This name, YHVH, as we know, is the unpronounceable name of God.
But if we write it with an interstitial blank YH VH, it is also the name of the primordial Man, – according to the Zohar which we will now recall here.
The commentary on the Book of Ruth in the Zohar does not bother with detours. From the outset, served by an immensely dense style, it plunges into the mystery, it leaps into the abyss, it confronts the primordial night, it explores the depths of the Obscure, it seeks the forgotten origin of the worlds.
The Zohar on Ruth, – a powerful wine, a learned nectar, with aromas of myrrh and incense.
To be savored slowly.
« The Holy One blessed be He created in man YH VH, which is His holy name, the breath of the breath which is called Adam. And lights spread out in nine flashes, which are linked from the Yod. They constitute the one light without separation; therefore the body of man is called Adam’s garment. The He is called breath, and it mates with the Yod, it spreads into many lights that are one. Yod He are without separation, so ‘Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim he created him, male and female he created them… and he called them Adam’ (Gen 1:27 and 5:2). Vav is called spirit, and he is called son of Yod He; He [final] is called soul and he is called daughter. Thus there is Father and Mother, Son and Daughter. And the secret of the word Yod He Vav He is called Adam. His light spreads in forty-five flashes and this is the number of Adamxxli, mahxlii, ‘what is it?’ « xliii.
Cabalistic logic. Sacredness of the letter, of the number. Unity of the meaning, but multiplicity of its powers. Any idea germinates, and generates drifts, new shadows, nascent suns, moons alone. Thought never ceases its dream, it aspires to breath, to song, to hymn.
The letter connects heaven and earth. Literally: יה → יהוה and וה .
By reading יה, the kabbalist guesses the inchoative, seminal and sexual role of י, – from which the lights of the sefirot will emanate.
Let us summarize what the Zohar says:
YHVH → YH VH → Adam → the Yod, י, the ‘breath of breath’ → Ḥokhmah , the ‘one light’ → from which the other ‘lights’ or sefirot emanate.
YHVH ‘creates in man YH VH’, that is, He creates in man two pairs יה and וה, respectively YH and VH, which will also be, symbolically, the name of the primordial Man, Adam, ‘YH VH’.
These two pairs of letters can be interpreted symbolically, as metaphors of union and filiation: YH = Father-Mother, and VH = Son-Daughter.
It is indeed an ancient interpretation of the Kabbalah that the Yod, י, represents the male principle, and that the letter He, ה, represents the female principle.
The Vav, ו, symbolizes the filial fruit of the union of י and ה. The second ה of the Tetragrammaton is then interpreted as the « Daughter », when associated with the Vav ו…
Human, carnal images, hiding another idea, a wisdom, divine, spiritual…
A second set of metaphors is invoked here by the cabal, which explains:
YH = Wisdom-Intelligence (Ḥokhmah-Binah) and VH = Beauty-Royalty (Tiferet-Malkhut).
From Ḥokhmah, other sefirot emanate.
The Zohar further teaches us that Ḥokhmah, associated with י , the 1st letter of the Tetragrammaton, means the « breath of the breath », and is also called « Adam »…
Is this « Adam » the same as « the Adam » (הָאָדָם ha-‘adam), who was created after the creation of Heaven and Earth (Gen 2:7)?
And what difference, if any, is there between « Adam », breath of breath, and « the Adam » of Genesis?
The Zohar asked this very question and answered it, in an opaque, concise, condensed style:
« What is the difference between Adam and Adam? Here is the difference: YHVH is called Adam, and the body is called Adam, what difference is there between the one and the other? Indeed, where it is said: ‘Elohim created Adam in his own image’, he is YHVH; and where it is not said ‘in his own image’, he is body. After it is said: ‘YHVH Elohim formed’ (Gen 2:7), that is, he formed Adam, he ‘made him’, as it is written: ‘YHVH Elohim made for Adam and his wife a robe of skin and clothed them with it’ (Gen 3:21). In the beginning there is a robe of light, in the likeness of the one above, after they stumbled, there is a robe of skin.xliv In this connection it is said: ‘All those who are called by my name, whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, and even whom I have made’ (Is 43:7)xlv. ‘I have created’ is Yod He Vav He, ‘I have formed’ is the robe of light, ‘and I have made’ is the robe of skin. »xlvi
The clues left by Scripture are thin, to be sure. But Isaiah, with a single sentence, illuminates the intelligence of the creation of Man. And he opens up infinite perspectives to our own understanding of the text which relates it.
Charles Mopsik commented on this key passage as follows: « The verse of Isaiah as read in the Zohar presents a progression of the constitution of man according to three verbs: the verb to create refers to Adam’s constitution as a divine name (the aforementioned four souls [breath of breath, breath, spirit, soul]), the verb to form refers to the constitution of his primordial body, which is a robe of light, and finally the verb to make refers to his constitution after the fall, where his body becomes a material envelope, a tunic of skin, which ‘wrath’, i.e., the Other side, the realm of impurity, borders in the form of the inclination to evil. « xlvii
The creation of Man, in Genesis, is described with three Hebrew, essential words: nechamah, ruaḥ and nefech. These words have several meanings. But to keep it simple, they may be translated respectively as « breath », « spirit » and « soul ».
So we learned that there were also, in the very first place, before anything was created, a « breath of breath ».
And the « breath of breath » was wisdom, י.
__________________________
i‘Ha–ḥokhmah’, like in וְהַחָכְמָה, מֵאַיִן תִּמָּצֵא ,Vé-ha-ḥokhmah, méïn timmatsa’, Job 28,12
ii It can be used as a feminine plural noun חָכְמוֹת, ḥokhmot, meaning then, depending on the translation, « wise women », or « wisdoms », or « Wisdom », as in חָכְמוֹת, בָּנְתָה בֵיתָהּ , « The wise women – or wisdoms – built his house » (Pv 9:1) or as חָכְמוֹת, בַּחוּץ תָּרֹנָּה , « The wise women – or Wisdom – shouted through the streets » (Pv 1,20)
iii וְהַחָכְמָה, מֵאַיִן תִּמָּצֵא Vé-ha-ḥokhmah, méïn timmatsa’ ? Job 28,12
iv« YHVH with Wisdom founded the earth, with understanding he established the heavens. » Pv 3,19
v« It is that wisdom gives life to those who possess it ». Qo 7,12
vi« The wisdom of man makes his face shine and gives his face a double ascendancy » Qo 8,1
vii« An overflowing stream, a source of wisdom » Pv 18,4
viii« The wisdom of Solomon was greater than the wisdom of all the children of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt » 1 Kings 5:10
ix« Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with the spirit of wisdom » Dt 34,9
xThe Proverbs are attributed to him, as is the Qohelet.
xi« But in the humble there is wisdom » Pv 11,2
xii« Wisdom is with the old » Job 12:12
xiii « He gives wisdom to the simple » Ps 19:8
xiv« The mouth of the righteous expresses wisdom » Pv 10,31
xv« Wisdom and knowledge are the riches that save » Is 33,6
xvi But in Him dwells wisdom and power » Job 12,13
xvii« Spirit of wisdom and understanding » Is 11,2
xviii« Wisdom is better than strength, but the wisdom of the poor is not known » Qo 9,16
xix« The mouth of the righteous whispers wisdom » Ps 37:30
xx« Wisdom cries through the streets » Pv 1,20
xxi« You teach me wisdom in secret » Ps 51:8
xxii« Wisdom is a spirit that is friendly to men » Wis 1,6
xxiii« Say to wisdom: You are my sister! And call reason My friend! » Pv 7.4
xxiv« Blessed is the man who has found wisdom » Pv 3,13
xxvWis 6,20
xxvi« Spirit of wisdom and understanding » Is 11,2
xxviiWis 6,12
xxviiiWis7,24
xxixWis7,28
xxxWis 8,5
xxxi« Wisdom will die with you » Job 12,2
xxxii « But my Lord (Adonai), wise as the wisdom of the angel of Elohim ». 2 Sa 14,20
xxxiiiמִי-שָׁת, בַּטֻּחוֹת חָכְמָה « Who has put wisdom in Thoth [Thouḥot]? » (Job 38:36)
xxxiv« For it is YHVH who gives wisdom » Pv 2,6
xxxvWis 9,4
xxxviWis 9,9
xxxvii« But before all things was created Wisdom. » Sir 1,4
xxxviiiWis 9,2
xxxixWis9,18
xlZohar. Midrash Ha-Neelam on Ruth, 78c. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, and annotated by Charles Mopsik. Ed. Verdier. 1987, p.83, note 136.
xliThe numerical value of the Tetragrammaton YHVH is 45, as is the numerical value of the word Adam.
xliiThe expression « What? » or « What? » (mah) also has 45 as a numerical value.
xliiiZohar. Midrash Ha-Neelam on Ruth, 78c. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, and annotated by Charles Mopsik. Ed. Verdier. 1987, p.82-83. (Ch. Mopsik translates nechama as ‘breath’ and nechama [of the] nechama as ‘breath of the breath’, which is a bit artificial. I prefer to translate nechama, more classically, by ‘breath’, and in its redoubling, by ‘breath of the breath’).
xlivZohar. Midrash Ha-Neelam on Ruth, 78c. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, and annotated by Charles Mopsik. Ed. Verdier. 1987, p.84
xlv כֹּל הַנִּקְרָא בִשְׁמִי, וְלִכְבוֹדִי בְּרָאתִיו: יְצַרְתִּיו, אַף-עֲשִׂיתִיו. The three verbs used here by Isaiah imply a progression of God’s ever-increasing involvement with man; bara’, yatsar, ‘assa, mean respectively: « to create » (to bring out of nothing), « to shape/form », and « to make/complete ».
xlviZohar. Midrash Ha-Neelam on Ruth, 78c. Translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, and annotated by Charles Mopsik. Ed. Verdier. 1987, p.84
xlviiIbid. note 149
Inanna. Her Descent into Hell, Death and Resurrection
In the 4th millennium B.C., in Sumer, Inanna embodied life, fertility, love, sex, war, justice and royal power, – but also the essence of femininity, the subversion of the forbidden, and the conjugation of opposites.
Originally a local deity of Uruk, she gradually imposed herself throughout Mesopotamia, and as far as Assyria and Phoenicia, as the supreme deity, the Goddess par excellence. Over the millennia, her importance continued to grow in relation to the other divinities, transcending their specificities and particularities.
In the 1st millennium BC, from the reign of Assurbanipal, the supremacy of Inanna, under her Akkadian name Ishtar, was such that she even took pre-eminence over the national god Ashur.
The etymological origin of the name Inanna can be explained phonetically by the Sumerian words nin, ‘lady’, and an ‘sky’, – ‘the Lady of Heaven’.
Yet the name Inanna is never written using the cuneiform signs that represent the words nin, 𒊩𒌆 (SAL.TUG2), and an, 𒀭(AN). Inanna’s name is written using the single ideogram 𒈹, preceded by the generic sign 𒀭which was always attached in Sumer to the names of deities to designate their divine status.
The cuneiform sign 𒈹 is in reality the later, and ‘horizontal’ transposition of the vertical symbol of the goddess, which figures a kind of totem pole in the most ancient representations of her name :
This symbol represents in a stylized way a pole decorated at its top with a woven crown of reeds, and wrapped with banners. These poles were placed on either side of the entrance to the temples dedicated to Inanna, and marked the limit between the profane and the sacred.
Curiously, around the same time, ancient Egypt used the hieroglyph nṯr to mean the word ‘God’, and this hieroglyph also graphically symbolizes a temple banner :
This hieroglyph obviously derives from the various forms of totem poles used near the entrance of Egyptian temples:
We can assume that the Sumerian symbol of Inanna and this Egyptian hieroglyph come from much more ancient sources, not without connection with the immemorial symbolism of the shamanic masts floating fabrics, foliage or feathers, and whose use is still observed today, throughout the world, in Asia, America, Europe and Africa…
It seems to me that in this convergence of symbols of the divine, in Sumer, in ancient Egypt and even in contemporary shamanism, there is the living trace of a mode of representation of the divine, whose origin is to be found in the first confrontations of Homo Sapiens with the ‘mystery’, from the depths of the Paleolithic.
The poles bearing crowns of reeds, garlands or banners, symbolized since ancient times the subliminal perception of the Divine, whose ‘presence’ they revealed by the aerial breaths of which they were animated.
In Akkadian, Inanna took the Semitic name of Ishtar, of which one finds already the trace in Akkad, in Babylonia and in Assyria, even before the reign of Sargon of Akkad, known as « Sargon the Great », (-2300 BC). Scholars have linked the name Ishtar with the name of another Semitic god, Attar, mentioned in later inscriptions in Ugarit, Syria, and southern Arabia.
The famous vase from the Uruk civilization (4000 to 300 B.C.), which was found among other cult objects from the Uruk III period, depicts a column of naked men carrying baskets, vessels, and various dishes, as well as a ram and goats, to a female figure facing a man holding a box and a stack of bowls (which represent the cuneiform sign EN, meaning « high priest. The female figure, on the other hand, is next to two symbols of Inanna, two poles with reed crowns.
The main center of the cult of Inanna was the temple of E-anna, in Uruk. E-anna means ‘the House of Heaven’, E- An, 𒂍𒀭.
The cult of Inanna was observed over a period of more than four millennia, first in Uruk and Sumer, then in Babylon, Akkad and Assyria, as Ishtar, and in Phoenicia, as Astarte, and finally later in Greece, as Aphrodite, and in Rome, as Venus…
Her influence declined irreparably between the 1st and 5th centuries of our era, following the progression of Christianity, but she was still venerated in the Assyrian communities of upper Mesopotamia until the 18th century…
In many mythical stories, Inanna is inclined to take over the domains of competence of other deities, stealing for example from Enki, the God of Wisdom, the ‘me’, that is to say all the inventions and achievements, abstract and concrete, of ‘civilization’, as we will see in a moment, or dislodging the God of Heaven, An, to take his place in the temple of E-anna, or exercising a superior form of divine justice, by destroying Mount Ebih, which had not wanted, in its arrogance as a mountain sure of its strength and durability, to prostrate itself at his feet.
Inanna was certainly not felt by the Mesopotamians to be a « Mother » goddess, a divine figure supposed to embody the maternal woman or the idea of motherhood.
So who was she?
To give a first idea, it is not uninteresting to return to the original texts.
The text Inanna and Enki published in the Sumerian Textual Corpus of Literature (ETCSL) collated by the University of Oxford i begins to describe the personality of Inanna by an allusion to the beauty of her genitals:
« She put the šu-gura, the desert crown, on her head. …… when she went out to the shepherd, to the sheepfold, …… her genitals were remarkable. She praised herself, full of delight at her genitals, she praised herself, full of delight at her genitals « ii .
Inanna has no complex about her sex. She proudly shows it off and claims her desires and needs explicitly:
» Inana praises … her genitals in song: « These genitals, …, like a horn, … a great waggon, this moored Boat of Heaven … of mine, clothed in beauty like the new crescent moon, this waste land abandoned in the desert …, this field of ducks where my ducks sit, this high well-watered field of mine: my own genitals, the maiden’s, a well-watered opened-up mound — who will be their ploughman? My genitals, the lady’s, the moist and well-watered ground — who will put an ox there? » « Lady, the king shall plough them for you; Dumuzid the king shall plough them for you. » « Plough in my genitals, man of my heart! »…bathed her holy hips, …holy …, the holy basin « .iii
Another fragment of the Oxford ETCSL text Inanna and Enki clarifies Inanna’s ambiguou intentions and feelings about Enki, who also happens to be her ‘father:
« I, Inana, personally intend to go to the abzu, I shall utter a plea to Lord Enki. Like the sweet oil of the cedar, who will … for my holy … perfume? It shall never escape me that I have been neglected by him who has had sex. » iv
Enki receives her very well, and invites her to drink beer. An improvised part of underground drinking follows, between the God and the Goddess.
« So it came about that Enki and Inana were drinking beer together in the abzu, and enjoying the taste of sweet wine. The bronze aga vessels were filled to the brim, and the two of them started a competition, drinking from the bronze vessels of Uraš. « v
The real goal of Inanna was to win this competition, to make Enki drunk and to see him collapse into ethylic sleep, so that she could at her leisure rob him of the most precious goods of civilization, the ‘me’. The ‘me’, whose cuneiform sign 𒈨 combines the verticality of the divine gift and the horizontality of its sharing among men, these me are very numerous. The text gives a detailed sample:
« I will give them to holy Inana, my daughter; may …not … » Holy Inana received heroism, power, wickedness, righteousness, the plundering of cities, making lamentations, rejoicing. « In the name of my power, in the name of my abzu, I will give them to holy Inana, my daughter; may …not … »
Holy Inana received deceit, the rebel lands, kindness, being on the move, being sedentary. « In the name of my power, in the name of my abzu, I will give them to holy Inana, my daughter; may …not … »
Holy Inana received the craft of the carpenter, the craft of the coppersmith, the craft of the scribe, the craft of the smith, the craft of the leather-worker, the craft of the fuller, the craft of the builder, the craft of the reed-worker. « In the name of my power, in the name of my abzu, I will give them to holy Inana, my daughter; may not .…… »
Holy Inana received wisdom, attentiveness, holy purification rites, the shepherd’s hut, piling up glowing charcoals, the sheepfold, respect, awe, reverent silence. « In the name of my power, in the name of my abzu, I will give them to holy Inana, my daughter; may not . »vi
Inanna in turn recites and recapitulates the entire list of these attributes obtained through cunning, and she adds, for good measure:
« He has given me deceit. He has given me the rebel lands. He has given me kindness. He has given me being on the move. He has given me being sedentary. »vii
Rich basket, conquered of high fight, after force sips of beer, for an ambitious goddess, plunged in the darkness of the abzu…
Reading these texts, imbued with a jubilant force, to which is added the astonishing variety of archaeological and documentary materials concerning Inanna, one can hardly be surprised at the multitude of interpretations that contemporary Sumer specialists make about her.
The great Sumer scholar Samuel Noah Kramer describes Inanna, rather soberly, as « the deity of love, – ambitious, aggressive and demanding ».viii
Thorkild Jacobsen, a scholar of Mesopotamian religions, writes: « She is depicted in all the roles that a woman can fill, except those that require maturity and a sense of responsibility: she is never described as a wife and helper, let alone as a mother.ix
Sylvia Brinton-Perera adds: « Although she has two sons and the kings and people of Sumer are called her offspring, she is not a mother figure in the sense we understand. Like the goddess Artemis, she belongs to that « intermediate region, halfway between the state of a mother and that of a virgin, a region full of joie de vivre and an appetite for murder, fecundity and animality ». She represents the quintessence of the young girl in what she has of positive, sensual, ferocious, dynamic, eternally young virgin (…). She is never a peaceful housewife nor a mother subjected to the law of the father. She keeps her independence and her magnetism, whether she is in love, newly married or a widow « x.
Tikva Frymer-Kensky adopts a point of view with resolutely feminist and gendered perspectives, – without fear of anachronism, more than five millennia later: « Inanna represents the undomesticated woman, she embodies all the fear and fascination that such a woman arouses (…) Inanna is a woman in a man’s life, which makes her fundamentally different from other women, and which places her on the borderline that marks the differences between men and women. Inanna transcends gender polarities, it is said that she transforms men into women and vice versa. The cult of Inanna attests to her role as the one who blurs the gender boundary (and therefore protects it).xi
Johanna Stuckey, a specialist in religious studies and women’s studies, takes up this point of view and, like Tikva Frymer-Kensky, uses the same word ‘frontier’ to describe her ambivalence: « Inanna is on the frontier of full femininity (…) Inanna was a woman who behaved like a man and basically lived the same existence as young men, exulting in combat and constantly seeking new sexual experiences.xii Moreover, Mesopotamian texts usually refer to her as ‘the woman’, and even when she ‘warriors’ she always remains ‘the woman’.xiii
From all this a curious image emerges, rich, complex, transcending all norms, all clichés.
Inanna is unique and incomparable, she is the « wonder of Sumer », she is « the » Goddess par excellence, – one of her symbols is the famous eight-pointed starxiv 𒀭, which is supposed to represent originally the star of the morning and the one of the evening, Venus, but which will end up representing in the Sumerian language the very concept of ‘divinity’.
Inanna is at the same time the daughter of the God of Heaven, An, or, according to other traditions, that of the Moon God, Nanna (or Sin, in Akkadian), the sister of the Sun God, Utu (or Shamash in Akkadian), and the very ambiguous wife of the God ‘Son of Life’ (Dumuzi, in Akkadian Tammuz) whom she will send to death in his place, but she is above all totally free, in love and fickle, aggressive and wise, warrior and benefactress, provocative and seeking justice, taking all risks, including that of confronting her father, the supreme God, the God of Heaven, An, to take his place. She is a feminine and unclassifiable divinity, going far beyond the patterns of the patriarchal societies of then and now.
She is both the goddess of prostitutes and the goddess of marital sexuality, but above all she embodies the (divine) essence of pure desire, she is the goddess of passion that leads unrestrainedly to sexual union and ecstasy, detached from any link with any socially recognized value.
Quite late, in the 17th century B.C., the Babylonian king Ammi-ditana composed a hymn celebrating Inanna/Ishtar, which is one of the most beautiful in all the literature of ancient Mesopotamia:
« Celebrate the Goddess, the most august of Goddesses!
Honored be the Lady of the peoples, the greatest of the gods!
Celebrate Ishtar, the most august of goddesses,
Honored be the Sovereign of women, the greatest of the gods!
– She is joyful and clothed in love.
Full of seduction, venality, voluptuousness!
Ishtar-joyous clothed with love,
Full of seduction, of venality, of voluptuousness!
– Her lips are all honey! Her mouth is alive!
At Her aspect, joy bursts!
She is majestic, head covered with jewels:
Splendid are Her forms; Her eyes, piercing and vigilant!
– She is the goddess to whom one can ask advice
She holds the fate of all things in her hands!
From her contemplation is born joy,
Joy of life, glory, luck, success!
– She loves good understanding, mutual love, happiness,
She holds benevolence!
The girl she calls has found a mother in her:
She points to her in the crowd, She articulates her name!
– Who is it? Who then can equal Her greatness?xv
The most famous myth that has established the reputation of Inanna, in the past and still today, is undoubtedly the story of her descent to Kur xvi, the underground and dark domain, the world below, to try to take possession of this kingdom beyond the grave at the expense of her elder sister Ereshkigal. We have two versions, one Sumerian, the other Akkadian.
Here is the beginning of the Sumerian version:
« One day, from heaven, she wanted to leave for Hell,
From heaven, the goddess wanted to go to Hell,
From heaven, Inanna wanted to go to Hell.
My Lady left heaven and earth to descend to the world below,
Inanna left heaven and earth to descend to the world below.
She gave up her advantages to go down to the world below!
To descend to the world below, she left the E-Anna of Uruk (…)
She equipped herself with the Seven Powers,
After having gathered them and held them in her hand
And having taken them all, in full, to leave!
So she wore the Turban, Crown-of-the-steppe ;
Attached to her forehead the Heart-Catchers;
Grabbed the Module of lazulite;
Adjusted to the neck the lazulite Necklace;
Elegantly placed the Pearl Couplings on her throat;
Passed on his hands the golden Bracelets;
Stretched on his chest the Breast-Cover [called] ‘Man! come! come!’ ;
Wrapped his body with the pala, the royal Cloak,
And made up his eyes with the Blush [called] ‘Let him come! Let him come’. » xvii
The Akkadian version is much darker, and Ishtar, much less coquettish than Inanna…
« In the Land of No Return, the domain of Ereshkigal,
Ishtar, the daughter of Sin, decided to surrender!
She decided to surrender, the daughter of Sin,
To the Dark Abode, the residence of Irkalla,
In the Abode from which never come out those who have entered it,
By the way there is no return,
In the Abode where the arrivals are deprived of light,
subsisting only on humus, fed by earth,
Slumped in darkness, never seeing the day,
Clothed, like birds, in a garment of feathers,
While dust piles up on locks and sashes.
At the sovereign divinity of the Immense Earth, the goddess who sits in the Irkalla,
In Ereshkigal, ruler of the Immense Earth,
The goddess who dwells in the Irkalla, in this very house of Irkalla
From which those who go there no longer return,
This place where there is no light for anyone,
This place where the dead are covered with dust,
This dark abode where the stars never rise. « xviii
The affair turned into a disaster for Inanna/Ishtar (in the true, etymological, sense of the word disaster, the ‘fall of the star’…). Ereshkigal did not take kindly to his sister’s initiative in usurping his kingdom.
« When Ereshkigal heard this address,
His face turned pale like a branch cut from a tamarisk tree,
And, like a splinter of reed, her lips were darkened!
What does she want from me? What else has she imagined?
I want to banquet in person with the Annunaki (She must say to herself);
To feed myself like them with murky water. »xix
Following Ereshkigal’s injunctions, Inanna/Ishatar is sentenced to death by the seven chthonic gods, the Anunnaki. She is executed, and Ereshkigal hangs her corpse on a nail.
But the God Enki, God of Water, (in Akkadian, Ea), mobilizes, and sends to her rescue two creatures explicitly presented as ‘inverts’, who will go and resurrect her with the water of life.
Some have seen this as an opportunity for a Christ-like interpretation.
« The soul, represented by Inanna, paid for its arrogance in claiming to conquer the netherworld. It ‘died’ in the material world, represented by the netherworld, but was purified and born again. The kurgarra and galaturra (…) correspond to the Gnostic ‛adjuvant’ (helper), or ‛appeal’ sent by the Father (…) to awaken the ‘sleeping’ soul. These adjutants console Ereshkigal in the midst of suffering, which, in reality, is the guilty face of Ishtar (= the fallen soul) who, at that moment, moans ‘like a woman about to give birth’. One of the adjutants pours on the body « the plant that gives life », and the other does the same with « the water that gives life ». The sprinkling of the water of life on Inanna’s body corresponds to the baptism which, in the Exegesis of the Soul, which deals with the Soul, is indispensable for the rebirth and purification of the soul. (…) Inanna, the impure soul, was saved and was able to return to her original state, thus showing the others the way to salvation. In other words, after being « awakened » by the « helpers », she could begin her gradual ascent from death to life, from impurity to purity. And yet, her rescue and resurrection could not have taken place without a savior, someone who could take her place. It is the duty of the good shepherd/king Dumuzi, Inanna’s husband, to play the role of this savior. According to Parpola, Dumuzi’s sacrifice explains why the king, the son of a god and therefore a god himself, had to die. He was sent to earth to be the perfect man, the shepherd, to set an example for his people and guide them on the right path. The king, like Dumuzi, died for the redemption of innocent souls, represented by Inanna. But as Inanna/Ishtar herself was resurrected from death, so too was her savior, Dumuzi the king and perfect man, promised resurrection. « xx
In a forthcoming article, I propose to study the relationship between Inanna and Dumuzi in greater detail by developing this allegory, – elaborated in Sumer over six thousand years ago, this allegory of the fallen soul, wanting to come out of death and seeking resurrection, begging the savior God, Dumuzi, 𒌉𒍣, the God « son of Life (𒌉 from or dumu, ‘son’ and 𒍣 zi, ‘life’ or ‘spirit’) to sacrifice himself for her. ..
____________________________
i http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/#
iiInanna and Enki. Segment A 1-10, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.3.1#
iiiA balbale to Inanna. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.08.16#
iv Inanna and Enki. Segment B 1-5, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.3.1#
vInanna and Enki. Segment C 27-30, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.3.1#
viInanna and Enki. Segment D 1-27, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.3.1#
vii Inanna and Enki. Segment E 5-9, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.3.1#
viii Kramer, Samuel N. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. University of Chicago, 1963, p. 153
ixThorkild Jacobsen. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion, 1976, p.141 , quoted by F. Vandendorpe, Inanna : analyse de l’efficacité symbolique du mythe, Univ. de Louvain 2010.
xSylvia Brinton Perera, Retour vers la déesse, Ed.Séveyrat, 1990, p. 30, quoted by F. Vandendorpe, Inanna: analysis of the symbolic effectiveness of the myth. Univ. of Leuven 2010
xiFrymer-Kensky,Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. NY, Free Press, 1992, p.25
xiiFrymer-Kensky,Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. NY, Free Press, 1992, p.29
xiii Johanna Stuckey, Inanna, Goddess of Infinite Variety, Samhain, 2004, Vol 4-1
xivNote that this star of Inanna is sometimes represented with only six branches, thus prefiguring, by more than two millennia, the Jewish symbol, the ‘Magen David’ or ‘Star of David’, which imposed itself late as a symbol of the Zionist movement at the end of the 19th century of our era.
xvHymn of Ammi-ditana from Babylon to Ishtar, My translation in English from the French translation by J. Bottéro, The oldest religion in the world, in Mesopotamia, Paris, 1998, p.282-285.
xviThe Mesopotamian netherworld had several Sumerian names: Kur, Irkalla, Kukku, Arali, Kigal and in Akkadian, Erṣetu.
xviiJean Bottéro and Samuel Noah Kramer. When the gods made man: Mesopotamian mythology. Gallimard, 1989, p.276-277
xviiiJean Bottéro and Samuel Noah Kramer. When the gods made man: Mesopotamian mythology. Gallimard, 1989, p. 319-325.
xix Jean Bottéro and Samuel Noah Kramer. When the gods made man: Mesopotamian mythology. Gallimard, 1989, p. 320
xx Pirjo Lapinkivi, The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in the Light of Comparative Evidence, State Archives of Assyria Studies XV, Helsinki, University Press, 2004, p.192. Text quoted by F. Vandendorpe, Inanna: analysis of the symbolic effectiveness of the myth. Univ. of Leuven 2010
क – The God Whose Name Was « Who? »
More than two millennia before the times of Melchisedechi and Abraham, other wandering and pious men were already singing the hymns of Ṛg Veda. Passing them on faithfully, generation after generation, they celebrated through hymns and prayers, the mysteries of a Supreme God, a Lord creator of worlds, of all creatures, of all lives.
Intelligence of the divine did just not begin in Ur in Chaldea, nor sacred wisdom in Salem.
Some sort of intelligence and wisdom probably reigned, more than five thousand years ago, among chosen, attentive, dedicated spirits. These men left as a legacy the hymns they sang, in precise and chiselled phrases, evoking the salient mysteries that already assailed them:
Of the Creator of all things, what can be said? What is His name?
What is the primary source of « Being »? How to name the primordial « Sun », from which the entire Cosmos emerged?
Who is really the Lord imposing His lordship on all beings, – and on the ‘Being’ itself ?
And what does this pronoun, Who, really mean in this context?
What is the role of Man, his true part in this mystery at play?
A Vedic hymn, famous among all, summarizes and condenses all these difficult questions into one single one, both limpid and obscure.
It is Hymn X, 121 of Ṛg Veda, often titled « To the Unknown God ».
In the English translation by Ralph T.H. Griffith, this Hymn is entitled « Ka ».ii Ka, in Sanskrit, means «who ? »
This Hymn is dedicated to the God whom the Veda literally calls « Who? »
Griffith translates the exclamation recurring nine times throughout this ten-verses Hymn as follows :
« What God shall we adore with our oblation ? »
But from the point of view of Sanskrit grammar, it is perfectly possible to personify this interrogative pronoun, Ka (Who?) as the very name of the Unknown God.
Hence this possible translation :
To the God ‘Who?’
1. In the beginning appeared the Golden Germ.
As soon as he was born, he became the Lord of Being,
The support of Earth and this Heaven.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
2. He, who gives life force and endurance,
He, whose commandments are laws for the Gods,
He, whose shadow is Immortal Life, – and Death.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
3. ‘Who?‘ iii – in His greatness appeared, the only sovereign
Of everything that lives, breathes and sleeps,
He, the Lord of Man and all four-membered creatures.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
4. To Him belongs by right, by His own power,
The snow-covered mountains, the flows of the world and the sea.
His arms embrace the four quarters of the sky.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
5. ‘Who?’ holds the Mighty Heavens and the Earth in safety,
He formed the light, and above it the vast vault of Heaven.
‘Who?’ measured the ether of the intermediate worlds.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
6. Towards Him, trembling, forces crushed,
Subjected to his glory, raise their eyes.
Through Him, the sun of dawn projects its light.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
7. When came the mighty waters, carrying
The Universal Germ from which Fire springs,
The One Spirit of God was born to be.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
8. This Unit, which, in its power, watched over the Waters,
Pregnant with the life forces engendering the Sacrifice,
She is the God of Gods, and there is nothing on Her side.
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
9. O Father of the Earth, ruling by immutable laws,
O Heavenly Father, we ask You to keep us,
O Father of the ample and divine Waters!
What God shall we adore with our oblation ?
10. O Lord of creaturesiv, Father of all things,
You alone penetrate all that is born,
This sacrifice that we offer you, we desire it,
Give it to us, and may we become lords of oblation!
_________
What is this divine Germ (Hiraṇyagarbha , or ‘Golden Germ’, in Sanskrit), mentioned in verses 1, 7 and 8?
One does not know, but one can sense it. The Divine is not the result of a creation, nor of an evolution, or of a becoming, as if it was not, – then was. The Veda here attempts a breakthrough in the understanding of the very nature of the divinity, through the image of the ‘germ’, the image of pure life.
The idea of a ‘God’ is only valid from the creature’s point of view. The idea of ‘God’ appears best through its relation to the idea of ‘creature’. For Himself, God is not ‘God’, – He must be, in His own eyes, something completely different, which has nothing to do with the pathos of creation and the creature.
One can make the same remark about « Being ». The « Being » appears only when the beings appear. God creates the beings and the Being at the same time. He Himself is beyond Being, since it is through Him that Being comes to « be ». And before the beings, before the Being itself, it seems that a divine, mysterious life obviously ‘lived’. Not that it ‘was’, since the Being was not yet, but it ‘lived’, hidden, and then ‘was born’. But from what womb? From what prior, primordial, primal uterus? We do not know. We only know that, in an abyssmal mystery (and not in time or space), an even deeper mystery, a sui generis mystery, grew, in this very depth, which was then to come to being, but without the Mystery itself being revealed by this growth and by this outcoming of being.
The place of origin of the mystery is not known, but the Veda calls it ‘Golden Germ’ (hiraṇyagarbha). This metaphor of a ‘Germ’ implies (logically?) some primal ovary and womb, and some desire, some life older than all life, and older than the Being itself.
Life came from this Living One, in Whom, by Whom and from Whom, it was given to the Being ; it was then given to be, and it was given thereby to beings, to all beings.
This mysterious process, which the word ‘Germ’ evokes, is also called ‘Sacrifice’, a word that appears in verse 8: Yajña (यज्ञ). Why « sacrifice » ? Because the divine Seed dies to Herself, She sacrifices Herself, so that out of Her own Life, life, all lives, may be born.
The Veda also says : May God be born to Himself, through His sacrifice…
What a strange thing to say!
By being born, God becomes ‘God’, He becomes the Lord of Being, for the Being, and the Lord of beings. Hymn 121 takes here its mystical flight, and celebrates a God who is the Father of creatures, and who is also always transcendent to the Being, to the world and to his own ‘divinity’ (inasmuch as this divinity allows itself to be seen in its Creation, and allows itself to be grasped in the Unity that it founds).
But who is this God who is so transcendent? Who is this God who hides, behind the appearance of the Origin, below or beyond the very Beginning?
There is no better noun, one might think, than this interrogative pronoun: ‘Who?’.
Ka. क.
This pronoun in the form of a question, this ‘Who?’ , this Ka, does not call for an answer. Rather, it calls for another question, which Man addresses to himself: To whom? To whom must Man, seized by the unheard-of depth of the mystery, in turn offer his own sacrifice?
A haunting litany: « What God shall we adore with our oblation ? »
It is not that the name of this God is strictly speaking unknown. Verse 10 uses the expression Prajāpati , ‘Lord of creatures’. It is found in other texts, for example in this passage from Taittirīya Saṁhitā :
« Indra, the latest addition to Prajāpati, was named ‘Lord of the Gods’ by his Father, but they did not accept him. Indra asked her Father to give her the splendor that is in the sun, so that she could be ‘Lord of the Gods’. Prajāpati answered her:
– If I give it to you, then who will I be?
– You will be what You say, who? (ka).
And since then, it was His name. »v
But these two names, Prajāpati and Ka, refer only to something related to creatures, referring either to their Creator, or simply to their ignorance or perplexity.
These names say nothing about the essence of God. This essence is undoubtedly above all intelligibility, and above all essence.
Ka, ‘who?’, in the original Sanskrit text, is actually used in the singular dative form of the pronoun, kasmai (to whom?).
One cannot ask the question ‘who?’ with regard to ‘God’, but only to ‘whom’? One cannot seek to question His essence, but only to try to distinguish Him among all the other possible objects of worship.
God is mentally unknowable. Except perhaps in that we know that a part of His essence is ‘sacrifice’. But we still know nothing of the essence of His ‘sacrifice’. One may only ‘participate’ in it, more or less actively.
One may try to better understand the essence of one’s own sacrifice, one’s own ‘oblation’, if one is ready to pay the price it demands. Indeed, one is both subject and object of one’s oblation. In the same way, God is both subject and object of His sacrifice. One can then try to understand, by anagogy, the essence of His sacrifice through the essence of one’s own oblation.
This precisely is what Raimundo Panikkar describes as the essential ‘Vedic experience’. It is certainly not the personal experience of those Vedic priests and prophets who were chanting their hymns two thousand years before Abraham met Melchisedek, but it could be at least a certain experience of the sacred, of which we ‘modern’ or ‘post-modern’ could still feel the breath and the burning.
____________________
iמַלְכֵּי-צֶדֶק , (malkî-ṣedeq) : ‘King of Salem’ and ‘Priest of the Most High (El-Elyôn)’.
iiRalph T.H. Griffith. The Hymns of the Rig Veda. Motilal Banarsidass Publihers. Delhi, 2004, p.628
iiiIn the original Sanskit: क , Ka ? « To Whom ? »
iv Prajāpati : » Lord of creatures « . This expression, so often quoted in the later texts of the Atharva Veda and Brāhmaṇa, is never used in the Ṛg Veda, except in this one place (RV X,121,10). It may therefore have been interpolated later. Or, – more likely in my opinion, it represents here, effectively and spontaneously, the first historically recorded appearance (in the oldest religious tradition in the world that has formally come down to us), or the ‘birth’ of the concept of ‘Lord of Creation’, ‘Lord of creatures’, – Prajāpati .
vTB II, 2, 10, 1-2 quoted by Raimundo Panikkar, The Vedic Experience. Mantramañjarī. Darton, Longman & Todd, London, 1977, p.69
Super-Essential Self(s)
After an absolute, mystical experience of the end, or an NDE, one’s existence may then, probably, be focused on the fact that one has witnessed the indescribable as such, the non-separation of the whole, an imminence of actual death, and yet the survival of consciousness, and the possibility of its super-life. The miracle of which one has been the dumbfounded and almost impotent witness, destroys forever the face value of ideas, forms, sensations, human realities, which all have become too ‘provincial’.
The mystical experience has no essence.
For some it represents the destruction of the individual, of the self. For others it prefigures a change of paradigm. For still others, there is nothing to say, nothing to prove, everything is beyond imagination, and expression.
It is quite inexplicable that one’s unassuming self can somewhat unexpectedly absorb and sustain the entire mystical experience, though it effectively destroys any idea of the Divine, of the Cosmos, and even the Self.
It is equally incomprehensible that the (human) self remains capable of resisting the ecstatic impact of the (divine) Self. Face to Face. Panim.
How can it be that the human self suddenly gets out of itself and ecstatically merges with the divine Self, disappears into it, remains conscious and aware of this assimilation, this disintegration, throughout the cancellation of itself?
The individual, the self, is to be swallowed up in the Whole, the Godhead. The paradox is that this small self, swallowed up by the divine ocean, never loses its consciousness of still being this particular self, a small but effective point of consciousness tossed about in an unheard-of ecstatic storm, a wind of infinite strength. This weak self remains irresistibly invincible, unbreakable, it does not dissolve, ever, whatever infinitely powerful is the Self that invades and overcomes it…
Mysticism and tragedy have this in common that they transform into close neighbors, death and life, the nothing and the whole, the freedom and the dissolution of the self.
The mystic experience melts, allows oneself to be absorbed, in and by these superior powers ; the tragic experience confronts the self with them and shatters it.
In the first case, the self escapes any personal interpretation of what led it there, free to rush without restraint in an indescribable ecstasy.
In the second case, the tragic self loses its individuality at the very moment when it makes the supreme choice, the one that is supposed to confirm it in the purity of the Self, the one in which it discovers the proper power of exaltation.
Who can say then what is alive and what is dead, in the mystical self and in the tragic self, so much death now seems a super-life, and life a kind of mild death.
Heraclitus famously said:
“The immortals are mortal and the mortals, immortal; the life of some is the death of others, the death of some is the life of others.”i
Super-life, or its miracle, is not something you see every day, admittedly.
There are some people who laugh about any sort of miracle. The passage of the Red Sea, the pillars of fire and the clouds, the resurrection of Lazarus, the multiplication of the loaves, they just laugh about it. And how old-fashioned it all seems to them, how useless, how forever devoid of any (modern) meaning!
But for the witnesses who see with their own eyes, there is no doubt, only the miracle is real, really real, resplendent with surreality. But this glitter and splash is also a door to death. The miracle in reality announces an after-world, a meta-reality, for which nothing prepares us, except what the miracle precisely lets us glimpse.
Death then, for those who accept to learn the lesson, is only an obligatory passage, like the Red Sea once was, towards a desert traversed by columns and clouds, towards some putative Promised Land, or some resurrection, in another universe where one will be satiated with ‘super-essential’ bread (in Greek epiousion, – as in τὸν ἄρτον τὸν ἐπιούσιον).
When death approaches with its velvet steps the eyes open. The soul becomes more conscious of itself, not of its victories or defeats, which then matter little, but of its irresistible inner drive for life. Life wants to live. But the border is there, tangible, the soul approaches it, is it a wall, a door, a bottomless abyss?
Until the last moment the enigma remains. Only a few souls have seen in advance what was beyond the experience. By what miracle?
They see what awaits them behind death, something like a thousand suns, or rather a zillion suns, as words fail them. And they see their very self melting away, a drop of pure fire in the infinite ocean.
No, no, that is just illusion, assert the skeptics, simple chemistry of the brain during its initial necrosis, derisory neurochemical whirlwind, panic of asphyxiated synapses.
What does the polemic matter at this hour? One moment more and one will be fixed for ever, in a direction or another.
One cannot, by the sole force of reasoning, exclude one or the other way, the one leading to nothingness and the one opening on the ocean of possibilities.
After all, was not birth, if one remembers, like a red and very narrow passage, leaving a first world behind?
It is in the last moments, oh paradox, that life takes on all its meaning, takes on all its weight, fills itself with all the emotions, regrets, hopes, laughter and happiness.
All this melts into a single point, hyper-dense, heavy with all the experience, an over-concentrated center, and which is, however, no more than a light baggage, a meager bundle, suddenly, for the eternal migrant that the living being discovers to be in the vicinity of death.
The essence of the man lies in this unique point, made of a nebula of myriads of moments, this total sum of existence and oblivion.
This is another way of solving the hackneyed question of essence and existence. Neither one nor the other precedes.
It is this single dense point, gravitating from a whole life, which is only real, miraculously real, and which allows to add a little to the oceanic immensity.
The surreal ocean that aggregates, and agrees, all that has lived, and will live.
___________
iFr. 62
What The Hidden God Does Reveal
Taken together, the Self, the inner being, hidden in its abyss, under several veils, and the Ego, the outer being, filled with sensations, thoughts, feelings, vibrating with the life of circumstances and contingencies, offer the image of a radical duality.
This constitutive, intrinsic duality is analogous, it seems to me, to that of the God who ‘hides’ Himself, but who nevertheless reveals Himself in some way, and sometimes lets Himself be seen (or understood).
This is a very ancient (human) experience of the divine. Far from presenting Himself to man in all His glory, God certainly hides Himself, everywhere, all the time, and in many ways.
There are indeed many ways for Him to let Himself be hidden.
But how would we know that God exists, if He were always, irremediably, hidden?
First of all, the Jewish Scriptures, and not the least, affirm that He is, and that He is hidden. Isaiah proclaims:
Aken attah El misttatter. אָכֵן, אַתָּה אֵל מִסְתַּתֵּר .
Word for word: « Truly, You, hidden God » i.
Moreover, though admittedly a negative proof, it is easy to see how many never see Him, always deny Him, and ignore Him without remorse.
But, although very well hidden, God is discovered, sometimes, it is said, to the pure, to the humble, and also to those who ‘really’ seek Him.
Anecdotes abound on this subject, and they must be taken for what they are worth. Rabindranath Tagore wrote: « There was a curious character who came to see me from time to time and used to ask all sorts of absurd questions. Once, for example, he asked me, ‘Have you ever seen God, Sir, with your own eyes?’ And when I had to answer him in the negative, he said that he had seen Him. ‘And what did you see?’ I asked. – ‘He was agitated, convulsing and pulsating before my eyes’, he answered.» ii
I liked this last sentence, at first reading, insofar as the divine seemed to appear here (an undeniable innovation), not as a noun, a substance, or any monolithic or monotheistic attribute, but in the form of three verbs, knotted together – ‘agitate’, ‘convulse’, ‘palpitate’.
Unfortunately, either in metaphysical irony or as a precaution against laughter, the great Tagore immediately nipped this embryonic, agitated, convulsive and palpitating image of divinity in the bud in the very next sentence, inflicting on the reader a brief and Jesuitical judgment: « You can imagine that we were not interested in engaging in deep discussions with such an individual. » iii
For my part, on the contrary, I could not imagine that.
It is certain that, whatever it may be, the deep « nature », the « essence » of God, is hidden much more often than it shows itself or lets itself be found.
About God, therefore, the doubt lasts.
But, from time to time, sparks fly. Fires blaze. Two hundred and fifty years before the short Bengali theophany just mentioned, Blaise Pascal dared a revolutionary and anachronistic (pre-Hegelian and non-materialist) dialectic, of the ‘and, and’ type. He affirmed that « men are at the same time unworthy of God and capable of God: unworthy by their corruption, capable by their first nature » iv.
Man: angel and beast.
The debate would be very long, and very undecided.
Excellent dialectician, Pascal specified, very usefully:
« Instead of complaining that God has hidden himself, you will give him thanks that he has discovered himself so much; and you will give him thanks again that he has not discovered himself to the superb wise men, unworthy of knowing a God so holy. » v
Sharp as a diamond, the Pascalian sentence never makes acceptance of the conveniences and the clichés, of the views of the PolitBuro of all obediences, and of the religious little marquis.
Zero tolerance for any arrogance, any smugness, in these transcendent subjects, in these high matters.
On the other hand, what a balance, on the razor blade, between extremes and dualisms, not to blunt them, but to exacerbate them, to magnify them:
« If there were no darkness man would not feel his corruption, if there were no light man would not hope for a remedy, so it is not only right, but useful for us that God be hidden in part and discovered in part since it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his misery, and to know his misery without knowing God. » vi
This is not all. God makes it clear that He is hiding. That seems to be His strategy. This is how He wants to present Himself, in His creation and with man, with His presence and with His absence…
« That God wanted to hide himself.
If there were only one religion, God would be very obvious. Likewise, if there were only martyrs in our religion.
God being thus hidden, any religion which does not say that God is hidden is not true, and any religion which does not give the reason for it is not instructive. Ours does all this. Vere tu es deus absconditus.vii«
Here, Pascal quotes Isaiah in Latin. « Truly, You are a hidden God. »
Deus absconditus.
I prefer, for my part, the strength of Hebrew sound: El misttatter.
How would we have known that God was hidden if Scripture had not revealed Him?
The Scripture certainly reveals Him, in a clear and ambiguous way.
« It says in so many places that those who seek God will find him. It does not speak of this light as the day at noon. It is not said that those who seek the day at noon, or water in the sea, will find it; and so it is necessary that the evidence of God is not such in nature; also it tells us elsewhere: Vere tu es Deus absconditus. » viii
Absconditus in Latin, misttatter in Hebrew, caché in French.
But, in the Greek translation of this verse of Isaiah by the seventy rabbis of Alexandria, we read:
σὺ γὰρ εἶ θεός, καὶ οὐκ ᾔδειμεν
Su gar eï theos, kai ouk êdeimen.
Which litterally means: « Truly You are God, and we did not know it »… A whole different perspective appears, then. Languages inevitably bring their own veils.
How do we interpret these variations? The fact that we do not know whether God is ‘really God’, or whether He is ‘really hidden’, does not necessarily imply that He might not really be God, or that He will always be hidden.
Pascal states that if God has only appeared once, the chances are that He is always in a position to appear again, when He pleases.
But did He appear only once? Who can say with absolute certainty?
On the other hand, if He really never appeared to any man, then yes, we would be justified in making the perfectly reasonable observation that the divinity is indeed ‘absent’, and we would be led to make the no less likely hypothesis that it will remain so. But this would not prevent, on the other hand, that other interpretations of this absence could be made, such as that man is decidedly unworthy of the divine presence (hence his absence), or even that man is unworthy of the consciousness of this absence.
Now Pascal, for his part, really saw God, – he saw Him precisely on Monday, November 23, 1654, from half past ten in the evening to half past midnight. « Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not God of the philosophers and scholars. Certainty. Certainty. Feeling. Joy. Peace. God of Jesus Christ. » ix
This point being acquired (why put in doubt this writing of Pascal, discovered after his death, and sewn in the lining of his pourpoint?), one can let oneself be carried along by the sequences, the deductions and the exercise of reason that Pascal himself proposes.
« If nothing of God had ever appeared, this eternal deprivation would be equivocal, and could just as well refer to the absence of any divinity as to the unworthiness of men to know it; but the fact that he appears sometimes, and not always, removes the equivocation. If he appears once, he is always; and thus one cannot conclude anything except that there is a God, and that men are unworthy of him» x.
Pascal’s reasoning is tight, impeccable. How can one not follow it and approve its course? It must be admitted: either God has never appeared on earth or among men, or He may have appeared at least once or a few times.
This alternative embodies the ‘tragic’ question, – a ‘theatrical’ question on the forefront of the world stage…
One must choose. Either the total and eternal absence and disappearance of God on earth, since the beginning of time, or a few untimely divine appearances, a few rare theophanies, reserved for a few chosen ones…
In all cases, God seemed to have left the scene of the world since His last appearance, or to have decided never to appear again, thus putting in scene His deliberate absence. But, paradoxically, the significance of this absence had not yet been perceived, and even less understood, except by a tiny handful of out-of-touch thinkers, for whom, in the face of this absence of God, « no authentic human value has any more necessary foundation, and, on the other hand, all non-values remain possible and even probable. » xi
A Marxist and consummate dialectician, Lucien Goldmann, devoted his thesis to the ‘hidden god’. He established a formal link between the theophany staged by Isaiah, and the ‘tragic vision’ incarnated by Racine, and Pascal.
« The voice of God no longer speaks to man in an immediate way. Here is one of the fundamental points of the tragic thought. Vere tu es Deus absconditus‘, Pascal will write. » xii
Pascal’s quotation of the verse from Isaiah will be taken up several times by Goldmann, like an antiphon, and even in the title of his book.
« Deus absconditus. Hidden God. Fundamental idea for the tragic vision of God, and for Pascal’s work in particular (…): God is hidden from most men but he is visible to those he has chosen by granting them grace. » xiii
Goldmann interprets Pascal in his own strictly ‘dialectical’ way. He rejects any reading of Pascal according to binary oppositions ‘either…or…’. « This way of understanding the idea of the hidden God would be false and contrary to the whole of Pascalian thought which never says yes or no but always yes and no. The hidden God is for Pascal a God who is present and absent and not present sometimes and absent sometimes; but always present and always absent. » xiv
The constant presence of opposites and the work of immanent contradiction demand it. And this presence of opposites is itself a very real metaphor for the absent presence (or present absence) of the hidden God.
« The being of the hidden God is for Pascal, as for the tragic man in general, a permanent presence more important and more real than all empirical and sensible presences, the only essential presence. A God always absent and always present, that is the center of tragedy. » xv
But what does ‘always present and always absent‘ really mean?
This is the ‘dialectical’ answer of a Marxist thinker tackling the (tragic) theophany of absence, – as seen by the prophet Isaiah, and by Pascal.
In this difficult confrontation with such unmaterialist personalities, Goldmann felt the need to call to the rescue another Marxist, Georg von Lucàcs, to support his dialectical views on the absent (and present) God.
« In 1910, without thinking of Pascal, Lucàcs began his essay: ‘Tragedy is a game, a game of man and his destiny, a game in which God is the spectator. But he is only a spectator, and neither his words nor his gestures are ever mixed with the words and gestures of the actors. Only his eyes rest on them’. xvi
To then pose the central problem of all tragic thought: ‘Can he still live, the man on whom God’s gaze has fallen?’ Is there not incompatibility between life and the divine presence? » xvii
It is piquant to see a confirmed Marxist make an implicit allusion to the famous passage in Exodus where the meeting of God and Moses on Mount Horeb is staged, and where the danger of death associated with the vision of the divine face is underlined.
It is no less piquant to see Lucàcs seeming to confuse (is this intentional?) the ‘gaze of God’ falling on man with the fact that man ‘sees the face’ of God…
It is also very significant that Lucàcs, a Marxist dialectician, combines, as early as 1910, an impeccable historical materialism with the storm of powerful inner tensions, of deep spiritual aspirations, going so far as to affirm the reality of the ‘miracle’ (for God alone)…
What is perhaps even more significant is that the thought of this Hungarian Jew, a materialist revolutionary, seems to be deeply mixed with a kind of despair as to the human condition, and a strong ontological pessimism, tempered with a putative openness towards the reality of the divine (miracle)…
« Daily life is an anarchy of chiaroscuro; nothing is ever fully realized, nothing reaches its essence… everything flows, one into the other, without barriers in an impure mixture; everything is destroyed and broken, nothing ever reaches the authentic life. For men love in existence what it has of atmospheric, of uncertain… they love the great uncertainty like a monotonous and sleepy lullaby. They hate all that is univocal and are afraid of it (…) The man of the empirical life never knows where his rivers end, because where nothing is realized everything remains possible (…) But the miracle is realization (…) It is determined and determining; it penetrates in an unforeseeable way in the life and transforms it in a clear and univocal account. He removes from the soul all its deceptive veils woven of brilliant moments and vague feelings rich in meaning; drawn with hard and implacable strokes, the soul is thus in its most naked essence before his gaze. »
And Lucàcs to conclude, in an eminently unexpected apex: « But before God the miracle alone is real. » xviii
Strange and provocative sentence, all the more mysterious that it wants to be materialist and dialectic…
Does Lucàcs invite man to consider history (or revolution) as a miracle that he has to realize, like God? Or does he consider historical materialism as the miraculous unfolding of something divine in man?
Stranger still is Lucien Goldmann’s commentary on this sentence of Lucàcs:
« We can now understand the meaning and importance for the tragic thinker and writer of the question: ‘Can the man on whom God’s gaze has fallen still live?’» xix
But, isn’t the classic question rather: ‘Can the man who looks up to God still live?
Doesn’t Lucàcs’ new, revised question, taken up by Goldmann, imply a univocal answer ? Such as : – ‘For man to live, God must be hidden’ or even, more radically: ‘For man to live, God must die’.
But this last formulation would undoubtedly sound far too ‘Christian’…
In the end, can God really ‘hide’ or a fortiori can He really ‘die’?
Are these words, ‘hide’, ‘die’, really compatible with a transcendent God?
Is Isaiah’s expression, ‘the hidden God’ (El misttatter), clear, univocal, or does it itself hide a universe of less apparent, more ambiguous meanings?
A return to the text of Isaiah is no doubt necessary here. In theory, and to be complete, it would also be necessary to return to other religious traditions, even more ancient than the Jewish one, which have also dealt with the theme of the hidden god (or the unknown god), notably the Vedic tradition and that of ancient Egypt.
The limits of this article do not allow it. Nevertheless, it must be said emphatically that the intuition of a ‘hidden god’ is probably as old as humanity itself.
However, it must be recognized that Isaiah has, from the heart of Jewish tradition, strongly and solemnly verbalized the idea of the ‘hidden God’, while immediately associating it with that of the ‘saving God’.
אָכֵן, אַתָּה אֵל מִסְתַּתֵּר–אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹשִׁיעַ.
Aken attah, El misttatter – Elohai Israel, mochi’a.
« Truly, You, hidden God – God of Israel, Savior. » xx
A few centuries after Isaiah, the idea of the God of Israel, ‘hidden’ and ‘savior’, became part of the consciousness called, perhaps too roughly, ‘Judeo-Christian’.
It is therefore impossible to understand the semantic value of the expression « hidden God » without associating it with « God the savior », in the context of the rich and sensitive inspiration of the prophet Isaiah.
Perhaps, moreover, other metaphorical, anagogical or mystical meanings are still buried in Isaiah’s verses, so obviously full of a sensitive and gripping mystery?
Shortly before directly addressing the ‘hidden God’ and ‘savior’, Isaiah had reported the words of the God of Israel addressing the Persian Cyrus, – a key figure in the history of Israel, at once Persian emperor, savior of the Jewish people, figure of the Messiah, and even, according to Christians, a prefiguration of Christ. This last claim was not totally unfounded, at least on the linguistic level, for Cyrus is clearly designated by Isaiah as the « Anointed » (mochi’a)xxi of the Lord. Now the Hebrew word mochi’a is translated precisely as christos, ‘anointed’ in Greek, and ‘messiah‘ in English.
According to Isaiah, this is what God said to His ‘messiah’, Cyrus:
« I will give you treasures (otserot) in darkness (ḥochekh), and hidden (misttarim) riches (matmunei) , that you may know that I am YHVH, calling you by your name (chem), – the God of Israel (Elohai Israel). » xxii
Let us note incidentally that the word matmunei, ‘riches’, comes from the verb טָמַן, taman, ‘to hide, to bury’, as the verse says: « all darkness (ḥochekh) bury (tamun) his treasures » xxiii.
We thus learn that the ‘treasures’ that Isaiah mentions in verse 45:3, are triply concealed: they are in ‘darkness’, they are ‘buried’ and they are ‘hidden’…
The accumulation of these veils and multiple hiding places invites us to think that such well hidden treasures are only ever a means, a pretext. They hide in their turn, in reality, the reason, even more profound, for which they are hidden…
These treasures are perhaps hidden in the darkness and they are carefully buried, so that Cyrus sees there motivation to discover finally, he the Anointed One, what it is really necessary for him to know. And what he really needs to know are three names (chem), revealed to him, by God… First the unspeakable name, ‘YHVH’, then the name by which YHVH will henceforth call Cyrus, (a name which is not given by Isaiah), and finally the name Elohéï Israel (‘God of Israel’).
As for us, what we are given to know is that the ‘hidden God’ (El misttatter) is also the God who gives Cyrus ‘hidden riches’ (matmunei misttarim).
The verbal root of misttatter and misttarim is סָתַר, satar. In the Hithpael mode, this verb takes on the meaning of ‘to hide’, as in Is 45:15, « You, God, hide yourself », or ‘to become darkened’, as in Is 29:14, « And the mind will be darkened ».
In the Hiphil mode, the verb satar, used with the word panim, ‘face’, takes on the meaning of ‘covering the face’, or ‘turning away the face’, opening up other moral, mystical or anagogical meanings.
We find satar and panim associated in the verses: « Moses covered his face » (Ex 3:6), « God turned away his face » (Ps 10:11), « Turn away your face from my sins » (Ps 51:11), « Do not turn away your face from me » (Ps 27:9), « Your sins make him turn his face away from you » (Is 59:2).
Note that, in the same verbal mode, satar can also take on the meaning of « to protect, to shelter », as in: « Shelter me under the shadow of your wings » (Ps 17:8).
In biblical Hebrew, there are at least a dozen verbal roots meaning « to hide » xxiv , several of which are associated with meanings evoking material hiding places (such as « to bury », « to preserve », « to make a shelter »). Others, rarer, refer to immaterial hiding places or shelters and meanings such as ‘keep’, ‘protect’.
Among this abundance of roots, the verbal root satar offers precisely the particularityxxv of associating the idea of « hiding place » and « secret » with that of « protection », carried for example by the word sétèr: « You are my protection (sétèr) » (Ps 32:7); « He who dwells under the protection (sétèr) of the Most High, in the shadow (tsèl) of the Almighty » (Ps 91:1).xxvi
Isaiah 45:15, « Truly, You, the hidden God, » uses the verbal root satar for the word « hidden » (misttatter). Satar thus evokes not only the idea of a God « who hides » but also connotes a God « who protects, shelters » and « saves » (from the enemy or from affliction).
Thus we learn that the God « who hides » is also the God « who reveals ». And, what He reveals of His Self does « save ».
_________________________
iIs 45, 15
iiRabindranath Tagore. Souvenirs. 1924. Gallimard. Knowledge of the Orient, p. 185
iiiRabindranath Tagore. Souvenirs. 1924. Gallimard. Knowledge of the Orient, p. 185
ivPascal. Thoughts. Fragment 557. Edition by Léon Brunschvicg. Paris, 1904
vPascal. Thoughts. Fragment 288. Edition by Léon Brunschvicg. Paris, 1904
viPascal. Thoughts. Fragment 586. Edition by Léon Brunschvicg. Paris, 1906
viiPascal. Thoughts. Fragment 585. Edition by Léon Brunschvicg. Paris, 1904
viiiPascal. Thoughts. Fragment 242. Edition by Léon Brunschvicg. Paris, 1904
ixPascal. Memorial. In Pensées, Edition by Léon Brunschvicg. Paris, 1904, p.4
xPascal. Thoughts. Fragment 559. Edition by Léon Brunschvicg. Paris, 1904
xiLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 44. Expressions in italics are by the author.
xiiLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 45
xiiiLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 46
xivLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 46. Expressions in italics are by the author.
xvLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 46-47. Expressions in italics are by the author.
xviLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 46-47. Expressions in italics are by the author.
xviiLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 47
xviiiGeorg von Lucàcs. Die Seele und dir Formen. p. 328-330, quoted in Lucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 48-49
xixLucien Goldmann. The Hidden God. Study on the tragic vision in Pascal’s Pensées and in Racine’s theater. Gallimard. 1955, p. 49
xxIs 45,15
xxi« Thus says the LORD to his Anointed, to Cyrus, Is 45:1.
xxiiוְנָתַתִּי לְךָ אוֹצְרוֹת חֹשֶׁךְ, וּמַטְמֻנֵי מִסְתָּרִים: לְמַעַן תֵּדַע, כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה הַקּוֹרֵא בְשִׁמְךָ–אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל . (Is 45.3)
xxiiiJob 20.26
xxivIt would be out of place to make an exhaustive analysis of this in this article, but we will return to it later. The roots in question are as follows: חבא, חבה, טמן ,כּחד,כּסה, נצר, כּפר, סכךְ, סתם, סתר, עמם, עלם. They cover a wide semantic spectrum: ‘to hide, to hide, to bury, to cover, to cover, to keep, to guard, to protect, to preserve, to make a shelter, to close, to keep secret, to obscure, to be obscure’.
xxvAs well as the verbal roots צפן and סכךְ, although these have slightly different nuances.
xxviIt would be indispensable to enter into the depths of the Hebrew language in order to grasp all the subtlety of the semantic intentions and the breadth of the metaphorical and intertextual evocations that are at stake. Only then is it possible to understand the ambivalence of the language, which is all the more amplified in the context of divine presence and action. The same verbal root (tsur) indeed evokes both ‘enemy’ and ‘protection’, ‘fight’ and ‘shelter’, but also subliminally evokes the famous ‘rock’ (tsur) in the cleft of which God placed Moses to ‘protect’ him when He appeared to him in His glory on Mount Horeb. « I will place you in the cleft of the rock (tsur) and I will shelter you (or hide you, – verb שָׂכַךֽ sakhakh) from my ‘hand’ (kaf, literally, from my ‘hollow’) until I have passed over. « (Ex 33:22) For example, puns and alliterations proliferate in verse 7 of Psalm 32. Just after the first hemisphere ‘You are my protection (attah seter li)’, we read: מִצַּר תִּצְּרֵנִי , mi-tsar ti-tsre-ni (« from the enemy, or from affliction, you save me »). There is here a double alliteration playing on the phonetic proximity of the STR root of the word sétèr (‘protection’), of the TSR root of the word tsar, denoting the enemy or affliction, and of the tsar verb ‘to protect, guard, save’. This is not just an alliteration, but a deliberate play on words, all derived from the verbal root צוּר , tsour, ‘to besiege, fight, afflict; to bind, enclose’: – the word צַר, tsar, ‘adversary, enemy; distress, affliction; stone’; – the word צוּר , tsur, ‘rock, stone’; – the verb צָרַר, tsar, ‘to bind, envelop, guard; oppress, fight; be cramped, be afflicted, be in anguish’.
The Hollow of God
Caph, כ , the eleventh letter of the Hebrew alphabet, has the shape of an inverted C, and presents, graphically and symbolically, the figure of a ‘hollow’. This idea of the hollow is also found in the Hebrew word כָּף caph, which can also be transcribed kaf. This word refers to several parts of the human body, the hollow or palm of the hand, the sole of the foot, the concavity of the hip (more technically, the ischium of the iliac bone), all having in common a ‘hollow’ shape.
The notion of ‘hollow’ attached to this word etymologically derives from the verbal root כָּפַף , kafaf, ‘to fold, bend’, and in the passive ‘to be folded, bent; to be hollow’.
Curiously enough, the word kaf is directly associated with what must be called the ‘body’ of God, or at least with its bodily metaphors, in two particularly significant episodes in the Hebrew Bible, – Jacob’s nightly battle with Godi, and the passage of the Glory of God before Mosesii.
In both of these key moments, the idea of the « hollow » carried by the kaf plays a crucial role.
In the first episode, a ‘man’ (i.e. God himself, or one of his envoys) strikes Jacob in the ‘hollow’ (kaf) of the hip, causing its dislocation, hastening the end of the battle.
Since that day, the children of Israel, in memory of this blow to the kaf, respect a dietary prohibition prescribing the removal of the sciatic nerve, supposed to symbolize the part of Jacob’s body bruised by the blow.
In the second episode, God addresses Moses, saying:
« I will place you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with my kaf, [literally – with my ‘hollow’, or the ‘palm’ of my hand, – if one may so express oneself in speaking anthropomorphically of the Lord…], until I have passediii. »
In the first episode, God ‘touches’ or ‘strikes’ Jacob’s kaf. The verb used to describe the action is נָגַע, nâga‘, ‘to touch, to smite’. Whether He touches or strikes Jacob, God must undoubtedly use His ‘hand’, i.e., His kaf, to wound Jacob’s kaf. Admittedly the kaf of God is only implied here in the Genesis text. But it is implicitly made necessary by the use of the verb nâga‘, which implies a physical contact effective enough to dislocate Jacob’s hip.
God’s kaf (or the ‘hollow’ of the hand) ‘touched’ or ‘struck’ Jacob’s kaf (the ‘hollow’ of the hip).
Hollow against hollow.
In the second episode, God uses two levels of protection, two types of cover, to shield Moses from the deadly brilliance of His Glory. On the one hand, He places him in the ‘cleft of the rock’ (niqrat ha-tsur), and on the other, He covers Moses with His kaf.
Hollow on hollow.
Two questions then arise:
-Why are two layers of protection (the ‘cleft of the rock’ and then God’s kaf) necessary here?
-What exactly is the kaf of God, – if we give up translating this word by an expression that is far too anthropomorphic, and therefore unacceptable, like ‘palm of the hand’?
To the first question, we can answer that God probably wants to protect Moses’body by hiding him in the cleft of the rock, but that he also wants to protect Moses’ spirit or soul by covering Moses with His kaf.
The second question invites us to return to the etymology of the word kaf to try to understand its meaning in the context of this theophany.
God says that He will ‘cover’ Moses with His kaf. The verb used for ‘cover’ is שָׂכַךְ, sâkhakh, very close to the verb סָכַךְ, sâkhakh, ‘to make a shelter’, from which is derived the word soukhot (designating the booths of the Feast of Booths).
Now there is another Hebrew verb meaning ‘to cover’, which is also very close phonetically and etymologically to kaf, it is the verb כָּפַר kafar, ‘to cover, to forgive; to atone, to purify’.
This puts us on a promising track. When God ‘covers’ Moses with the divine kaf, there is expressed here an idea of protection and shelter, but perhaps also, more subliminally, the idea of ‘covering’ (kafar) Moses’ weaknesses, or sins, in order to cleanse him of them so that he is allowed to see God, if only ‘from behind’.
The following verse indeed tells us what happens after God’s passage.
« Then I will remove my kaf, and you will see me from behind, but my face cannot be seen.iv
The shifts in meaning between kaf, kafaf, kafar, reveal a certain kinship between ‘hollow’, ‘palm’, ‘covering’ and, in an allegorical sense, ‘covering’ [faults], ‘forgiving’ and ‘purifying’v.
This is indeed a second level of protection that God agrees to give to the spirit of Moses after having placed his body in the « cleft of the rock ».
These shifts take on an additional symbolic dimension when we consider the word כֵּף kef, which is perfectly similar to kaf, except for the vocalization, and has the same etymological provenance as kaf.
Now kef means ‘rock’, which implies a symbolic proximity between the idea of ‘hollow’ and that of ‘rock’.
Note that the ‘rock’ into whose cleft God places Moses (in Ex 33:22) is not designated as a kef, but as a tsur, which is another word for rock.
However, the simple fact that the words kaf (‘hollow’) and kef (‘rock’) have the same verbal root kafaf, ‘to be curved, to be hollow’, draws our attention to the fact that some rocks can all the better offer refuge or protection because they are ‘hollow’, such as caverns or caves, whereas other types of rocks possess only crevices or slits, such as the rock called צוּר , tsur.
Note also that the word tsur, ‘rock’, comes from the verbal root צור , tsour, which means ‘to bind, wrap, confine, compress, enclose’. According to Ernest Klein’s Etymological Dictionary, this verbal root, tsour, itself derives from the Akkadian words uṣurutu and eṣēru (‘to draw, to form, to shape’).
The Hebrew words kef and tsur thus both mean ‘rock’, but both words come from two verbal roots that connote, respectively, the ideas of folding, curving, hollowing, and the ideas of enveloping, confining, enclosing, but also of shaping, molding.
One will be sensitive to the proximity and the shifts of these universes of meaning, within the framework of the two exceptional scenes that we evoked, the night fight of Jacob and the vision of Moses on Sinai.
Through the metaphors and metonymies with they encourage, these words draw a wider landscape of meaning, which includes ‘hollow’ and ‘rock’, ‘protection’ and ‘forgiveness’, ‘envelopment’ and ‘enclosure’, ‘form’, ‘shaping’, and the ‘model’ that imposes its ‘shape’ on the image.
From the kaf, of ‘hollow’ form, כ, both open on one side and closed on the other three sides, spring multiple ‘images’: the dislocated hollow of Jacob’s hip, the protective hollow of the divine kaf, or the slit on the closed form of the tsur.
Faced with these insights into Hebrew semantic universe, the goyim could easily feel little concerned by these purely internal considerations proper to the Hebrew language.
Yet, through another twist, I think they may be incited to open up to the mystery that kaf, kef and tsur do cover, hide and conceal.
It so happens that the word kef, ‘rock, stone’, is precisely the word that serves as the root of the name Kephas, the new name that Jesus gave to his disciple Simon:
« You are Simon, son of Jonah; you shall be called Kephas, which means Peter (stone) »vi reports the Gospel of John.
Kephas (i.e. Simon-Peter) was from then on, by the play of displacements that the word kef authorizes and encourages, the ‘foundation stone’ on which Jesus built his Church, thus taking up in his own way the example given by the prophet Isaiah: « I have set deep in Zion a stone, a tried and tested stone, a cornerstone « .vii
But Kephas, it should be noted, was also the very same name of the high priest Caiaphas who was to condemn Jesus to death.
The etymology thus linked in an indissoluble and perhaps symbolic way the patronymic of the first of the popes of the Church with the patronymic of one of the last high priests of the Temple of Jerusalem…
What a metaphysical irony that Jesus chose to name his apostle Simon Kephas (that is, Caiaphas)…
What a metaphysical irony that the high priest Caiaphas (i.e., Kephas or ‘Peter’), was also the name of the one who plotted shortly after Jesus’ death…
Let us conclude.
The divine kaf, the ‘hollow’ that strikes, dislocates, protects or forgives, is close in many ways to the kef, the ‘rock’, that establishes, and founds.
The name Kephas, which gave rise to the non-Hebrew names Petrus, Boutros, Peter, Pierre, is also the name of one of the last high priests of Jerusalem, Caiaphas.
The Temple and the Church seem here to be linked through a single root, kef, which binds together the twilight of the former and the dawn of the latter.
Today the Temple of Jerusalem is no more, and the destiny of its high priests seems to have ended.
The Church, on the other hand, is still there, – as is of course the Synagogue.
It is the Temple that seems to have no more any kef to be built upon.
Some words, which are supposed to ‘express’ something, in fact hide what they do not openly say, what they indeed cover.
And the One who speaks these words also hides ‘behind’ them, – in the emptiness of their ‘hollow’…
______________
iGn 32.25
iiEx 33.22
iii וְשַׂמְתִּיךָ בְּנִקְרַת הַצּוּר; וְשַׂכֹּתִי כַפִּי עָלֶיךָ, עַדעָבְרִי. « Vé-samttikha bé-niqrat ha-tsour, vé-sakkoti ḥapii ‘aleïkha ‘ad-‘abrii » (Ex 33,22)
ivEx 33.23
vI would like to thank Professor M. Buydens (Université Libre de Bruxelles and Université de Louvain) for suggesting that I exploit the similarity between the Hebrew words kaf, kafar and the Arabic word kafir, ‘infidel’. I found in Kazimirski’s Arabic-French dictionary that the word kafir comes from the verbal root kafara, ‘to cover; to hide, to conceal’ and, in a derived way, ‘to forget, to deny the benefits received’, hence ‘to be ungrateful; to be unfaithful, to be incredulous, not to believe in one God’. It can be inferred from this that, according to the respective genius of the languages, the Hebrew word kafar connotes the idea of ‘covering [evil]’, and therefore ‘forgiving’. The Arabic word kafara connotes the idea of ‘covering [the good]’, and therefore ‘denying, denying, being unfaithful’…
viJn 1.42
viiIs 28,16. Let us note that Isaiah uses here another word for ‘stone’, the word אֶבֶן, even, whose etymology is the same as that of the word ben, ‘son’, and which connotes the fact of founding, the fact of building… The word even is very ancient, and is found in Phoenician, Aramaic, Ethiopian and even in Egyptian (ôbn), according to Ernest Klein’s Etymological Dictionary.
Two Encounters with the ‘Name’ and the ‘Body’ of God.
During a strange and famous night, Jacob struggled for a long time with a ‘man’, hand to hand, thigh to thigh. Neither winner nor loser. Finally, the ‘man’ struck Jacob in the hollow (kaf) of the hip (yarakh). The hip dislocated.i
In Hebrew, the word kaf has several meanings: « the hollow, the palm of the hand; the sole of the foot; or the concavity of the hip (the ischium, one of the three bones that make up the hipbone) ». These meanings all derive from the verbal root kafaf meaning ‘that which is curved, that which is hollow’. In another vocalization (kef), this word also means ‘rock, cave’.
Jacob’s battle did not end until his adversary, the man, wanted to leave at dawn. But Jacob would not let him go. He said to him: « I will not leave you until you have blessed me »ii .
This was a strange request, addressed to a determined adversary who had been able to hit him in the weakest point, in the hollow of the thigh, dislocating it.
A strange, disjointed dialogue followed.
The man asked Jacob: “What is your name?”
He answered: “Jacob”.
The man replied, « Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel, for you have fought with God and with men, and have prevailed »iii.
Was it against God himself that Jacob had been fighting all night? And had Jacob fought not only against God, but also ‘with men’? And had he decisively defeated all them, divine and human, only at the price of a dislocated hip?
However his apparent success was not complete… His name had indeed been changed for eternity, and he had received eloquent praise, but Jacob was still not blessed, despite his urgent request.
Changing his tactics, he questioned the ‘man’:
« Let me, I pray thee, know thy name. He answered : – Why do you ask my name? And he blessed him there »iv.
‘He blessed him, there’. In Hebrew: Va yebarekh cham.
The word cham means ‘there’; but in a very close vocalization, the word chem means ‘name’.
Jacob asked the man for his ‘name’ (chem), and in response the man blessed him, ‘there’ (cham).
This is literally a ‘metaphor’, – that is to say, a ‘displacement’ of the ‘name’ (chem) to a place, ‘there’ (cham).
And this ‘there’, this ‘place’, was soon to receive a new name (Peni-El), given by Jacob-Israel.
The divine transcendence, which does not reveal its name (chem) here, suggests that Jacob is faced with an absolute non-knowledge, a radical impossibility of hearing the (ineffable) name. This non-knowledge and this transcendent non-saying can nevertheless be grasped, through a metaphor of immanence, through the displacement towards the ‘there’ (cham), but also through a metaphor inscribed in the body, in the hollow (kaf) of the hip and in the ‘displacement’ (the dislocation) that this hollow makes possible.
What a curious encounter, then, that of Jacob with the divine!
Jacob had fought without winning, nor being defeated, but the hollow of his hip was struck, and of this dislocated hip, the children of Israel still keep the memory by a food taboo…
Jacob had asked to be blessed by his adversary, but the latter had only changed his name (chem), – without however blessing him.
Jacob then asked the man for his own name (chem), and the man, as his only answer, finally blessed him, ‘there’ (cham), but still without giving him his name (chem).
Since he did not know this name, which was kept secret, Jacob gave this place, this ‘there’ (cham), the name (chem) of ‘Peni-El‘. « For, he said, I have seen God face to face, and my life (nefech) has been saved. »v
Since he could not hear the proper name of God, Jacob gave a name to this place, using the generic word El, which means ‘god’.
Peni-El, word for word, ‘face of God’.
This was an a posteriori affirmation that the ‘man’ against whom Jacob had fought was in fact God, or at least some living being who had presented him with a ‘face’ of God…
Now, it had long been accepted in the ancient religion of the Hebrews that one cannot see the face of God without dying.
Jacob had struggled ‘against God’ and had seen His face, yet he had not died. His own name had been changed, and he had been blessed, – but the name (of God) had not been revealed to him.
This revelation would be made much later to Moses, but then Moses would not see the ‘face of God’, since he had to take refuge in the ‘hollow’ of another rock, and see only the back of God…
To Jacob and Moses were revealed the Name or the Face, – not the Name and the Face.
Let us add that all this scene took place at night. Then the sun came.
« The sun was beginning to shine on him when he left Peni-El »vi.
This direct reference to the sun (and to the light of day) seems to give the solar star the role of a negator of the night, and of revelation.
It is probably not unrelated either, from the Hebrew point of view, to the ancient Egyptian culture, which is known to have seen in the ‘sun’, as in ‘night’, one of the symbols of the divine.
To understand this implicit reference in its relation to the story of Jacob’s struggle against ‘man’ or against ‘God’, it may be useful to cite a singular episode in the story of Ra, – this solar God who also, strikingly enough, refused to reveal his ineffable name to a tireless questioner, Isis.
The famous Egyptologist, Gaston Maspéro, has described this story in detail, taking as his source the ‘hieratic’ papyri of Turin, dating back to the Ramesside period of the nineteenth and twentieth dynasties, from the end of the fourteenth century to the twelfth century B.C., and thus some two or three centuries before the period corresponding to the generations of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
« Nothing shows this better than the story of Ra. His universe was the outline of ours, for Shu did not yet exist, Nouît continued to rest in the arms of Sibou, and the sky was one with the earth. « vii
By dint of his generosity towards men, the God Ra had kept only one of his powers, his own Name, which his father and mother had given him, which they had revealed to him alone and which he kept hidden in the depths of his chest, for fear that a magician or a sorcerer would seize it.viii
But Ra was getting old, his body was bending, « his mouth was shivering, his drool was running to the ground, and his saliva was dripping on the ground »ix.
It so happened that « Isis, until then a simple woman in the service of Pharaoh, conceived the project of robbing him of his secret ‘in order to possess the world and to make herself a goddess by the name of the august godx. Violence would not have succeeded: weakened as he was by years, no one had enough strength to fight against him successfully. But Isis ‘was a woman who knew more in her malice than millions of men, who was skillful among millions of gods, who was equal to millions of spirits, and who knew everything in heaven or on earth, as much as Ra did’xi. She devised a most ingenious stratagem. If a man or a god was ill, the only way to cure him was to know his true name and to call upon the evil being who was tormenting himxii. Isis resolved to launch a terrible evil against Ra, the cause of which she would conceal from him, and then to offer to heal him and to wrest from him through suffering the mysterious word indispensable to the success of the exorcism. She collected the mud impregnated with the divine slime, and kneaded a sacred snake of it which she buried in the dust of the road. The god, bitten unexpectedly as he left for his daily rounds, uttered a howl: ‘his voice went up to heaven and his Novena, « What is it, what is it? », and his gods, « What is it, what is it? », but he did not find what to answer them, so much his lips were chattering, so much his limbs were trembling, so much the venom was taking on his flesh, as the Nile takes on the ground which it invades. »xiii
He came back to himself however and managed to express what he felt (…): ‘Here, let them bring me the children of the gods with the beneficent words, who know the power of their mouth and whose knowledge reaches the sky!
They came, the children of the gods, each of them with their grimoires. She came, Isis, with her sorcery, her mouth full of life-giving breaths, her recipe for destroying pain, her words that pour life into breathless throats, and she said: ‘What is this, what is this, O father-gods? Is it not that a serpent produces pain in you, that one of your children raises his head against you? Surely he will be overthrown by beneficent incantations and I will force him to retreat at the sight of your rays.’xiv
The Sun, learning the cause of his torments, is frightened (…). Isis offers him her remedy and discreetly asks him for the ineffable name, but he guesses the ruse and tries to get out of it by enumerating his titles. He takes the universe as witness that he is called ‘Khopri in the morning, Ra at noon, Toumou in the evening’. The venom did not flow back, but it still worked and the great god was not relieved.
Then Isis said to Ra: ‘Your name is not stated in what you have recited to me! Tell me and the venom will come out, for the individual lives, let him be charmed in his own name.’ The venom was like fire, it was strong like the burning of the flame, so the Majesty of Ra said: ‘I grant that you search me, O mother Isis, and that my name pass from my breast into your breast.’xv
The almighty name was really hidden in the body of the god, and it could only be extracted by a surgical operation, similar to that which corpses undergo at the beginning of mummification. Isis undertook it, succeeded, drove out the poison, and became a goddess by virtue of the Name. The skill of a simple woman had stripped Ra of his last talisman. »xvi
Let us put in parallel the two stories, that of the fight of Jacob in Genesis and that of the extortion of the ineffable name of Ra by Isis, in the Turin papyrus.
Jacob is a man, intelligent, rich, head of a large family and of a numerous domesticity.
Isis is a simple woman, a servant of the Pharaoh, but very cunning and determined at all costs to reach a divine status.
Jacob fights against a man who is in reality God (or an envoy of God, possessing his ‘face’). He asks him for his blessing and his name, but only obtains the blessing, the change of his own name, without the ineffable name of God (only known under the generic name ‘El’) being revealed to him.
Isis deceives the God (publicly known as Ra, Khopri, or Tumu) by her cunning. This great god shows himself weak and suffering, and he is easily fooled by this woman, Isis. She uses the God’s creative powers without his knowledge, and forms, from a mud impregnated with the divine saliva, a snake that bites the God and inoculates him with a deadly venom. The Sun God is now so weak that he cannot even bear, although he is the Sun of the universe, the ‘fire’ of the venom, ‘burning’ like a ‘flame’…
Jacob « fights » hand to hand with the God-man, who strikes him in the « hollow » of the hip, without ever revealing his Name.
Isis, for her part, « searches » the breast of the God Ra, with his (somewhat forced) agreement, in order to finally extract his (unmentioned) Name, and incorporate it directly into her own breast, which has become divine.
An idea somewhat similar to this search in the ‘breast’, though to some extent reversed, is found in the account of Moses’ encounter with God on Horeb.
« The Lord said to him again, ‘Put your hand in your breast’. He put his hand in his breast and took it out, and it was leprous, white as snow. He said again, ‘Put your hand back into your breast’. And he put his hand in his breast again, and then he took it out, and behold, it had regained its color. « xvii
The similarity is in the search of the ‘breast’. The difference is that Moses searches his own breast, whereas Isis searched the breast of Ra…
Note that in the case of Jacob as in that of Isis, the ineffable name is still not revealed. Jacob only knows the generic name El.
As for Isis, she is given to see the Name transported from the bosom of Ra into her own bosom, divinizing her in the process, but without her publicly revealing the Name itself.
However, it is undeniable that Isis succeeded where Jacob failed. She got to know the Name, in her heart.
There is yet another difference between Isis and Jacob.
Jacob, by his new name, embodied the birth of ‘Israel’.
As for Isis, she became a goddess, and the faithful companion, in life and in death, of the god Osiris. She transcended, when the time came, his dismemberment, and prepared the conditions of his resurrection. She participated in the metaphysical adventure of this murdered, dismembered and resurrected God, whose divided body, cut into pieces, was distributed through the nomes of Egypt, to transmit to them life, strength and eternity.
Today, Isis seems to have no more reality than that which is given to ancient dreams.
And yet, the metaphor of the murdered God (Osiris), whose body was cut up and distributed throughout Egypt and the rest of the world, offers some analogy with the Christian idea of the messianic God, murdered and shared in communion.
Man’s play with metaphors continues to this day…
Who will win, in the end, the transcendence of the ‘name’ (chem), – or the immanence of the ‘there’ (cham)?
The ‘hollowness’ of Jacob’s hip, or the ‘fullness’ of Isis’ breast?
Or should we expect something else, as ineffable as the Name?
Something that would unite together the full and the hollow, the chem and the cham?
_______________
iGen 32, 25-26
iiGen 32, 25-26
iiiGen 32, 29
ivGn 32, 30
vGen 32, 31
viGn 32, 32
viiG. Maspéro. Ancient history of the peoples of the Classical East. Hachette Bookstore. Paris, 1895, p. 160
viiiG. Maspéro indicates in a note that the legend of the Sun stripped of its heart by Isis was published in three fragments by Pleyte and Rossi (Les Papyrus hiératiques de Turin, pl. XXXI, LXXVII, CXXXI-CXXXVIII), without them suspecting its value, which was recognized by Lefébure (Un chapitre de la Chronique solaire, in the Zeitschrift, 1883, p.27-33). In op.cit. p. 162, note 2.
ixPleyte-Rossi, Les Papyrus hiératiques de Turin, pl. CXXXII, I, 2-3, in op.cit. p. 162, note 3.
xPleyte-Rossi, Les Papyrus hiératiques de Turin, pl. CXXXII, I, 1-2, in op.cit. p. 162, note 4.
xiPleyte-Rossi, Les Papyrus hiératiques de Turin, pl. CXXXI, I, 14 – pl. CXXXII, I,1, in op.cit. p. 162, note 5.
xiiOn the power of divine names and the value of knowing their exact names, see G. Maspero, Etudes de mythologie et d’Archéologie Égyptiennes, vol. II, pp. 208 ff.
xiiiPleyte-Rossi, Les Papyrus hiératiques de Turin, pl. CXXXII, I, 6-8, in op.cit. p. 163, note 1.
xivPleyte-Rossi, The Hieratic Papyrus of Turin, pl. CXXXII, I, 9- pl… CCXXXIII, I,3, in op.cit. p. 163, note 2.
xvPleyte-Rossi, Les Papyrus hiératiques de Turin, pl. CXXXII, I, 10-12, in op.cit. p. 164, note 1.
xviG. Maspéro. Ancient history of the peoples of the Classical East. Hachette Bookstore. Paris, 1895, p. 161-164.
xviiEx 4, 6-7
Metaxu. Le blog de Philippe Quéau 
Vous devez être connecté pour poster un commentaire.