tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post2990798479163179533..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Pursuing UnhappinessStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-61184736169200033912015-10-18T21:58:54.037-07:002015-10-18T21:58:54.037-07:00It appears easy to get confused when talking about...It appears easy to get confused when talking about abstract ideals, although it probably doesn't help to start with a provocative title like "If Everything Is So Amazing, Why’s Nobody Happy?"<br /><br />E.F. Schumacher's work suggests a starting point is to recognize the "great chain of being", most specifically as a progression down from the gods to angels to man to animals to plants and finally dead minerals at the bottom. So according to Wikipedia Plato and Aristotle worked with this concept. And basically that humans inhabited some middle realm, somewhere between the unlimited spiritual beings and the lowly dumb animals that are forced to only kill and scavenge for their survival.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being<br />------------<br />The great chain of being is a strict, religious hierarchical structure of all matter and life, believed to have been decreed by God. The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons (fallen/renegade angels), stars, moon, kings, princes, nobles, commoners, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, and other minerals.<br /><br />The great chain of being is a concept derived from Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Proclus. Further developed during the Middle Ages, it reached full expression in early modern Neoplatonism.<br />----------------<br /><br />In contrast modern scientific materialism (or scientism) easily overpowers such a framework, dismissing a vertical dimension, and calling humans mere naked apes, just more capable animals who have no purpose beyond survival and whatever pleasures we can find.<br /><br />Schumacher said this chain of being was useful because each level in the chain had different needs, and sees human development as dependent upon the lower levels, but that our happiness depends on moving attention more towards the higher levels as we mature.<br /><br />I find it a comforting thought, primarily because it helps explain why people so often see things differently, and find different strategies to meeting their needs, and then you might even say "unhappiness" is not a sign of failure, but a prompting from something hidden inside of you that also needs attention. And it makes sense that things like materialism are about the lowest levels of happiness, while when those needs are satisified, other more subtle needs will arise, and won't have as simple answers, and require awareness of "invisible things" that we can't quite touch like physical objects.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Guide_for_the_Perplexed#Implications<br />--------<br />Schumacher argues that by removing the vertical dimension from the universe and the qualitative distinctions of 'higher' and 'lower' qualities which go with it, materialistic scientism can in the societal sphere only lead to moral relativism and utilitarianism. While in the personal sphere, answering the question 'What do I do with my life?' leaves us with only two answers: selfishness and utilitarianism.<br /><br />In contrast, he argues that appreciating the different levels of being provides a simple, but clear morality. The traditional view, as Schumacher says, has always been that the proper goal of humanity is "...to move higher, to develop one's highest faculties, to gain knowledge of the higher and highest things, and, if possible, to 'see God'. If one moves lower, develops only one's lower faculties, which we share with the animals, then one makes onesself deeply unhappy, even to the point of despair." This is a view, Schumacher says, which is shared by all the major religions. Many things, Schumacher says, while true at a lower level, become absurd at a higher level, and vice versa.<br /><br />Schumacher does not claim there is any scientific evidence for a level of being above self-consciousness, contenting himself with the observation that this has been the universal conviction of all major religions.<br />----------------Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.com