Francis Berger
  • Blog
  • My Work

If The Development of Consciousness is Not a Real Thing . . .

8/8/2022

19 Comments

 
 . . . then history is meaningless and Jesus's mission is impossible. I'll try to explain in a somewhat sloppy and roundabout way. 

The painfully casual, flippant, and lazy manner in which Christians reject the development of human consciousness is truly a thing to behold. Most Christians equate ideas about the development of human consciousness with new age quackery and steadfastly insist that how people relate to the world, themselves, others, and God has not changed much throughout history.

The only thing that has changed, they claim, are external conditions. What may be interpreted as consciousness development is nothing more than people thinking and acting differently according to the stimulus, conditioning, and culture the external world doles out.

This perspective assumes an extremely static idea of human consciousness. It stipulates that the only differences between you and a ninth-century pagan Viking are the passage of twelve centuries, geography, technology, language, religion, culture, etc. Strip all of that away, and you and the Viking are pretty much the same when it comes to how you both understand and relate to the world, yourself, others, and God (or gods, in the case of the Viking).

In other words, consciousness is and was mostly passive regardless of where and when people live or lived in history. Consciousness did not influence the external world or history all that much but was, rather, influenced by the external world and history. Any development we perceive in consciousness can simply be chalked up to shifting external factors. Take those factors away, and consciousness is the same as it always has been – mostly inert, static, and passive.

When Christians encounter concepts like “the evolution of consciousness”, they immediately and inevitably equate it with “un-Christian” nineteenth-century ideas about natural evolution and progress rather than consider “the evolution of consciousness” from the Christian perspective of spirit – that is the unfolding and development of spiritual, religious and, particularly, Christian thinking and understanding over time.

Thus, the development or evolution of consciousness is closely connected to spiritual/religious development and progress. The notion that spiritual/religious thinking and understanding can and does progress (or develop or unfold) provides deep layers of meaning to both the external world and history. The external world and history are no longer merely random meaningless accidents but instead aim toward goals or, perhaps, an ultimate aim or goal.

The unfolding of spiritual consciousness implies that history is more than the changing and shifting of the external world. It implies that the various periods and eras of world history were imbued with spiritual progress – an inner spiritual dynamic unfolded into being and drove the events rather than being driven by them.

Christians who glibly reject the reality of consciousness development tend to view the world from the perspective of static orthodoxy; that is, from the perspective of a static and immutable truth entombed within a definite form rather than from the reality of truth as something dynamic and unfolding.

Put another way, Christians who reject the development of consciousness regard Christianity as an essentially “finished product”, to which little or nothing need be added nor taken away.

Most, if not all, of the essential questions have already been answered and settled. All that needed to be revealed has been revealed. All that needed to be created has been created. Man’s only spiritual responsibility is to adhere to and obey all that has been revealed and created.

The problem with static orthodoxy is its blindness to its own dynamic movement through history. Christianity, as a religion, did not appear in the world as a complete, static, and inflexible truth enshrined in a definite form. On the contrary, it came into the world as a dynamic truth, often in the most hostile of environments.

Christian dogmas, liturgy, and organization emerged from its earliest “expecting the Kingdom of God in my lifetime” origins and “progressed” through the centuries. The early movements of the Church were fueled by spiritual creativity leading to development, not by strict, static adherence or obedience to accepted dogmas and forms. When the Church -- or Christianity in general after Christianity began splintering away into its various factions and denominations – was moved by this dynamic force, it remained in touch with the spiritual unfolding of God’s Divine Plan.

Those we consider traditionalists today – like St. Thomas Aquinas -- were the modernists of their own times. More specifically, they were grounded in what came before them but understood the deeper spiritual implications and callings of their own times.

Yet from these origins, from this early dynamic unfolding, the Church and all forms of organized Christianity eventually lost sight of its dynamism and creative mission. The static ontology or metaphysics that possesses most traditionally-minded Christians today is bound up in fixating on the past – more specifically, on a particular era in the past, which is then held up as the very epitome of Christianity. All previous or contemporary spiritually-dynamic movements in Christianity are spurned in favor of affixing Christianity permanently to this one external paradigm and the belief that this one paradigm, this single aspect or movement of the religion represents the beginning and end of Christianity, a beginning and end to which all believers must inevitably return or else cease to be Christian.

The problem with this sort of thinking is obvious. The inflexible, universal order traditionally-minded Christians believe in does not exist. Not here and not in eternity.

Contrary to what traditionally-minded believers think, Christianity is not a finished product. This means that the creation of the world is also not finished, and neither is the creation of man. Heck, Creation is not finished. It is always moving toward goals. Consciousness determines our awareness of these goals. 

Viewing Creation as a finished product, as something static, stems primarily from the Old Testament, but if the world was indeed a finished product after the seventh day, then the appearance of Jesus and the very nature of Christ’s mission – which are historical and cosmic facts -- make no sense. The dynamism and spiritual creativity Jesus introduced into the world also make no sense.

If human consciousness or spirit is static and passive, Jesus’s coming and mission is not only impossible but incomprehensible!

At the very least, it denigrates Jesus’s mission to the level of “mere external factor”. 
  
To claim that human consciousness is shaped merely by external considerations and historical pressures is to claim that the immense effect Jesus had on the development of human consciousness and spirit can be attributed solely to external factors rather than to the deep inner workings of spirit, creativity, and freedom Jesus ignited within man.

Traditionally-minded Christians do not believe in the development of consciousness because we currently inhabit a period of spiritual regress. Since they regard evolution in the Darwinian sense of improvement, they point to the spiritual inferiority of modern man as proof of the unreality of spiritual development.

This reveals a rather deterministic attitude. Instead of a free, dynamic, and creative process, the traditionally-minded expect to see something akin to clockworks or train schedules. Instead of a fluctuating process that moves toward good, then toward evil, closer to God, then farther from God, and sometimes all the way to Satan, traditionally-minded Christians expect to find uninterrupted forward movement in the form of good, better, best.
​
Whether or not the traditionally minded ever accept the reality of consciousness development (or spiritual development) is largely beside the point. Either way, development will happen – is happening.

Against the backdrop of ever-increasing despiritualization in the world and against the backdrop of static theological framework and metaphysics, a new, more refined, creative, dynamic, mystical type of Christianity is on the rise.

Note added: The current developments in organized forms of Christianity (churches) are not to be taken as good or as an example of "free, creative, and dynamic spiritual development". On the contrary, nearly all of the movements within organized Christianity are aligned with global totalitarianism. How Christians think about and understand these movements within their respective churches will help determine the future of these institutions. For the time being, things do not look good for churches, nearly all of which appear intent on sabotaging themselves into oblivion. How Christianity "progresses" from this spiritually is of the utmost importance. 

Further note added: Some of what I have noted above stems from Berdyaev, but I can't remember which work.    
19 Comments
johnson j
8/8/2022 23:59:56

Equivocation. Usually the word is evolution. Then today its development. Not the same thing. At least if I assume you mean to be defending Charlston's Steinerian doctrine. His is a doctrine of evolution of the consciousness of the entire race. All you defended is development of individual consciousnesses. This is specious Dobchesky reasoning.

Reply
Francis Berger
8/9/2022 09:03:25

@ johnson j - I assume you mean Dobzhansky because I have no idea who Dobchesky is. If you do, I'm afraid there is not much I can offer in response in terms of specifics. My knowledge of the man's work is very shallow. Having said that, I support his notions more than I would a relatively strict traditionalist like Father Seraphim Rose (even though I find much to respect in Rose).

Words like development, evolution, unfolding all come with their own sets of connotations and associations, which are difficult to disentangle, especially when they are applied to consciousness. This just is. For example, it's difficult for people to disassociate evolution from the Darwin/natural selection. Thus, when people hear about the evolution of consciousness, they immediately connect it to Darwinian notions, but these Darwinian notions fall short because they do not apply to spiritual development over time, which is what the evolution of consciousness is at its core.

I think Steiner is on the right track overall when it comes to freedom and consciousness, but his insistence on affixing precise time frames and eras on the evolution of consciousness at the level of race/mass is misguided in my opinion.

"All you defended is the development of individual consciousness."

And your point is?

So what's your take, johnson j? I've had my finger on the various comments you leave on blogs including mine. You seem to have a knack for rejecting and criticizing, to the point of knowing with certainty who will and will not be damned, but you add very few positive ideas when it comes to your own thoughts on the subjects you criticize.

So, what is your world view? What do you propose?

Reply
johnson j
8/9/2022 19:16:38

Traditionally minded Christians should rebuild their favorite era from the past instead of hoping an institution from then that only nominally continues to exist will be cleaned up. They can compete in it and I can join whichever is best. We can see then which is best if we have all the past eras at once in different places.

ben
8/9/2022 00:02:08

Maybe it works like this:

Modern people are mostly unable and/or unwilling to make reality with themselves, they're unable to breathe life into reality with their thinking, behaviour, orientation, or whatever; in fact they increasingly do purposive evil that has a reality-draining effect on the world. The inadequate nature that underlies all this is carried over from pre-mortal existence.

This leaves them in a suffocating world bereft of reality. In this situation, they're freer than their better ancestors. Freer in that there's no deeply imposed way of being, no 'participation'. They're left to create themselves, individually. Many choose to submit to obvious evil that's presented by the people around them or the mass media. The mass media and peer group culture are pervasive but don't impose deeply. There is internal escape if a person so chooses, unlike historically where a person would be 'made' by their society maybe without even realising it. The world used to fill people without their awareness of it, now people are immersed in a sea that they must continuously consent to allowing into themselves.

So it's more like a devolution in which a mass of souls have incarnated that don't sustain the conditions necessary for participation, and they need to learn their way to participation, if they're at all interested.

Just some thoughts.

Reply
Francis Berger
8/9/2022 08:36:19

@ ben - Yes. Well said. That approaches the heart of the matter. Orientation is a good way of putting it.

Reply
Anti-Gnostic
8/9/2022 04:05:20

I know one Orthodox Christian who gave up on Orthodoxy after a thorough reading the New Testament and related scriptures and concluding that the Apostles sincerely believed Jesus was returning in their lifetime and that belief hopelessly tainted their teachings. I haven't studied the New Testament in that depth, and eschatology is not really a "tipping point" with me so I don't know.

Another Orthodox friend relates how so many of his Evangelical Boomer-Gen X peers are crestfallen that the Lord has not returned in their lifetimes.

An esteemed family member told me he never really thought for the future because he always thought the Lord would come back first. His prolonged death was rather "secular" for lack of a better way to put it. I can't provide additional detail publicly.

I relate this to say, there is a bias in Christianity toward eschatology and gnosticism. I recall a non-believer telling me his impression of Christians was they should just all kill themselves so they could immediately and enjoyably experience experience the Divine revelation and free up earthly resources in charity to others.The highest and best fate of Christians would seemingly be to watch your wife and daughter raped by the infidels before you and your son have your throats slit. This is contrary to every healthy human instinct: we want not just to survive but to thrive. What is the point of a religion that preaches suffering and death as some sort of tollhouse to theosis? Indeed, the prime directive at that point would seem to be getting rid of the tollhouse.

Some other experience of Christianity as "being" would seem to be in order. But I wouldn't even know where to start.

Reply
Francis Berger
8/9/2022 08:57:45

@ Anti-Gnostic - A negative obsession with eschatological matters is deeply anti-Christian and reveals a complete misunderstanding about what mortal life is supposed to be "about". And the purpose of mortal life is too simple to require deep dives into Gnosticism.

I sense Christians have lost all meaningful comprehension of what it means to "overcome the world". "The highest and best fate of Christians" that you mention is now the official platform of nearly all forms of organized Christianity, which helps explain why I am so adamant about personal discernment when it comes to churches.

Having said that, a purely of this world, Deus Vult, let's kick everyone's ass and reinstall a medieval form of external Christendom where everyone just shuts up and bows down unquestionably to the spiritual authority of churches offers no meaningful solution in the long-run. Sure, it might be better at first, especially compared to what we have now, but I doubt it would be tenable even if it were possible, primarily because of the development of consciousness.

Whether they care to admit it or not, I get the sense that some of the biggest proponents of the feudal fealty model would be the most resistant to it and the least successful at it were it ever re-implemented.

I think the step we need to take now is to get Christianity out of the sphere of objectification and re-examine it at a deeply personal level. First things first.

Reply
Anti-Gnostic
8/9/2022 16:46:19

Your points are well-taken. I used to talk about monarchy but of course, the Mandate of Heaven no longer exists. It's like I tell people, despite their hysterical denunciations, we couldn't be fascist if we wanted to be: the State simply no longer occupies that psychic space in people's heads. I doubt it occupied that space even in most 20th century Germans' heads, and certainly not in Italians' heads.

So with the monarchy: the King, the Father of the First Family of the Families no longer exists. There's no longer any psychic space for a King. That's why the British royal family is so dysfunctional; they're just wealthy celebrities with a particular type of fan club. You already know this, but the Church hierarchs are backing themselves into the same corner.

You're basically talking about a new religion albeit still centered around the historical Christ. And I agree that the founding religion is an all-important first step. I just worry about whether humanity's still in the religion-finding business. For all our sakes I hope we are.

Lady Mermaid link
8/10/2022 03:04:06

As someone who admires the Middle Ages despite a Protestant background, that world where everyone shuts up and bows unquestionably to the Church has never existed. History is filled w/ examples of the Pope and Monarchy being at odds w/ one another despite being on the same path spiritually. Dante had quite a few choice words to say about Pope Boniface VIII and many clergymen in his classic Divine Comedy even though he considered the medieval Church to be divinely ordained.

I firmly agree that Christianity needs to establish first things first and avoid getting entangled in abstract theology that we miss the forest for the trees. A quote from a great medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas comes to mind.

"All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.” (www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stt03002.htm)





bruce charlton
8/9/2022 08:47:42

Thanks for this, Frank. Together with some other interactions, it led to a fairly extensive blog post in which I try to clarify some key concepts - for those prepared at least to *entertain* them for long enough to understand...

https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2022/08/when-in-past-would-you-like-to-have.html

Reply
Francis Berger
8/9/2022 15:15:52

@ Bruce - Much appreciated. I just finished reading your post. Spot on! I'll read it again and comment on it later today.

Reply
Ted link
8/9/2022 15:57:51

I like how Hans Urs von Balthasar saw the mission of the Church:

Like its Lord Jesus, the Church does not win but offers resistance with all its human resources: with its childlikeness in opposition to the world’s false maturity before God; with the sagacity of adulthood, employing all the powers of the Spirit against the spirit that is hostile to God; with the wisdom of age, for which nothing more is needed than “abiding in love”; and particularly with the impotence of the death process, which it can turn into the most powerful witness to the love that transcends all things. “Arming in the Spirit” is quite different from arming in the flesh. The front line in which these weapons are used is likewise very different. Even when they are working together to eradicate suffering, the world is fighting for quality of life, whereas the Church is fighting for salvation. The quality of life and the happiness of the majority are in the forefront, while behind them there is still the un conquered fact of death. Salvation, however, embraces man and the world in their total destiny, which will only achieve fullness beyond time and beyond death. The unity of the world is continually falling apart in death, but the Church’s unity, which adumbrates the unity of the coming Kingdom, gathers up the world’s fragile unity—but in doing so it surrenders itself to that death that its Lord has already overcome.

Hans Urs von Balthasar.

Reply
Francis Berger
8/9/2022 20:48:05

@ Ted - " Even when they are working together to eradicate suffering, the world is fighting for quality of life, whereas the Church is fighting for salvation."

It's a good sentiment, and I would have appreciated it pre-2020, but post-2020 it rings a bit hollow for me.

Reply
Francis Berger
8/9/2022 21:01:11

@ Anti-Gnostic - "You're basically talking about a new religion albeit still centered around the historical Christ. And I agree that the founding religion is an all-important first step. I just worry about whether humanity's still in the religion-finding business. For all our sakes I hope we are."

I see it more as a fulfillment of the religion, but I don't want to split hairs.

The most important thing for me now, personally, is to live the religion without being too concerned about externals. I can still pray, commune with the Holy Spirit, love my wife and family, establish a sense of community with my neighbors, think long and hard about I should be thinking and acting, etc. Granted, it could be better to do all of this immersed in a Christian world, but ours is very much a post-Christian era -- at least for now. But this should not dissuade us from being Christians. On the contrary, it should inspire us to become better, stronger, more courageous, more hopeful Christians.

It all depends on how we approach it. On the one hand, our post-Christian can be seen as a terrible calamity, and it is to some degree. On the other hand, it is also a blessing of sorts. Rarely has it been so simultaneously easy and difficult to be a Christian. Easy because the line separating good and evil is sharper and more distinct than it has ever been. More difficult because the increased awareness and freedom demands honesty and tough choices.

Reply
Francis Berger
8/9/2022 20:43:48

@ johnson j - Thanks. Good. At least now I have an idea of where you are coming from.

Reply
Lady Mermaid link
8/10/2022 02:11:56

This is something that irritates me about historical dramas. Many depictions of the past essentially portray modern people w/ different clothing and less technology. Secular moderns tend to make the same assumption as some traditionalists that everyone in the past was just like us. They think that religion was just a cynical ploy to justify exploitation rather than trying to understand God. Game of Thrones was considered to have a "medieval" worldview, yet the characters acted like middle class Americans playing dress up. Don't get me started on "The Tudors".

While everyone is human, it makes sense that people would be different depending on the era. We already accept that humans physically change. I think there is a misunderstanding as what development means. Some people think that you and Dr. Charlton are adhering to a Whig view of history in which mankind continues to "progress". Anyone familiar w/ your writings in more depth will know that is certainly NOT the case.

I don't consider traditional Christianity, particularly in the West, to be static at all. Interestingly, St. John Henry Newman coined a phrase "development of doctrine" in the 19th century in response to criticism from Anglicans that many Roman practices were not present during the early age of the Church. The Reformation was partly triggered by a desire to return to the "purity" of the first few centuries of Christianity. In fact, this concept of developing doctrine is one factor that still separates the East from the West. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that the fullness of faith was deposited from the beginning. You can see this in the far greater number of Western ecumenical councils compared to the East that still only adheres to 7.

To be honest, I think both the East and the West have valid points. I believe that all that was necessary for salvation was provided to the Church early on and will not change. Complicating salvation led to the tragic schisms that still plague the Church today. However, theosis is not static. Our relationship w/ Christ should be dynamic. I just finished reading the Book of Hebrews in which believers are exhorted to move on from spiritual milk to solid food.

"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire" Gustav Mahler



Reply
Francis Berger
8/10/2022 20:42:39

@ Lady Mermaid - Solid points. Mahler was right; what we need is fire, especially inner fire.

"Some people think that you and Dr. Charlton are adhering to a Whig view of history in which mankind continues to "progress". Anyone familiar w/ your writings in more depth will know that is certainly NOT the case."

I get the sense people read what they want to read, not what's in front of them. Or they don't even bother reading at all and just project stuff. The accusations that have been hurled at Dr. Charlton and me over the past couple of weeks have been something to behold. I've thought about rebutting some of it, but I am more interested in creation than reaction.

Reply
lea
8/12/2022 08:21:26

If the development of consciousness is currently not a real thing, it might be a training exercise for what it might become. Will it lend itself to creation or will it succumb to veiled Steinerian tendencies of the worst kind? The choice is ours.

Reply
Francis Berger
8/12/2022 15:31:44

@ lea - The development of consciousness is a real thing, but it only goes forward by choice (as you note). No choice or wrong choice, and you get regression. Take a look around. The mass of people are already there.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Blog and Comments

    Blog posts tend to be spontaneous, unpolished, first draft entries ranging from the insightful and periodically profound to the poorly-argued and occasionally disparaging.
     

    Comments are moderated. Anonymous comments are never published (please use your name or a pseudonym). 

    Emails welcome:

    f er en c ber g er (at) h otm   ail (dot) co m
    Blogs/Sites I Read
    Bruce Charlton's Notions
    Meeting the Masters
    From The Narrow Desert
    Synlogos ✞ Aggregator
    New World Island  
    New World Island YouTube
    ​Steeple Tea
    Berdyaev.com
    Adam Piggott
    Fourth Gospel Blog
    The Orthosphere
    Junior Ganymede

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012

    Picture
    A free PDF is also available in My Work. 
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.