General Forum
This group is for general conversations.
Organizer:
- Organised by
- No Organizers
Reply To: Dr Mark Vernon's talk, A Revolution in Attention
-
Thanks for an interesting reply Don
Before I read IMG Marilynne Robinson’s Terry Lectures published as “Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self“. A central dogma of Christianity has always been the resurrection of the body and Christians have never believed in a ‘separate immaterial (superior) invisible self (soul)’ – Robinson’s views are orthodox that a dualistic view has never been an element of Christianity. I knew I couldn’t do Robinson justice so I asked Bing to summarise her views on the soul and compare them to Buddhist views…..
“Marilynne Robinson is a novelist and essayist who delivered the Terry lectures at Yale University in 2009. Her lectures were published as a book titled Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self<sup>1</sup>.
- In her lectures, Robinson argues against the positivist view of science as the only reliable source of truth and the reductionist view of human nature as nothing more than a bundle of genes, neurons, and hormones. She criticizes the “hermeneutics of condescension” that dismisses the human mind as an illusion and a cultural construct<sup>1</sup>.
- Robinson defends the value and dignity of the human mind as a source of creativity, curiosity, wonder, and spirituality. She also explores the role of religion and faith in shaping human consciousness and culture. She draws on various sources, such as literature, history, philosophy, and theology, to challenge the modern myth of the self1.
- Robinson does not explicitly define what she means by the soul, but she seems to use it interchangeably with the mind or consciousness. She does not subscribe to a dualistic view of the soul as separate from the body, but rather sees it as an emergent property of the complex interactions between matter and energy<sup>1</sup>.
- Buddhism, on the other hand, rejects the idea of an eternal soul or self (atman) that is independent of the body and that transmigrates after death. Buddhism teaches the doctrine of no-self (anatta), which means that all phenomena, including the mind and consciousness, are impermanent, interdependent, and empty of inherent essence“
- So Soul = emergent property of matter and energy
- or ’empty of inherent essence’
- It seems to me that both are true but IMG is to be preferred in seeing ‘soul’ not as a ‘thing’ (empty of essence, neither matter nor energy) but a ‘betweenness of mind created by a sharing of consciousness (so Robinson “seems to use it interchangeably with the mind or consciousness.”). Am I right here?).