If a Body Meet a Body, Can a Body Die?
A reflection on the bodies of others as doorways
to their soul.
Maybe it's just me. So I have to ask you to
reflect on this. It's kind of personal. Did you ever have a love affair with
someone? 'Cause if you never did, you may not know what I am talking about.
It seems to me that when you're really in love with someone, or even if you are in a loving relationship that has evolved out of the "in love" stage, this contact of bodies, with all its attendant satisfaction, is one big way that souls (read conscious beings) communicate. I have had several love affairs in my life as well as at least three committed relationship of some kind or other. One of the things I noticed about these relationships is that—quite apart from any sex act itself—there was a kind of attraction of bodies involved. Like, we slept with our bodies in contact, or sat on the couch in an embrace watching TV, or held hands at the beach, or stood with our arms around each others shoulder.
What I would like to propose for your reflection is this. This attraction of bodies in a loving relationship that I am speaking of is a mutual giving of two conscious beings that involves the willing incorporation of another's body into the other's being. That's what you are sensing when your body is in contact with your lover's body: another conscious being's willingness to share their body with you. When this phenomenon is mutual, it is one of nature's most beautiful and comforting things. When it is not mutual, it is the stuff of which rejecting and spurned lovers are made.
So far, I haven't said anything that someone who has been in love would not more or less agree with, and perhaps some others, too. On the other hand, I am beginning to recognize that I am (for better or worse) a dualist—that is, I think the universe is composed of (at least) two kinds of stuff, matter and consciousness. Consciousness has emerged from matter, or perhaps evolved beyond a rudimentary form, to the point where it doesn't obey exactly the laws of physics, or at least the laws of macro-level physics. To use a Christian phrase, consciousness is in the world but not of it. Consciousness is a point of view, an observer's version of the world, past, present and yet to come.
Earlier attempts at dualism, such as the Cartesian attempt, will not work because they explain the relationship between mind and matter by positing a "ghost in the machine." However, the reductionist's approach, e.g. the behaviorist or the program of logical empiricism, is not satisfactory either, since it denies that consciousness is a different order of reality. Many of us believe that we can plainly access this order of reality. And in fact, today the domain of consciousness studies is hard at work trying to build a more successful theory that accounts for the apparent dualism: matter and consciousness.
But back to the body thing again. I want to draw a parallel between the incorporation of bodies in the lover phenomenon, on the one hand, and the incorporation of Christ's body that is the center of the Christian eucharist. This is going to take some development, but I am up to the task. And I write as a progressive Christian, one not necessarily wedded to a literal interpretation of any of the articles of Christian faith, rather I write as an evolving Christian in an evolving Christianity.
For those that have never been in love, say some young adolescents, one of their primary learning tasks has been to develop a theory of the limits of their effectiveness in this world. Part of this journey involves the development of their own body image, with all its attendant challenges and frustrations. One way to look at adolescence is that it is a stage where we begin to learn how incorporate the body of another into a new life where the life plans of two people somehow get joined, yet remain independent. The divorce rate, promiscuous lifestyles, broken hearts and damaged lives show how difficult is this task. Yet a few do learn how to do it. It is some kind of surrender of two egos to one another, yet in a successful union, it is more like the creation of a new, more complex conscious being with attendant benefits and sacrifices.
I need to digress here on the body's significance for consciousness. We could accomplish nothing without a body. Try to imagine it, it seems to be impossible. Every action you can think of is executed by somebody, and the sum total of the actions of a body (what a life history purports to record), as Sartre pointed out, becomes the essence of that body. The point being that while the dualist claims there is both consciousness and matter, the body is actually a somewhat constructed entity. It is matter but it is the embodiment of the plans of a conscious being. We see the matter, but we cannot so easily see the embodied plan, that is more a matter of comprehension or understanding, and is subject to all the attendant errors of knowing something.
In a successful coupling, where two give over their bodies to each other (with some limits to be sure), there are many ways in which a more complex consciousness is enabled. The virtues of patience, negotiation, pride in another, and many others have a chance to develop beyond those possible in the solitary ego. Understood in this way, as an opportunity for growth beyond a solitary consciousness, the sacrament of marriage makes quite good sense. It is just the Church's official recognition and promotion of a potential gift that the right two people have to give to each other.
In an earlier time it was quite common for men and women to feel called to the Church, and indeed to become married to Christ. I know that this is the kind of lifestyle that gives many contemporary people the heebie jeebies, to use the Billy DeBeck depression era phrase. However, I think there is something important here. What gives progressive Christians the creeps is not the essential idea of entering into a sacramental relationship to God, it is the scary and even offensive ideas of original sin, self-denigration and denial, literal virgin births, and the idea that living conventional married lives is somehow inferior. I think we can take a new look at the eucharist as a marriage-to-God-like sacrament without carrying all that other excess creepy baggage. Just like the newly retired travelers, it takes some time to learn to travel light.
Go ahead, make a joke of it. So what is this new Christianity Lite of which I speak? Well, let's start with Paul, but we will have to leave him to get there from here. Paul had a conversion experience and it left him with the firm belief that Jesus was divine. He went to study with Peter and James for a couple of weeks, and they didn't tell him anything that didn't reinforce his conviction. They, too, in some sense, believed that this Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah. Jesus himself no doubt bought the idea that he was the Messiah. But, let's face it, Christians, after age 33, no one ever saw Jesus in his pre-ressurection body. We can dicker about whether he died or he is risen, but that body, human in every way, was no longer present for us to interact with. The Church says that Jesus ascended.
Who are we today, we followers of Jesus? Well, most Christian churches will tell you in various ways that we are the body of Christ, his hands and eyes in the world. That boils down to the fact that this Way of Forgivness, this love of neighbor (including Iraq, Iran, Cuba and a few other places), this devotion to God is supposed to be shining out of our consciousness in our perception and our deeds. We have taken Christ's body as our own. Put aside the sexual connotation, that is excess baggage, we have taken Jesus Christ as our lover. The consciousness of Christ that started in the Torah, evolved through the Prophets, and, in the form of Jesus Christ, inspired Paul, Peter and James, is now the consciousness that inspires us. This is what the Episcopal Church which I belong to celebrates in the eucharistic feast. As we receive the bread and wine we solidify our commitment to be Christ's body in the world. Through this action, we give Jesus Christ eternal life. Christ is risen. Pass it on.
It seems to me that when you're really in love with someone, or even if you are in a loving relationship that has evolved out of the "in love" stage, this contact of bodies, with all its attendant satisfaction, is one big way that souls (read conscious beings) communicate. I have had several love affairs in my life as well as at least three committed relationship of some kind or other. One of the things I noticed about these relationships is that—quite apart from any sex act itself—there was a kind of attraction of bodies involved. Like, we slept with our bodies in contact, or sat on the couch in an embrace watching TV, or held hands at the beach, or stood with our arms around each others shoulder.
What I would like to propose for your reflection is this. This attraction of bodies in a loving relationship that I am speaking of is a mutual giving of two conscious beings that involves the willing incorporation of another's body into the other's being. That's what you are sensing when your body is in contact with your lover's body: another conscious being's willingness to share their body with you. When this phenomenon is mutual, it is one of nature's most beautiful and comforting things. When it is not mutual, it is the stuff of which rejecting and spurned lovers are made.
So far, I haven't said anything that someone who has been in love would not more or less agree with, and perhaps some others, too. On the other hand, I am beginning to recognize that I am (for better or worse) a dualist—that is, I think the universe is composed of (at least) two kinds of stuff, matter and consciousness. Consciousness has emerged from matter, or perhaps evolved beyond a rudimentary form, to the point where it doesn't obey exactly the laws of physics, or at least the laws of macro-level physics. To use a Christian phrase, consciousness is in the world but not of it. Consciousness is a point of view, an observer's version of the world, past, present and yet to come.
Earlier attempts at dualism, such as the Cartesian attempt, will not work because they explain the relationship between mind and matter by positing a "ghost in the machine." However, the reductionist's approach, e.g. the behaviorist or the program of logical empiricism, is not satisfactory either, since it denies that consciousness is a different order of reality. Many of us believe that we can plainly access this order of reality. And in fact, today the domain of consciousness studies is hard at work trying to build a more successful theory that accounts for the apparent dualism: matter and consciousness.
But back to the body thing again. I want to draw a parallel between the incorporation of bodies in the lover phenomenon, on the one hand, and the incorporation of Christ's body that is the center of the Christian eucharist. This is going to take some development, but I am up to the task. And I write as a progressive Christian, one not necessarily wedded to a literal interpretation of any of the articles of Christian faith, rather I write as an evolving Christian in an evolving Christianity.
For those that have never been in love, say some young adolescents, one of their primary learning tasks has been to develop a theory of the limits of their effectiveness in this world. Part of this journey involves the development of their own body image, with all its attendant challenges and frustrations. One way to look at adolescence is that it is a stage where we begin to learn how incorporate the body of another into a new life where the life plans of two people somehow get joined, yet remain independent. The divorce rate, promiscuous lifestyles, broken hearts and damaged lives show how difficult is this task. Yet a few do learn how to do it. It is some kind of surrender of two egos to one another, yet in a successful union, it is more like the creation of a new, more complex conscious being with attendant benefits and sacrifices.
I need to digress here on the body's significance for consciousness. We could accomplish nothing without a body. Try to imagine it, it seems to be impossible. Every action you can think of is executed by somebody, and the sum total of the actions of a body (what a life history purports to record), as Sartre pointed out, becomes the essence of that body. The point being that while the dualist claims there is both consciousness and matter, the body is actually a somewhat constructed entity. It is matter but it is the embodiment of the plans of a conscious being. We see the matter, but we cannot so easily see the embodied plan, that is more a matter of comprehension or understanding, and is subject to all the attendant errors of knowing something.
In a successful coupling, where two give over their bodies to each other (with some limits to be sure), there are many ways in which a more complex consciousness is enabled. The virtues of patience, negotiation, pride in another, and many others have a chance to develop beyond those possible in the solitary ego. Understood in this way, as an opportunity for growth beyond a solitary consciousness, the sacrament of marriage makes quite good sense. It is just the Church's official recognition and promotion of a potential gift that the right two people have to give to each other.
In an earlier time it was quite common for men and women to feel called to the Church, and indeed to become married to Christ. I know that this is the kind of lifestyle that gives many contemporary people the heebie jeebies, to use the Billy DeBeck depression era phrase. However, I think there is something important here. What gives progressive Christians the creeps is not the essential idea of entering into a sacramental relationship to God, it is the scary and even offensive ideas of original sin, self-denigration and denial, literal virgin births, and the idea that living conventional married lives is somehow inferior. I think we can take a new look at the eucharist as a marriage-to-God-like sacrament without carrying all that other excess creepy baggage. Just like the newly retired travelers, it takes some time to learn to travel light.
Go ahead, make a joke of it. So what is this new Christianity Lite of which I speak? Well, let's start with Paul, but we will have to leave him to get there from here. Paul had a conversion experience and it left him with the firm belief that Jesus was divine. He went to study with Peter and James for a couple of weeks, and they didn't tell him anything that didn't reinforce his conviction. They, too, in some sense, believed that this Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah. Jesus himself no doubt bought the idea that he was the Messiah. But, let's face it, Christians, after age 33, no one ever saw Jesus in his pre-ressurection body. We can dicker about whether he died or he is risen, but that body, human in every way, was no longer present for us to interact with. The Church says that Jesus ascended.
Who are we today, we followers of Jesus? Well, most Christian churches will tell you in various ways that we are the body of Christ, his hands and eyes in the world. That boils down to the fact that this Way of Forgivness, this love of neighbor (including Iraq, Iran, Cuba and a few other places), this devotion to God is supposed to be shining out of our consciousness in our perception and our deeds. We have taken Christ's body as our own. Put aside the sexual connotation, that is excess baggage, we have taken Jesus Christ as our lover. The consciousness of Christ that started in the Torah, evolved through the Prophets, and, in the form of Jesus Christ, inspired Paul, Peter and James, is now the consciousness that inspires us. This is what the Episcopal Church which I belong to celebrates in the eucharistic feast. As we receive the bread and wine we solidify our commitment to be Christ's body in the world. Through this action, we give Jesus Christ eternal life. Christ is risen. Pass it on.
Posted: Thu - May 25, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
My Websites
Jim Andris' Personal Website
Jim Andris' Genealogy
Of Course It's Boring, Idiot
Friends of Scott Joplin
Grapevine
Zander's Zecrets
Jim Andris' Genealogy
Of Course It's Boring, Idiot
Friends of Scott Joplin
Grapevine
Zander's Zecrets
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 22, 2008 01:32 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 22, 2008 01:32 PM