“FINDING TRANSCENDENCE”
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
The seasons are changing. We call all feel it. Fall is in the air.
Here in
But mystery is there. It is in us observing the leaves, not the
leaves themselves. What happens to us
as we survey the stunning beauty is not – it is an experience, a feeling, full
of transcendence, beyond material explanatioins. What does a soul feel when observing the vast
landscape of flaming reds, oranges and yellow?
To some, it may be a sense of awe concerning the beauty of nature. To others, it may be paying tribute to the
power of nature to control seasons and follow laws. To others it may be a reminder of life=s
passages, the turning of the seasons of life, much as the leaves turn with the
seasons. And to still others, it may be
a dramatic reminder that they are themselves alive, and they watch the process
whereby trees fall asleep and leaves fall in death to nourish the ground. Few people who make the pilgrimage to
What happens to cause the leaves to change color is explainable. What happens to the human being who observes the phenomenon -- what happens to the soul, what happens to the aesthetic person, what happens to the human spirit -- transcends strict physical explanation, transcends any mechanistic understanding, and resides somewhere in the province of mystery and wonder.
Consider for a moment this simple
question: "Why do people seem to
want to visit
All religions aim toward what we call “transcendence” in one form or another. In the Unitarian Universalist tradition, reference to this is made in a document called the “sources” of our Principles. Many of you may be aware of a Statement of Principles, seven in all, that are cited by the by-laws of the Unitarian Universalist Association: including such statements as respect for the inherent dignity of every person and the free and responsible search for truth. Following that list is another list that identifies the “sources” of our principles – where they come from. Such sources include the Christian tradition, the Jewish tradition, and the humanist tradition. One of those “sources” for our principles is identified this way:
The “direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life.@
In a nutshell, this statement refers, I think, to the sense of mystery that underlies nearly all religious philosophies, and that seems to be a fairly universal human experience.
It is probably useful to begin by
getting some kind of a handle on the word Atranscend.@ Useful, but it is not easy. The philosophical root of the word comes from
the work of Immanuel Kant who wrote about what he called the Atranscendental@
philosophy. The religious root, as far
as Unitarians are concerned, is traced to the
In transcendental philosophy, it is argued that the most significant aspects of experience, the most compelling components of life, are subjective in nature and not amenable to objective proof. In other words, our knowledge, or rather the most important parts of our knowledge, comes to us intuitively rather than objectively. We know things because we feel them, not just because we think them.
This simple example – of colorful
leaves in
AThe first sparrow of Spring! The year beginning with younger hope than ever in the growing days of June, when the rills are dry, and from year to year the herds drink at this perennial stream. So our human life but dies down to its root, and still puts forth its green blade to eternity.@
This is a profoundly human response to nature, and it transcends the mere physical experience of it. He speaks of hope expressed by nature, of the human aspiration for eternity that is nourished through the experience of nature. These feelings are imposed on nature by our experience of it, and are captured by the transcendent sense of mystery and wonder.
Whether it is the mountains, or the ocean, or a cornfield, or a flower bed, there is something in the human experience of nature that is more than can be explained solely by the senses -- that transcends mere sense experience. Thoreau described his relationship to nature this way:
AI love the broad margin to my life. Sometimes in a summer morning I sat on my sunny doorway from sunrise till noon, rapt in a revery, amidst the pines and hickories and sumachs, in undisturbed solitude. For the most part I minded not how the hours went -- instead of singing like the birds, I silently smiled at my incessant good fortune.@
Such powerful reactions as described by Thoreau illustrate the deep and universal human experience of transcendent mystery in nature. It illustrates the UUA=s statement concerning the Adirect experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life.@
Encounter with nature is only one example. Other examples are readily available. If you have ever been emotionally attached to a pet, for example -- a dog, a cat, or a goldfish -- you know that your feelings are deeper than can be explained by merely describing the animal.
I recall a friend once had the ugliest dog in the world. ARepulsive@ is probably the most adequate word available. It looks a bit like a giant rat. And yet that dog has brought great joy, warmth, and love to the family. It is hard for me to imagine what the attraction is, but it is impossible for me to deny that the affection between the family and the ugly dog is strong.
Human experiences such as affection and love, whether for a pet or for another human being, are experiences which transcend precise explanation. There is mystery in love and mystery in attraction, and wonder at the power with which it can fill us. It is altogether natural and altogether human, but not altogether explainable.
Most human emotions are attached to experiences that transcend complete understanding. How do we explain joy? What is the source of gratitude? What exactly i it that we have when we say we have Aconfidence@?
When we identify Atranscending mystery and wonder@ as a source of our UU religious tradition, we affirm that universal human feeling which appears to inform all religions of the world. In some religions, the sense of transcendence leads to superstitious explanations of the world, which is true. But it doesn=t need to. In most religions, this sense of transcendence -- the idea of underlying mystery of existence -- leads to a conception of God, or higher power, or unseen spirit, though it doesn=t necessarily have to. In Unitarianism, the sense of transcendence influences thinking in different ways for different people. While in some of us it is the primary source for aesthetic appreciations, in others of us it offers a faith in God, and in others it inspires awe toward the human spirit, and in others it encourages exploration of ideas beyond scientific findings.
For me, the clue to grasping the sense of Atranscending mystery and wonder@ can be found in the notion of Asubjectivity,@ which is explored in an ancient philosophical dilemma. I have long been fascinated by what philosophers and theologians have for centuries called Athe mind/body problem.@ Now I know Unitarians well enough to know that many of you will be thinking as I discuss the Amind/body@ problem:
AWhat do you mean by >problem.=? We have a mind, and we have a body. So what's the problem?@
It=s a fair question. The problem is actually one that approaches the heart of religious inquiry, for it has us ponder not only the fundamental question, AWho am I,@ but it can also challenge some of our values concerning the worth and dignity of every person.
The problem begins with the mind: we don=t know what it is. No one has ever seen a mind, or put it in a test tube. Though the human brain can be dissected, and its parts can be identified and catalogued, it only gives us a dim understanding of what is in that person=s mind. Here are some of the contents of the mind:
* The choices made in life,
* The feelings felt,
* The joys and sadnesses,
* The aspirations and frustrations.
All of these are hidden, invisible contents of the mind. That which is hidden and invisible is the stuff of transcendence.
To think that by dissecting a brain we can know the contents of the mind is a little like saying that by taking inventory of the parts of a car engine, we can know all the places the car has traveled.
In a book on the relationship between art and physics, Leonard Shlain told of a great neurosurgeon, Wilder Penfield, who spent decades mapping regions of the brain. Shlain says of Penfield:
AHe was constantly on the lookout for the hiding place of the mind, trying to identify the precise anatomical location that wills action. He never did discover it and was forced to conclude that he could not be sure if the brain and mind were as intimately attached as the materialists would have had him believe.@
ASo what=s the problem?@ some of you may still be asking. Hold on for just a minute. There is more groundwork to be laid.
Our modern technological advances have made the question even more perplexing. Is the mind the same thing as intelligence? The development of computers has nudged quite a number of people to run around asking some peculiar questions about the mind and about intelligence.
Can machines Athink,@ for example? An entire scientific field called Aartificial intelligence@ explores this question, and the answers are often stunning. Yes, machines can think, if by that we mean they can analyze a problem or make rational choices based on criteria we supply. In fact, some machines can Athink@ (if by Athinking@ we mean raw intelligence of thought) far more deeply, and certainly much faster, than any human being can think.
Artificial intelligence, as I understand it with my own imperfect intelligence, is far more than just a super computer program. These are machines that can design their own problems and construct their own projects. They are able to raise questions, even answer questions, that we may never have thought of without them.
Artificial intelligence is real, and it is impressive, but there is much more to the mind than intelligence, for we would all, I suspect, agree that a machine with Aartificial intelligence is not the same thing as a machine with a mind. Obviously, intelligence is a very vital part of what we mean when we talk about Athe mind,@ but intelligence alone doesn=t describe a person=s mental make-up, or even the soundness of a person=s mind.
Take government policies, for example. Minds are used to design policies about whether to go to war, to what extent welfare should be offered to the poor, and whether health insurance should be guaranteed. In formulating policies, intelligence will take us far, very far, and will be essential. But decisions about what kind of welfare program we should have, or whether we should pursue a war, is also a question of values and a question of will. Some say we lost the Vietnam war because of our failure of will. Others say it was because of our failure of values. Some say both. Few would say the war was lost because our leaders lacked intelligence.
At home we hear criticism of policies designed as Asocial engineering.@ Those who criticize social engineering are saying in part, I think, that policy requires not just intelligence, but also choices around values. Human values and human will are as integral to the human mind as is intelligence.
Subjectivity involves that patterns so interconnected with feelings that artificial objective intelligence can’t touch. Subjectivity allows for feelings of shame, for example, or hope. I allows for excitement or angst. It allows for a sense of justice and a disgust for injustice.
The debate still continues about whether the mind is really something more than just the neurological circuits of the brain. At a science lecture, I once heard a noted expert argue just that. The mind, she said, is nothing but the human nervous system in the brain. There is no Amind/body@ problem because the mind and matter are the same thing. The mind is the matter that constitutes the brain. While we may not fully understand how it is that neuro-electric impulses in the brain cause us to get a lump in the throat when we hear a certain song, or cause us to feel content with life or anxious about death, the fact is that we need not look for any explanation beyond the hardware that makes up the brain. I am not convinced.
We identify a person with his or her mind, and ask whether that person, that mind, is something more than the sum of its parts. Is a Aperson@ more than just the matter that makes up the person, the physical body, which includes the brain? When we say that we honor Athe worth and dignity@ of a person, are we paying homage simply to this collection of molecules above other collections of molecules, or do we feel that there is something unique in a person that is greater than the molecules that constitute it?
Centuries ago, when this question was asked by Rene Descartes, the answer was very strong and deliberate: we are our minds, our consciousness. That mind is non-physical, is not matter. We are in fact trapped inside a body, which is our body, but the body is not really us. The mind exists in a way that matter does not exist. The mind cannot be explained in terms of matter, and therefore matter cannot tell us much about who we really are. Only the mind does that.
But Cartesian dualism -- separating the mind from matter -- has been largely abandoned over the last century. It has been abandoned because we know more about the hardware of the mind than we used to, and there are obvious connections between mind and the matter of the brain. Drugs and brain surgery can alter how we think. The brain responds to chemical stimulants which affect our mental responses. Many behavioral abnormalities that were for a long time considered to be mental illnesses are now described as brain chemical imbalances, and can be treated adequately with psychotropic drugs – notwithstanding the scientific findings of Tom Cruise.
And it isn=t just the brain that affects the mind. Genetic characteristics can be evident in thought and behavior. Sleep deprivation influences how we think. Even the weather has its impact on our moods and mental outlook.
So the mind cannot be separated from material brain, as Descartes argued. Yet the opposite is equally problematic. It is also a mistake to argue -- as the speaker I heard argued -- that the mind is reducible to, is nothing more than, brain matter. One problem with equating mind with matter is that it leaves precious little room for subjectivity.
Subjectivity, I believe, is the essence of human personhood. It means how we, as individuals, interpret an experience. It is the source of human individuality. It is that which makes me different from you. Do you like country music or classical music? Each person=s response is subjective. Are you afraid of heights, or do you get exhilarated by looking down from windows of a tall building? Either response is a subjective response. Does patriotism mean supporting this country whether right or wrong, or does patriotism mean correcting the country when it does wrong? It depends on your point of view.
Subjectivity means Apoint of view,@ often in a literal sense. If you see a police car approaching, what you feel when you see it will be different if you are a criminal or if you are a victim of crime.
We don=t really know what the mind is, and the debate continues. To me, the answer that makes most sense is that the mind is subjectivity. It is because our experiences are unique that the world often feels mysterious, and it is because our experiences are unique that we can make the world have meaning that transcends the simple encounter of matter.
To be fully human is not just to exist, like a tree or a rabbit, but it is to live with some sense, however faint, that life can have meaning and purpose that transcends raw experience of matter. To be fully human is to engage the mind, not just about how the world works, but how we can make it work better for us.
Finding transcendence means nurturing our ability to feel about the world, not just think about it. It means finding personal meaning in natural things.
Perhaps one of the most common examples of transcendence is how we consider the stars. It is easy to look at a star and think of it as another burning sun far away in the universe. But a subjective view of the stars means that it has personal significance. Consider these words from Emerson, the opening lines of his most famous essay, his essay on “Nature”:
"If a person would be alone, let that person look at the stars. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design: to give us, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how we would adore them, but every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile. The stars awaken a certain reverence, because, though always present, they are inaccessible."
Finding transcendence means looking at the stars and seeing not just a cosmic phenomenon but something that makes your life more complete.
To be fully human is to love something like freedom, which transcends matter, and to respect the dignity of others, which is a mystery our senses don=t reveal. To be fully human is to engage in ethical dilemmas, and to marvel at the wonder of such concepts as Atruth.@ To view the world subjectively is to bring into your life the love of freedom, the respect for dignity, and the quest for truth. Freedom, dignity, and truth are all subjective ideas -- they exist only from a particular point of view. None of them exists as an object, and all of them transcend sense experience. The mystery and the wonder of these become the content of religious faith.
Religion is about renewing the human spirit, and renewal comes through direct experience of transcendence in life. It is an affirmation of our subjective self, of our ability to go beyond the material and touch the soul.
Anyone who views the beauty of a hillside of colored leaves in the Fall, anyone who is attached to a pet, anyone who enjoys music, anyone who feels sadness, anyone who feels at all, has encountered one facet of transcendence. If any of that is not the source for religious vision, I don=t know what is.
The living tradition we share as Unitarian Universalist draws heavily on this source: direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life.