From 1999 to 2001, I was preoccupied with the signs of the end of Western culture. In the age of the Internet, and the age of religiously inspired terrorism, is there any future for humanism, a short lived way of thinking that Western intellectuals assumed would overthrow religious 'superstition' and lead us into a future of reason and freedom. The essay below was written in 2001 and is still relevant. As you will see, I was strongly critical of what has come to be called humanism: not because it was a bad idea, but because it was an essential innovation that was seriously bodged. The high art, music and poetry of the renaissance had become the drivel with which we 'entertain' ourselves and there is NO FUTURE along that road.
---
What is humanism, is it over, and where are we going? Humanism is a way of thinking that sprung up in the renaissance, under the influence of certain writers, artists and self-publicists. It succeded in overthrowing the old order of Christian Europe, and is also involved in the rise of Protestant culture.
ts prime tenets are so ingrained in European and American culture, that we may forget how shocking they originally were. For example, the human being is now considered as almost divine: able to dispense with nature as he pleases, no longer needing hierarchy or direction. Instead of the musty old world of Church, we have the sciences and arts. The place formerly occupied by Jesus Christ is now taken by the great 'creators': the self-absorbed poets, painters, philosophers.
As well as taking the place of true spirituality, this also led to a false attitude to reality. No meal can just be enjoyed gratefully: we have to make a new religion out of eating, cookery programmes, celebrity chefs etc. Likewise with sex. We have to talk about it, have cultural figures pronounce on it endlessly. This leads to the despising of ordinary reality, the ceaseless desire for fantasy whilst 'someone else' takes care of the boring essentials.
But in the 20th century, a serious reaction to this way of thinking took place; more than anything else, the catastrophe of Nazism may have prompted awareness of the depths of human evil. Further, we have realised how close our human creativity and science has come to destroying the very environment that makes our existence possible. In conjunction with feminism, this has given rise to a very dangerous alternative to humanism: a guilt-ridden back-to-nature sentiment. As the parallel of the hysterical reaction of sensitive men to feminism, (some of whom really felt that they should suffer for all the harm done by all men at all times), there are those who seem to want nature to take revenge on humanity. Such phenomena as paganism attest to the growth of a modern, spurious 'nature-worship'. Of course, such people are usually well-off urbanites with no knowledge whatsoever of the country, or how hard life is without mechanical comforts, or how dangerous and impersonal nature in "Herself" is.
Self-hating Nature worship is indeed confused, but it is an understandable response to 4 centuries of human-centred dementia and subjective excess. But we shouldn't want to return to any religion in the old sense: especially one based in fantasy. For all their faults, the semitic religions had an ethic that made society viable. And the Classical pantheons of course which had mother figures were of course led by male beings. (In ancient times, the male physical, warrior strength was the bottom-line; only our technological culture hides from us that men have invented the machines to render them obsolete). The modern "nature-worship" is a sick romantic invention. Instead, let us understand nature, and the cosmos.
The prime sin of secular science was its ignorance of the spiritual world. Of course, we have had natural science ever since ancient Greece, but it is only in recent centuries that the illusion that everything was dead and calculable arose.
SO WHAT NOW?
Draw energy away from the great arts-conspiracy which supports humanistic illusion and takes away the true roots of human self-esteem.
Remind people that science doesn't know. Deglamorise computers and the borg.
Promulgate the ordered spiritual path.
Keep reality as reality, stopping too much spillage of reality into fantasy: otherwise people drown in illusion. Understand this reality first.
Healthy sensuality is the 'launch-pad'.
All this can be summed up as banishing the pseudo-divinity with which we've been fooling ourselves. Then we let writing, socialising be what they are: ordinary, worldy things, part of our life but no more important than that.
Spirituality needs this too: we can't always be pondering and studying; we need to relax. But "they" don't want us to relax, so they're always glamourising and selling food, relaxation etc.
PITCH
So by all means let us play pop music, relax and entertain ourselves when we're not working. But let's not confuse this with HIGH ART WHICH HAS BECOME A PSEUDO-RELIGION.
Science is in a healthier state than religion or art, culturally. At least there is a vestige of conscience (the root experience of religion) which may yet keep our technological advance within the bounds of sanity.
Religion no longer has much power to give rhythm and peace to people's lives, and that must be restored.
Art exists, and is sick. Supposedly 'low art' like crime & science-fiction is about all that seems worth reading. High Art no longer gives joy or enlightenment. No one knows what art is for, what story-telling is.
So, let us obliterate the 'high art' concept, which is only a scam serving certain privileged individuals. Entertainment is just that, and no worse for it. (And instead of the fake religion of high art, there is genuine religion beyond). 'Art for Art's sake' It is founded in the attempt to obliterate the place of God (replaced by high art) and Nature (synthetic).
But, as long as we keep our human bond of solidarity, we have a chance. This is where the fake-naturism imperils us, all this inhuman and materialistic nonsense about humanity not deserving to exist. This fantasy concept of 'nature' is an invention of solipsistic, post-Cartesian humanity. With pseudo-nostalgia, we imagine a symbiosis that exists 'without us'. We anthropomorphise nature and fail to reach its spirit.
So, this means caution about all 'back to nature' talk. The world doesn't want us to sleep-walk. We could only regard that as slavery. In the spiritual sphere, this means we have to be cautious about over-rating the so called shamanic revival, especially succumbing to the lure of Castaneda's 'second attention'. Do we have any love of life and humanity left, or are we the worst kind of escapist gnostics? Would we rather chose Castaneda's total lack of rejection of science and intellectuality? This is a path, and one that some may follow, but if so it is doubly imperative to assimilate Castaneda's warrior-wisdom and get free of sentiment.
Above all, a spirituality for the future will not be based on belief nor an obsession with weird states of consciousness. Instead the 'proof' of a spirituality worth practising is the mastery gained by following the path and a workable view of life.
James North 2001 revised 2015
---
What is humanism, is it over, and where are we going? Humanism is a way of thinking that sprung up in the renaissance, under the influence of certain writers, artists and self-publicists. It succeded in overthrowing the old order of Christian Europe, and is also involved in the rise of Protestant culture.
ts prime tenets are so ingrained in European and American culture, that we may forget how shocking they originally were. For example, the human being is now considered as almost divine: able to dispense with nature as he pleases, no longer needing hierarchy or direction. Instead of the musty old world of Church, we have the sciences and arts. The place formerly occupied by Jesus Christ is now taken by the great 'creators': the self-absorbed poets, painters, philosophers.
As well as taking the place of true spirituality, this also led to a false attitude to reality. No meal can just be enjoyed gratefully: we have to make a new religion out of eating, cookery programmes, celebrity chefs etc. Likewise with sex. We have to talk about it, have cultural figures pronounce on it endlessly. This leads to the despising of ordinary reality, the ceaseless desire for fantasy whilst 'someone else' takes care of the boring essentials.
But in the 20th century, a serious reaction to this way of thinking took place; more than anything else, the catastrophe of Nazism may have prompted awareness of the depths of human evil. Further, we have realised how close our human creativity and science has come to destroying the very environment that makes our existence possible. In conjunction with feminism, this has given rise to a very dangerous alternative to humanism: a guilt-ridden back-to-nature sentiment. As the parallel of the hysterical reaction of sensitive men to feminism, (some of whom really felt that they should suffer for all the harm done by all men at all times), there are those who seem to want nature to take revenge on humanity. Such phenomena as paganism attest to the growth of a modern, spurious 'nature-worship'. Of course, such people are usually well-off urbanites with no knowledge whatsoever of the country, or how hard life is without mechanical comforts, or how dangerous and impersonal nature in "Herself" is.
Self-hating Nature worship is indeed confused, but it is an understandable response to 4 centuries of human-centred dementia and subjective excess. But we shouldn't want to return to any religion in the old sense: especially one based in fantasy. For all their faults, the semitic religions had an ethic that made society viable. And the Classical pantheons of course which had mother figures were of course led by male beings. (In ancient times, the male physical, warrior strength was the bottom-line; only our technological culture hides from us that men have invented the machines to render them obsolete). The modern "nature-worship" is a sick romantic invention. Instead, let us understand nature, and the cosmos.
The prime sin of secular science was its ignorance of the spiritual world. Of course, we have had natural science ever since ancient Greece, but it is only in recent centuries that the illusion that everything was dead and calculable arose.
SO WHAT NOW?
Draw energy away from the great arts-conspiracy which supports humanistic illusion and takes away the true roots of human self-esteem.
Remind people that science doesn't know. Deglamorise computers and the borg.
Promulgate the ordered spiritual path.
Keep reality as reality, stopping too much spillage of reality into fantasy: otherwise people drown in illusion. Understand this reality first.
Healthy sensuality is the 'launch-pad'.
All this can be summed up as banishing the pseudo-divinity with which we've been fooling ourselves. Then we let writing, socialising be what they are: ordinary, worldy things, part of our life but no more important than that.
Spirituality needs this too: we can't always be pondering and studying; we need to relax. But "they" don't want us to relax, so they're always glamourising and selling food, relaxation etc.
PITCH
So by all means let us play pop music, relax and entertain ourselves when we're not working. But let's not confuse this with HIGH ART WHICH HAS BECOME A PSEUDO-RELIGION.
Science is in a healthier state than religion or art, culturally. At least there is a vestige of conscience (the root experience of religion) which may yet keep our technological advance within the bounds of sanity.
Religion no longer has much power to give rhythm and peace to people's lives, and that must be restored.
Art exists, and is sick. Supposedly 'low art' like crime & science-fiction is about all that seems worth reading. High Art no longer gives joy or enlightenment. No one knows what art is for, what story-telling is.
So, let us obliterate the 'high art' concept, which is only a scam serving certain privileged individuals. Entertainment is just that, and no worse for it. (And instead of the fake religion of high art, there is genuine religion beyond). 'Art for Art's sake' It is founded in the attempt to obliterate the place of God (replaced by high art) and Nature (synthetic).
But, as long as we keep our human bond of solidarity, we have a chance. This is where the fake-naturism imperils us, all this inhuman and materialistic nonsense about humanity not deserving to exist. This fantasy concept of 'nature' is an invention of solipsistic, post-Cartesian humanity. With pseudo-nostalgia, we imagine a symbiosis that exists 'without us'. We anthropomorphise nature and fail to reach its spirit.
So, this means caution about all 'back to nature' talk. The world doesn't want us to sleep-walk. We could only regard that as slavery. In the spiritual sphere, this means we have to be cautious about over-rating the so called shamanic revival, especially succumbing to the lure of Castaneda's 'second attention'. Do we have any love of life and humanity left, or are we the worst kind of escapist gnostics? Would we rather chose Castaneda's total lack of rejection of science and intellectuality? This is a path, and one that some may follow, but if so it is doubly imperative to assimilate Castaneda's warrior-wisdom and get free of sentiment.
Above all, a spirituality for the future will not be based on belief nor an obsession with weird states of consciousness. Instead the 'proof' of a spirituality worth practising is the mastery gained by following the path and a workable view of life.
James North 2001 revised 2015