Joining The Dots - Day 2 (Audio)

Because first of all, it's never unverifiable; the data doesn't exist, and that's not the meaning of the story. The story is not about two historical figures; the story is about an explanation of the human condition, a much different kind of story. Myths are there about meaning, so these are to answer these kinds of questions: what is now? What is the world like that we're living in? What should the world be like? In other words, how are things at the moment? Do we like it or don't we like it? And then also, how should it be? To what ends should we be moving? These are not questions that science can answer; they are not scientific questions. Therefore, how should we act in order to transform the present state in which we're living? You may feel like, okay, my reality is I'm living in hell. Do I like living in hell? Not very much. How do I think life should be? Oh, something very different. Okay, how do I get from A to B?

This is a very different kind of question and a very different kind of answer. This is from Jordan Peterson; he has lots of little helpful diagrams like that. The way things are, the unbearable present, what should be, the ideal future, and a planned sequence of behaviour: how to get from here to here. All we need to do is figure out how we need to think and how we need to behave to create a different kind of society. The tiger is a little picture I often use when I'm teaching the harp workshops; it's quite helpful. Science focuses on explaining the physical dimension of reality: how do things work? Religion focuses on explaining the spiritual. I mentioned a little story here: there's a little boy who comes in, finds the kettle boiling in the kitchen, and asks his big brother, who's a science major, why the kettle is boiling. Big Brother gives a long explanation about how gas is formed from rotting organic vegetation under the sea, how it's all been piped, and how lighting the gas, oxygen, and methane generates heat, etc. Our little boy is totally mystified. Anyway, the mum comes into the kitchen, and he says to mum, why is the kettle boiling? She says, it's tea time. Two answers, both of them are correct, but they're different answers to different kinds of questions. So that's similar to the difference in science and myth.

The reality is, whether we like it or not, even though sometimes people think we can live without myth, a lot of people think, well, this is the age of science; we don't need religion anymore, we don't need to have myths anymore. We just need to have facts and follow the facts, follow the science. But the reality, as Jordan Peterson says, is that the individual cannot live without beliefs, without action and valuation. In other words, without deciding to do something. And what do we decide to do? That's based upon the values that we have. We might decide to do this or decide to do that depending upon our values, which goes back to what our beliefs are. Science cannot provide that belief. Other myths we've turned to since have been more sophisticated, less dangerous, and more complete than those we rejected. In the secular world, which you mentioned yesterday, a lot of people rejected the Christian myth and Christianity and religion and just want to have secular knowledge and everything to be secular now. Bringing God into things, the ideological structures that dominated social relations in the 20th century appear no less absurd on the face of it than the older belief systems they supplanted. They'll act in addition to any of the incomprehensible mystery that necessarily remains a part of generally artistic and creative production.

It's a really important aspect that some things just are incomprehensible and mysterious and unable to be expressed or described using science. This is the origin of a lot of artistic creative production. The fundamental propositions of fascism and communism were rational, logical, stateable, comprehensible, and terribly wrong. No great ideological struggle presently tears at the soul of the world. It is difficult to believe we've outgrown gullibility. You look at the date 1999; the following year was 9/11, and this huge rise of Islamism, one of the ideological struggles tearing the world apart. Then also the rise of identity politics and gender politics again tearing society apart in Europe and Britain. Huge ideological struggles about the European Union and Brexit, and I think we're in the middle of a struggle at the moment caused by the coronavirus: how to respond to the coronavirus. Again, that's an ideological thing. People often say we're just following the science, but that's dishonest. Basically, people are making political decisions about what to do, and some of these issues are good ones and some are bad. It's really important to understand the nature of reality in order to be able to make a distinction and to have a good understanding of how things work.

Nietzsche, I forgot to put his name down here, was very perceptive. Whatever people think of him, he was one of the most profound thinkers of the 19th century in his analysis of the way that Christian Europe was decaying. He says when you give up Christian belief, you prize oneself of the right to Christian morality. Christianity is a consistently thought-out and complete view of things. One breaks out of it; the fundamental idea, such as belief in God, one breaks the whole thing to pieces. Well, that's nothing of any consequence in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him and what is evil. God alone knows. Christian morality possesses truth only if God is truth; it stands or falls with belief in God. If modern people really do believe they know of their own accord what is good and what is evil, if they think they no longer have a need for Christianity as a guarantor of morality, that is merely a consequence of the ascendancy of Christian evaluation. God and morality have long been forgotten, so the highly conditioned nature of this right to exist is no longer felt. That was the reality of what I was talking about a little bit yesterday. People are trying to find an alternative base for ethics and morality without recourse to the Bible. But actually, the moral values and ethical judgments of the people who came up with these secular morality and ethical systems were identical to Christian morality. They're just trying to find an alternative basis, but Christian morality without God—that's utilitarianism and all these different things. But at the end of the day, when you try and do that, it just falls to pieces because one thing at least is some motivation: why should I be good? The whole thing basically just falls apart, as we can see happening now, though people don't even accept the basic moral judgments that people always accepted in the past.

How do myths work? It's been important to understand how they work. I don't know how many of you have seen this film; for me, it's a recent film, but for some people it's like, oh, well, that was like 10 years ago. Anyway, this is a great film; I recommend you should all watch it if you haven't seen it: Slumdog Millionaire. It's about life in a part of India. When you see this film, or even better, if you go to India, you can only be shocked by the extreme levels of poverty, where people are living on the streets, children are sleeping in the streets, etc. When you go there and you see this, you wonder how it is possible for Indians to accept and not question or challenge a society that to us appears to be very unfair and unjust. The kind of things you see in India, wouldn't we tolerate it anywhere within Europe? Because people feel that it's not right, that's not fair, that's unjust; we need to do something about it, we need to change this, these extremes of wealth and poverty. So you wonder, why is it like that? Why do people put up with it? Why doesn't anybody challenge it to do something about it? It's because they have something called a caste system. This means anything when we said what's called the class systems and feudalism; that's what's called a caste system. There are different levels within this society. At the bottom, there are people called the Untouchables; they are people who live on the streets, sweep the streets, and if you're born an Untouchable, you live as an Untouchable, you die as an Untouchable; that's your life. Then above that, those people who are peasants, they have their own farming or serve as servants. Then above that, the merchants, businessmen, landowners. Above that would be the warriors and kings in the past, or nowadays, people work in the bureaucracy. Right above that, there would be the priests and the intellectuals and academics. If you're born into one of these castes, you'd live your entire life in one of these castes, and you wouldn't expect to go up or down; you die within that caste. You wonder, well, why is it like that? How is it possible that people down at the bottom here don't think, well, I'm fed up sweeping the streets all day; actually, I'd like to go into business and have my own shop? Or why is it that people who are peasants think, oh, I don't like being a peasant anymore; I want to go and become a landowner or a businessman myself? Why is it that people just accept the reality of their life? They don't question it and try to change it. Generally speaking, it's because there's a myth called the myth of reincarnation.

In the Hindu myth, when someone is born, they are born into a certain social status. They live their life, and then when they die, they are reborn; they go into the spirit world, and their soul is transmigrated. It's called the transmigration of souls in Greek philosophy. So you just keep going round and round like this. The idea here is if you live a good life, if you're an Untouchable and you don't complain, you accept your position in life, you do all your duties very faithfully, cleaning the toilets and sweeping the streets and not complaining, then when you're born next time round, you get promoted; you come back as a peasant. If you're a good person and you work faithfully in the fields doing everything you need to do, then when you die, you'll get promoted; you'll come back as a merchant or landowner. If you're a good merchant and you don't cheat anybody, you don't deceive your customers or anything, then you come back as a warrior or a king. Eventually, if you carry on being a good king and you don't oppress people, you don't do nasty things, you don't attack people, then you come back as a priest or an intellectual. If, on the other hand, you are a merchant but you cheat your customers, then next time round you get demoted and come back as a peasant. If you're a lazy peasant, then you get demoted and you come back as a street sweeper or toilet cleaner. That's the way it works; that's their myth. The idea here is that this myth, the myth of reincarnation, supports the status quo of the caste system. If there was no myth of reincarnation, people wouldn't put up with the reality which they experience, and they would want to change their society, make it much more egalitarian and much more fair and just. But because they all buy into this myth and they believe this myth, they believe the way things are is the way things are supposed to be. Therefore, they don't criticise or challenge the status quo. The way things are is the way things are supposed to be. That means a person who is an Untouchable feels it's only fair that they should be an Untouchable sweeping the streets because maybe in a previous life they were such a good person. On the other hand, a person who's right at the top, very wealthy and rich, feels it's only fair that they should be wealthy and rich and have a nice comfortable lifestyle because in a previous life they were really good. Then a person who's right at the top looks down at the person who's an Untouchable and doesn't feel any compunction or any need to go and change things because they feel it's only fair and right that the person living on the street should be living on the streets. That's justice; that's fairness; that's the way it's supposed to be. It's very, very hard then to change anything. The values of these myths become embedded in cultural assumptions, and so the myths express certain values, and then they become devalued, embedding the cultural assumptions. They become embedded in the social structures. That makes sense? Social structures within any society are a function of the myth which underlies that society. So how do you change things? How is it possible to change India, for example? It's not the people. The Buddha tried, Guru Nanak tried, Christian missionaries went there and they tried. Well, the way to change things is to change. If you want to change the world, you have to change your story. This is the divine image. He was an Austrian Catholic priest and also an anarchist; they don't quite know how they fit together. Anyway, he said this: neither revolution nor reformation can ultimately change a society. Ravi must tell a new powerful tale, one so persuasive that it sweeps away the old myths and becomes a preferred story, one so inclusive that it gathers up all the bits of our past and our present into a coherent whole. So even so that it shines some light on the future, so we can take the next step. If you want to change a society, you have to tell an alternative story. I think basically that's what Father was doing; he was telling a new story, a different story. Because if you change the way we are, if we think in a certain way, then we look at the world in a certain way, we treat people in a certain way, and we create a certain kind of culture. That culture needs to support a certain kind of society and certain kinds of structures within that society. All these things are an expression of what it is that we think we're thinking within the realm of a myth, a story—a story going around our heads about ourselves. We may have the Hindu story running around our heads or the Muslim story or the Sikh story or the Christian story or the Protestant story, which again is very different from the Catholic story. Each of these stories leaves a different sense of identity and creates a different way of looking at the world, which creates a different way of relating to people in the world, creating a different kind of culture, and that creates a different kind of society.

If we want to change the world, we don't go on the streets burning things down; we have to change what we think, change what we believe, and change the story that people have. That's what Martin Luther King did, and it's what Father did. It's all about changing the way people think, which in turn changes the way they behave and how they relate to one another. Consequently, society will start to change. That's why it's so important to understand the kind of stories we have running around, what kind of myths we buy into. The reality is that whether we like it or not, we're living in one myth or another, and it's beneficial to try to understand what it is that we're doing.

All religions have myths, such as creation, fall, and restoration. All nations have origin stories. For example, the Koreans have a story about a bear and a tiger. Every country has its own origin stories and how it relates to other nations. The Jewish people have their self-understanding as the chosen nation, chosen to bring knowledge of God and ethics to the world. In the past, the Germans had a sense of being the master race destined to rule Europe. The Chinese refer to themselves as the Middle Kingdom, seeing themselves as the centre of the world. Every nation, therefore, has a myth, and many political philosophies also have myths to legitimise and sustain power. For instance, the Divine Right of Kings was a concept that emerged with a particular English king who claimed that God anointed him, which justified his authority and exempted him from obeying the laws. While some people bought into this idea, most English people did not, leading to a civil war and his eventual overthrow.

Myths function to maintain, justify, and legitimise power and authority structures. There are also racial myths and family myths; I'm sure you have family stories about your parents and grandparents. So, what are the myths that form the basis of our own culture? Often, we live in a culture and can only see it on the surface, without understanding the deeper myths that underpin it. This applies to Europe, America, Korea, and Africa. What are the main myths? I will focus on the founding myths underlying Europe, but similar archeological exercises can be applied elsewhere.

One of the foundations of Western culture is Greek myths and philosophy, alongside the Bible. Christopher Davis, if he's here, might remind me of other foundational myths, such as Celtic myths and customs, and Norse gods. However, I won't delve into Norse or Celtic myths as I am not well-versed in them. To introduce Greek philosophy and mythology, I will reference Hesiod, who wrote a work called 'Theogony,' detailing the origins of the gods and their lives on Mount Olympus. Many of you may not be familiar with Greek myths, so I will show a brief cartoon video that tells the story entertainingly. I hope it works, as I am unsure of my upload speed, but I did post the link in the Facebook discussion page for 'Joining the Dots.'

In the beginning, there was an abyss of darkness called Chaos. Following this, the first gods emerged: Gaia, the mother earth; Tartarus, the depths of the earth; and Eris, the goddess of sexual desire. To summarise, there was Chaos, and from it came twelve gods known as the Titans. Some say that Uranus hated the Hecatoncheires and hid his children in Crete, while others say he shoved the Titans back into Gaia. Regardless, Gaia was unhappy and sought help from her son Kronos. When Uranus came to have relations with Gaia, Kronos, who had grown inside her, castrated him. The blood that fell into the sea created more monsters, and from the sea foam, Aphrodite, the goddess of love and desire, was born. With the Titans freed, Kronos became king, but this peace was short-lived.

Kronos married his sister Rhea, and they had children. However, Kronos heard a prophecy that one of his children would overthrow him, which terrified him. To prevent this, he swallowed each child as Rhea bore them. Disturbed by this, Rhea hid her youngest son, Zeus, and gave Kronos a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes instead. Zeus grew up on Crete, aided by nymphs, and when he was older, he conspired with Gaia to overthrow Kronos. They made him regurgitate Zeus's siblings, leading to a battle where Zeus ultimately defeated Kronos. This story illustrates themes of power, revenge, and familial relationships, resonating throughout Greek mythology.

Another significant story is 'Oedipus Rex' by the great Greek playwright Sophocles. In this tale, Oedipus seeks to uncover the truth behind the murder of the previous king, Laius. He learns from an oracle that he is destined to kill his father and marry his mother, a fate he cannot escape. This idea of fate, that one's destiny is predetermined and unavoidable, has influenced Christian theology, particularly the doctrine of predestination. Augustine, one of the greatest Christian saints, spoke of 'Felix culpa,' or 'happy fault,' suggesting that the fall of man was part of God's plan for salvation. Thus, everything that happens is part of God's plan, leaving no room for genuine free will. This notion of predestination has seeped into philosophy and is known as determinism, which posits that the future is determined by the present. Classical physics, particularly Newtonian physics, operates on this principle, suggesting that if we understood every atom's position, we could predict the future.

The future is contained in the present, which means that everything follows the laws of science, and there is only one possible outcome. He disputed this in his nonlinear thermodynamics, which is another story. He refers to it as a founding myth of classical science, essentially an assumption about the nature of reality. This assumption is often unquestioned, and if you were to question many scientists about it, they would assert that there is no scientific basis for it; it is merely an assumption. This idea of determinism also feeds into historical determinism. Karl Marx talked about the inevitability of communism, and when you read many history books, you get the impression that the author is not only describing what happened but also explaining why it had to happen. Historians often convey that events were inevitable, with no alternatives available.

Social determinism is another aspect, where people discuss social deprivation. If someone comes from a socially deprived background, they are expected to develop certain problems. Economic determinism is also prevalent. A notable book on this topic is 'How Order Out of Chaos,' which is well-written by a scholar named Gene. It combines scientific insights with philosophical reflections. The Greek story of fate suggests that one implication is that I am a victim and not responsible for my actions. If my fate is predestined, then I cannot be held accountable for what I do.

A classic of Greek literature, 'The Iliad' by Homer, illustrates this concept. In 'The Iliad,' Agamemnon justifies his wronging of Achilles by taking his wife, Briseis, by claiming that it was Zeus and his fate, Moira, who caused him to act as he did. He argues that he is not responsible for his actions; it was the gods who made him do it. This notion of being a victim of fate is a recurring theme in Greek literature, where characters often attribute their actions to divine influence rather than personal responsibility. This leads to a broader assumption about reality: that I am not responsible for my actions because of my genes, background, or circumstances.

This exploration of Greek myths is significant because it highlights a fundamental assumption about the nature of reality. In Hesiod's 'Cosmogony,' Moira, or fate, partitions the world and imposes order. Over time, Moira is replaced by Zeus, who is then superseded by reason, yet the function of supreme power remains the same: to introduce distinction and order. The evolution from myth to philosophy illustrates how Greek philosophy is essentially a transposition of Greek mythology, with the gods omitted. The basic values and assumptions of that era are transmitted through myths and later rationalised into philosophy based on reason.

The distinction between Greek philosophy and biblical revelation is often discussed, with the implication that they are fundamentally different categories. However, Greek philosophy itself is rooted in revelation. During my university studies, it was mentioned that philosophers derived their ideas from the gods, but this was often dismissed as a way to legitimise their thoughts. Parmenides, one of the pre-Socratic philosophers, described his philosophical journey as one where he received insights from a goddess. He did not claim to have developed his ideas purely through rational thought.

Socrates, too, attributed his philosophy to divine inspiration. At his trial, he spoke of a divine sign that guided him away from wrongdoing. This connection between philosophy and divine revelation is echoed in biblical texts, such as Isaiah's vision of God. When Isaiah describes his encounter with the Lord, he responds to a divine call to deliver a message. This raises the question of how different this is from the experiences of Greek philosophers who also claimed divine inspiration for their ideas.

Professor Cantwell Smith, a significant thinker on religion in the 20th century, argued that Hellenism is essentially a religion. He suggested that the Greek tradition should be understood within the broader context of various religious traditions. Greek philosophy, therefore, is not merely a human construct but is deeply intertwined with religious thought. However, contemporary philosophy often overlooks biblical philosophy, focusing instead on pre-Socratic philosophers and figures like Plato and Aristotle, while neglecting the philosophical contributions of biblical figures such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. This raises questions about the exclusion of biblical philosophy from modern academic discourse.

Philosophy, yes. Only her comment on illness is the elevation of the Greeks as the sole source of learning and knowledge, which announced a profound reconfiguration of Christian Europe's self-understanding. All the ancient universities, such as Oxford, Cambridge, and others like Paris, were monastic foundations. They were not secular foundations; they were not founded by the state, unlike Berlin. They were religious foundations based on a very different basis. When you start to ignore the religious foundation of European culture and civilization and focus solely on one strand, which is the Greek strand, you end up with a very secular kind of education, a very secular way of thinking, and a very secular kind of culture. That's basically what has happened in the last few years. Very few histories of philosophy refer to the Hebrew Scriptures because of this. That's why we start off with the pre-Socratics, with no recognition of the contribution of philosophical thought from the biblical tradition; it's just not there. However, it is well worth reading if you want to explore this area. The philosophy of Hebrew Scripture draws out the prophets and treats them as philosophers in the same way one would treat the Greek philosophers, without discrimination or distinction in terms of their significance in the realm of thought. Anyway, it’s a significant contribution towards world cultural civilization.

Now, let’s look at Egyptian hieroglyphics. As you probably know, they used little animals and symbols to write, and it took a long time for people to decipher them. This Frenchman, Champollion, was able to decipher them using the Rosetta Stone. The ox, for example, represents the first sound of the word 'ox.' If you wanted to represent this sound, you would draw an ox. If you wanted a sound for something else, you would draw another symbol whose first syllable was that sound. The ancient letter Aleph started as a picture of an ox, but obviously, it was a lot of hard work drawing an ox every time you wanted to produce it. So, they simplified it in Proto-Canaanite. The Canaanites, from the land which is now the state of Israel and Palestine, simplified this and just drew the head of an ox with the horns. They simplified it even more in early Phoenician and Hebrew, turning it slightly. You can see the horns of the ox and the head of the ox, which became a quicker way of drawing it.

Now, moving to early Aramaic times and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see the evolution of Hebrew. This was early Hebrew, and through travel and trade, the idea of using symbols like this meant you could write things down easily. The Greeks picked this up, and it was turned on its side, becoming early Greek. The Greek small letter resembles this, and early Greek evolved into Latin and modern English. The word 'alphabet' comes from the Greek word for the first letter, 'alpha,' while 'Aleph' is the Hebrew first letter. In fact, the Greek alphabet and all these cursive scripts come from early Hebrew. This is Proto-Sinaitic script from around the time of Abraham, and it talks about Moses writing down the Word of God. They had a script that people could read. The Hebrew letter 'dalet' means 'door.' Early Hebrew evolved into Middle Hebrew, and when they wanted to count numbers, they represented numbers with letters. Late Hebrew turned into a letter-number system, with the modern Hebrew 'dalet' becoming the Greek 'delta' and the Roman 'D.'

We can see how the letters evolved. For example, the letter 'B' is represented as a house or a tent. The third letter in Hebrew is 'gimel,' which means camel, and if you turn it on its side, you get a 'C' as in 'gift.' The fourth letter is 'dalet,' which represents a door, and if you think of it as the door to a tent, it becomes a 'D.' The letter 'chet' means a fence, and if you simplify it, you end up with 'H.' This shows the extraordinary contribution of Hebrew and the Jewish people towards European culture and civilization. Now, let’s look at some elements of Greek philosophy. One of the most important questions they ask is: what is the nature of reality? What is the essence of things? People ask this question because they want to understand the world in which we live. We have all these questions—why, what, where, when—because we want to understand the nature of reality.

The Greek philosophers pondered whether reality is made of one substance or many substances, and if it is many, how these substances relate to each other. One of the earliest philosophers, Thales, said everything is made of water. Pythagoras claimed everything is made of number. Heraclitus said everything is in flux; you can't step into the same river twice. Parmenides argued that everything is unchanging; nothing is changing at all. They had different ideas about the nature of reality. Democritus came up with the idea of atoms, trying to understand reality in various ways. Socrates later changed the direction of Greek philosophy to consider ethics and the good life. This is all about trying to make sense of reality. We categorize things, as seen in the Bible where it states, 'The Lord God formed man from the earth and every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought them to man to see what he would call them.' This illustrates how we try to make sense of the world by giving things names and categorising them.

Children often ask, 'What is that?' They want to know the name of something and the differences between things. Part of learning is to understand the differences between a cat and a dog, for instance. As Ludwig Wittgenstein said, 'The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.' If you have a large vocabulary, you can describe things in a sophisticated and nuanced way. With a small vocabulary, it becomes much more difficult. Sometimes, we play games like 'animal, vegetable, mineral,' narrowing categories down to identify a particular thing. This is how we make sense of reality—by categorising and naming things. The Greeks were doing the same thing, and Pythagoras also sought to categorise reality as he perceived it, leading to his table of opposites, which is recorded by Aristotle. We don’t have the actual writings of the early philosophers, as they rarely survived, but Pythagoras noted that everything is either this or that.

He explained the meaning of these opposites, such as chaos versus order, odd versus even numbers, right versus left, male versus female, resting versus moving, and light versus dark. He emphasised mathematics, believing that through mathematics, one could describe the true essential nature of things. Bertrand Russell, in his standard textbook on the history of Western philosophy, stated that he did not know of any other man who had been as influential as Pythagoras in the sphere of thought. The whole conception of the eternal world is derived from him. Pythagoras and his ideas had a significant impact on European culture, civilization, and philosophy, influencing the development of thought and the mind more than anyone else.

Let’s examine this table of opposites in more detail. It is interesting to note that there is no sense that these opposites are complementary or attract each other; they are simply opposites. When we look down this list, we see that good and bad are included. This means that, from this perspective, good and bad are woven into the fabric of the universe. You can't have good without bad, which is a common expression in English. If you question people, they often say, 'Well, that's just the way it is.' This unexamined assumption about the nature of reality is prevalent in our culture. For the Greeks, good and evil were intertwined in the universe. If you can't have good without evil, what's the point of trying to change the world? If you can't get rid of evil, you might as well accept that it will always exist. This led many Greeks to withdraw from the world, avoiding involvement in politics or other matters, resulting in a very conservative way of thinking.

Aristotle himself noticed that he associated moral prestige with the left-hand column because good things appeared there. Therefore, everything in that column is associated with goodness, while everything in the opposite column is associated with evil. Let's examine a few of these pairings. For instance, right and left: the Latin word for left is 'sinister,' which means evil in English. Traditionally, left-handed people have been treated with suspicion in European culture, often forced to write with their right hand. The word 'pravda' in Russian means 'right' and also means 'truth.' This duality is embedded in our language, where right is good and left is bad. The pursuit of the one is seen as better than the many; it is better to be united than to have diversity. This pursuit has been a theme throughout European history, with attempts to create one culture, one law, one emperor, one currency, and so on. Various leaders, from Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler, have tried to impose this unity.

In this context, we also find male and female, where good is associated with male and bad with female. Resting is often seen as good, leading to visions of heaven where everyone is just sitting around resting. This perspective has implications for women's education and European history, often resulting in negative impacts. Another philosopher analysing this noted that the whole reductionist enterprise in Western philosophy may be seen as a conquest to impose order upon chaos. Throughout Western philosophy, there has been an attempt to impose order, to eliminate the many, and to create a singularity. This has often led to the oppression of women and feminine values within European culture, trying to stop things from moving and insisting on conformity.

One trying to dominate the other is often due to irreconcilable differences. As we consign said he said, an entire mythology is stored within our language. This is the whole point behind our language, including English, and I am sure most European languages contain this embedded mythology, often without our awareness. For example, if I were to say to you, 'I can see Peter here on my screen, Peter Schroeder,' and then say, 'Peter, stop being so negative,' would you be happy? No, because the word 'negative' carries a moral connotation. Conversely, if I said, 'You're looking really positive today,' you would likely feel happy. When we think about the words 'positive' and 'negative,' we often associate them with electricity, but in science, these terms are completely neutral. However, within our language, there is a moral overlay where positive is seen as good and negative as evil. This moral overlay extends to other terms, such as left and right, where language reflects a Pythagorean way of thinking that permeates our entire grammar.

As Vick Enslein stated, a whole mythology is stored within our language. The way we use language influences our perception of the world, often without our awareness. The principles of dual characteristics—positive and negative—do not inherently include moral judgments of good and evil. Yet, we still use these terms in a way that implies a moral stance, which is not accurate. This brings us to the thoughts of Friedrich Hayek, a significant thinker and Nobel laureate in economics from Austria. He met Father several times and received the Founders Award, which Father only gave to a select few, akin to a Nobel Prize for his contributions. Hayek noted that the knowledge of earlier generations is communicated through language, and the structure of language itself implies certain views about the nature of the world. By learning a particular language, we acquire a specific framework for thinking, often without realising it.

For those who speak multiple languages fluently, it becomes evident that thinking in one language can alter how one perceives the world and behaves. This is why sometimes we struggle to find words in one language but can easily express ourselves in another. Each language serves as a social construct, containing various aspects of our worldview. For instance, in English, we use 'you' for everyone, while in French, we have 'tu' for singular and intimate conversations and 'vous' for plural or more formal interactions. Historically, English also had 'thou,' which has fallen out of use as society became more reserved. In contrast, in many Oriental cultures, age plays a significant role in communication, as respect for elders is deeply embedded in the language structure. My tutor at Cambridge noted that Japanese students would only speak Japanese socially but would switch to English for academic discussions, as English allows for a more egalitarian exchange of ideas, free from age-based hierarchies.

This awareness of language and its implications is crucial for understanding our identities and relationships. The mythology embedded in our language is essential to tease out, as it shapes how we relate to one another. Hayek, while primarily an economist, also wrote foundational texts on theoretical psychology and cybernetics. In English poetry, we see reflections of these ideas. For example, in Shakespeare's play 'All's Well That Ends Well,' the line 'Good without evil is like light without darkness' illustrates the assumption that good cannot exist without evil. Similarly, Edmund Spenser in 'The Faerie Queene' describes the elements of earth, air, water, and fire as forces that conspire against each other, reflecting a Greek understanding of reality as one of conflict and contradiction. John Milton in 'Paradise Lost' echoes this sentiment, stating that 'hot, cold, wet, and dry strive here for mastery.' This notion of order and chaos is significant.

Jordan Peterson, who has studied Taoism, discusses the concepts of order and chaos, often represented as masculine and feminine. He suggests that chaos and order are fundamental elements of every lived situation. We inhabit an ordered environment surrounded by chaos, and balancing these dualities is essential. For instance, the recent pandemic disrupted our orderly lives, throwing plans into chaos. Achieving balance between order and chaos is crucial; too much order leads to rigidity, while too much chaos results in disorder. Peterson associates the known with masculinity, as societies often have a hierarchical structure where men are seen as builders and engineers. However, pushing order too far can lead to authoritarianism. Conversely, chaos, associated with femininity, represents possibility and the source of new ideas. This duality is vital for understanding the balance necessary for healthy relationships and societies.

In the Greek philosophical tradition, there is often a tendency to eliminate one side of the duality rather than seeking balance. In contrast, the Taoist perspective views these elements as complementary, emphasising the importance of harmony between them. This balance is crucial for the functioning of families and nations. Peterson's book '12 Rules for Life' discusses the antidote to chaos, highlighting the need for order and flexibility. Feminist philosophers have also critiqued the representation of femininity in Greek thought, noting that women have often been portrayed as inferior and irrational. This critique is essential for understanding the ideological foundations of Western culture, which often relies on binary oppositions. Feminists are deconstructing these philosophical bases, revealing the underlying assumptions that contribute to a fallen society. The Pythagorean table, which describes the fallen world, serves as a starting point for this analysis.

With regard to philosophical expression, we must consider the basic values of the culture in which we are living now. This is why there are such powerful ideas being articulated; they express and formalise the basic assumptions of fallen society, which have been perpetuated from generation to generation. It is very hard to escape from this cycle. Another feminist philosopher, Sabina Lally, explored the association of the unlimited or infinite with femaleness, beginning in ancient Greek philosophy. From her, we learn that for the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophers, the infinite was a term of abuse, associated with chaos, matter, and femaleness, while the finite was seen as good, associated with order, form, and maleness. Early 20th-century feminism, particularly by Yvonne Garre, proposes a return to the ancient conception of the infinite as female, reversing the value from bad to good.

You can see her argument: let’s take the good and the bad and swap them around, suggesting that maleness is bad and femaleness is good. However, they remain locked within this binary understanding of reality, where one side is good and the other is bad. This feminist philosopher, even just three years ago, is suggesting this reversal, yet there is a lot of discourse today that reflects this kind of language. I actually need to point out that this view of maleness as infinite relies on inconsistent readings of gender in relation to two central conceptions. The critique here is that she is stuck within the same dichotomy and cannot escape it because the entirety of European culture has been shaped by this understanding of reality. The principle we will examine in a few days tries to conceptualise reality in a very different way.

There isn’t enough time to delve into Marx today, but we will continue this discussion tomorrow. Joanna suggested that if I look over my participants list, those who raise their hands can ask questions verbally. If anyone would like to ask a question, please raise your hand. I have been recording the questions that have come up, but I haven’t followed them closely as I cannot see the chat while teaching. So, thank you for your patience. Sammy, do you have a question?

One participant asked about the significance of language in relation to medieval nominalism. I will address nominalism and realism in a few days when I start discussing Platonic philosophy, as that will be a better context for that question. Another question was about how we got stories such as the creation of the universe or Adam and Eve, especially since they were not written down before written texts were discovered. This topic relates to Abraham, who is considered the father of faith. I believe he discovered these stories of monotheism, where there is only one God who is good. These stories likely originated from Abraham, who encountered and experienced God.

There are precursors to these stories in Sumerian literature, such as the Gilgamesh epic, which contains a version of Noah's flood that predates the biblical account. Abraham may not have known this story directly, but he took existing narratives and recast them, embodying different values and lessons. For example, the idea of the Garden of Eden also has roots in Sumerian mythology. Through his experience with God, Abraham transmitted and transformed these stories, which is how we arrive at the creation narrative in six days and the story of Adam and Eve's fall.

One participant raised a question about the dualism in Buddhism and whether good must exist alongside evil. Many philosophies and religions assume that you cannot have one without the other. However, Abraham's conclusion was that there is one God, and God is good. After each day of creation, God declared it good, and evil entered the world as a mistake, not as a necessity. I will unpack this story further in our next session. Another question was about distinguishing between dualism and dual characteristics as explained in the principle. I will address that when we discuss the nature of reality from a principled perspective.

Lastly, a participant asked about the unification myth and how it can be changed. This is a complex topic rooted in biblical stories, and changing it involves a deep understanding of these narratives. I believe many of these stories have been misunderstood and misrepresented, which has been damaging for our community. I plan to revisit these stories in detail, as I have spent extensive time teaching the Genesis narratives. It is a long process, but I look forward to it.