Q: Is it correct that The Numinous Way
now rejects as
unethical the concept of even "the folk"?
A: Yes. Both the concept of race - and that of the folk - are
regarded as un-numinous and unethical. They are examples of
abstractions, which abstractions - as explained elsewhere (for instance
in
The Immorality of Abstraction) - obscure, or undermine,
empathy; and it is empathy which is the
fundamental ethical basis of The Numinous Way itself.
As mentioned in
An Overview of The Numinous Way:
"Empathy leads us away from the artificial, lifeless and
thus
un-numinous abstractions we have constructed and manufactured and which
we impose, or project, upon other human beings, upon other life, and
upon ourselves, often in an attempt to "understand" such beings and
ourselves. And it is abstractions which are or which can be the genesis
of prejudice, intolerance, and inhumanity. In addition, abstractions
are one of the main causes of suffering: one of the main reasons we
human beings have caused or contributed to the suffering of other human
beings..."
Race, the concept of the folk - and all that derives from such things
(such as racism, racialism, racial prejudice, and nationalism) - have
no place in The Numinous Way. Such things - such abstractions - are the
genesis of suffering, and thus contradict the very essence of The
Numinous Way.
Historically, The Numinous Way was developed over a period of some ten
years, and
in the early stages of its development was even called The Numinous Way
of Folk Culture, and prior to that, just "Folk Culture". There was thus
some
emphasis in those early days on "the folk" as a living-being, which
living, changing, being was taken to be a natural part of Nature and
was initially regarded as not the same as the abstract concept of
"race". This, however, was an error, based upon not taking the ethic of
empathy to its logical, and human, conclusion.
As the development of The Numinous Way continued based on the cosmic
ethic deriving from empathy and compassion, the emphasis had to be,
ethically, removed from both the concept of the race and that of "the
folk" to
be upon the individual in relation to values of empathy and compassion,
and
upon the individual developing such ethical virtues and faculties. This
change resulted from
the fundamental premise that all human abstractions - all theoretical
forms,
ideals, and causal constructs - were a move-away from, or detrimental
to, empathy and thus a contradiction of not only honour but also of our
very humanity. Thus were such human
"things" - such human manufactured abstractions - considered to be, at
worst, unethical and, at best,
detrimental to honour and thus to empathy and compassion, for such
"things" either tend toward prejudice, or they are manifestations of
prejudice: of that unnecessary and unethical and often irrational and
instinctive pre-judgement which we human beings are and have been prone
to, but which we can, through empathy, move away from.
Thus, the faculty of empathy - and its cultivation and development via
compassion and the ethic of honour - is totally independent of the
concept
of "the folk", which concept of the folk is not now, and should not be
taken or assumed to be, the foundation of, or part of, The Numinous Way
itself.
Rather, the foundation of The Numinous Way is empathy: empathy with all
life,
on this planet, and in The Cosmos. Thus, the fundamental aim of The
Numinous Way is to
place the individual - regardless of what folk or race or culture they
are said
to belong to, or they might consider themselves to belong to - in the
correct
context with Life, with Nature, and with The Cosmos. Expressed another
way, the aim is for us,
as individuals, to develope empathy,
compassion and reason -
and to strive to live in an honourable and compassionate manner - so
that we can naturally feel and access and be part of the numinous, and
evolve our humanity without causing or contributing to
suffering.
Thus, The Numinous way is profoundly a-political, regarding all
politics, all ideology, all dogma, as detrimental to empathy and the
development of empathy, and as a cause of, or a potential cause of,
suffering.
Q: But isn't there a danger of even this Numinous Way, as you call
it, becoming a dogma, developing a theology, and thus causing dissent
and strife among its adherents?
A: Every Way has some potential to become an abstraction, a dogma. What
stops them from doing so is the application of their basal ethics. If
the ethics of the Numinous Way are lived, applied, it cannot become so.
What might become dogmatic or abstract would not by definition
therefore be The Numinous Way, but something else. Thus, so long as the
ethics are applied, and lived - so long as there is personal empathy as
the basis of living - this cannot or should not occur. The
Numinous Way does not claim to be divinely-inspired, as it does not set
itself up as the authoritative guide to living, or as some perfect
representative, as the sole representative, of what is true and right.
It does not claim to have some monopoly on understanding. It is just
one answer among many answers - to be considered, or not, to be
accepted or not, according to the judgement, the empathy, of each
individual.
Q: Are you then saying that the answers of other Ways, of religions
such as Christianity, are important and relevant?
A: I can only repeat what I have said and written before, which
is that
such ethical answers, all such ethical Ways and religions, have, had,
or may have their place in presencing The Numen, or presencing aspects
of The Numen: in bringing some people to some understanding of
ourselves, of the Cosmos, of Life. In providing some people with an
ethical guide to living and so aiding the cessation of suffering and
the presencing of what is good.
Yet, The Numinous Way is quite simple - positing a
simple ethical cause-and-effect, and not requiring a complicated
theology, scriptures, or some deity or God. Thus, for The Numinous Way,
there is no
problem
of evil,
because there is no supreme, perfect, Being, no abstract moral
dichotomy, no sin - only that simple cause-and-effect, that simple
understanding of balance, of aiding, or harming, Life; of causing
suffering, or ceasing to cause suffering. Of ourselves as being
responsible for our actions, our thoughts, with these actions, these
thoughts, affecting others, affecting Life, affecting the Cosmos, in a
good (not-suffering), or a bad (causing-suffering) way, with what is
good aiding that change, that evolution, which is implicit in Life,
with such change, such evolution, being toward empathy, understanding,
consciousness.
DW Myatt