In Plato’s Apology,
he attributes to Socrates the frequently quoted maxim: “The life which is
unexamined is not worth living.” Adjacent
to this quote is the unquoted, but potentially more profound statement, “I
would rather die having spoken in my manner, than speak in your manner and live….
The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding
unrighteousness; for that runs deeper than death.”
I reflected on these lines from the Apology in a most improbable
of moments this week – at the engagement and wedding ceremonies of some dear
friends in India. As I watched a priest
chant mantras in Sanskrit, I inquired of several of the guests how many brides
and grooms knew the meaning of what they were reciting during the marathon,
smoke and fire-filled rituals.
“We don’t know what these mean,” was the near universal
response.
Sanskrit has been around for at least 3,500 years –
potentially one of the world’s oldest languages. It is reasonable to speculate that more
philosophy, religion, sociology and cosmology has been contemplated in Sanskrit
than in any other tongue. This language
of wisdom, scholarly inquiry and culture contains not only literal essence but
also harmonics and tonal elements that are considered to integrate frequencies
and vibrations that literally embody meaning.
Its use in ritual and meditation persists while the wisdom and
experience of humanity from which it arose is increasingly eclipsed in the fluorescent
glare of emoticons and hashtags. And
why, in independent India has the siren of materialistic artifact been so
compelling as to induce the amnesia to the wisdom of ages past? Why, having cast off the colonial
regimentation of industrial empire has India elected to chase the fleeting
futility of even greater triviality?
The answer, in part, lies in the unquoted Apology.
And there’s a bit of irony here.
When Socrates stated that he would rather die speaking his understanding
than conform and live, he wasn’t being melodramatic or forming an
argument. In fact, he recognized that to
acquiesce to what he knew to be untrue and inconsistent with observable reality
was as much death as drinking hemlock for speaking out in a manner so
compelling that those around him, “deliberately attached themselves” to him “because
they enjoy hearing other people cross-questioned” (the origin of the concept of
Socratic learning). The unrighteousness
to which Socrates referred was the willingness to adopt consensus in the
evident face of its fallacy. Preceding
Gregory Bateson’s theory of the psychopathology of what he called the Double
Bind (in which schizophrenia results from serially observing reality and seeing
trusted persons or the crowd act in what appears to be diametric opposition to,
or ignorance thereof), Socrates could not tolerate living in a world in which
consensus error was reinforced by mercenaries while inquiry and truth were
castigated.
Socrates used as evidence of his character his commitment to
the transmission of knowledge for free.
“If you doubt whether I am really the sort
of person who would have been sent to this city as a gift from God, you can
convince yourselves by looking at it in this way. Does it seem natural that I
should have neglected my own affairs and endured the humiliation of allowing my
family to be neglected for all these years, while I busied myself all the time
on your behalf, going like a father or an elder brother to see each one of you
privately, and urging you to set your thoughts on goodness? If I had got any enjoyment
from it, or if I had been paid for my good advice, there would have been some
explanation for my conduct, but as it is you can see for yourselves that
although my accusers unblushingly charge me with all sorts of other crimes,
there is one thing that they have not had the impudence to pretend on any
testimony, and that is that I have ever exacted or asked a fee from anyone. The
witness that I can offer to prove the truth of my statement is, I think, a
convincing one – my poverty.”
The notion that
wisdom and its acquisition cannot be defiled with monetary compensation opens a
more poignant inquiry into the phenomenon I witnessed in the rituals of Brahman
priests. Education – conventionally thought
to be the orderly conveyance of knowledge, skills, practices, and norms from
one generation to the next – has transformed over time and with it wisdom has
been subordinated to technical proficiency to qualify for rent wages mandated
by the industrial age. Value in the
transmission of knowledge for the sake of considered inquiry has fallen victim
to the opiate of employment. Proficiency
and competency have replaced mastery and transcendence. Why?
Because we can measure the unit output of trained automatons in monetary
rents while we have no conventional mechanism to attribute value to the genius
or idiot outlier. And, by the way, this
unit of mercantile productivity includes what was once considered sacred. I was told by several of my fellow wedding
goers that the Brahman caste once shunned money to the point of refusing to
come into contact with it. Now, in the
middle of rites, the officiating priests were interrupting the event with overt
cash exchanges. Is it any wonder that a
social order that has chosen to defile their own priestly class with
commercialism has become untethered from the agency of its heritable essence?
Millennia from Socrates’
celebrated embrace of monetary poverty for the wealth of wisdom and its
transmission, post-independence India (like many others), has adopted the
language of consensus powers rather than exporting its heritable wisdom
inclusive of all of its intricacies and nuances. Ringtones now replace mantras and this is a
mark of success. Why? Because having ‘things’ has become more
important than examining the essence of life.
Education for job placement is celebrated above incarnating and
transmitting persistent, unfathomable wisdom.
And this is happening exactly at a point in the arc of the mercantile
industrial paradigm where its utilitarian deficiencies are becoming glaringly
obvious.
As the wedding crowd
waned, a group of recent graduates from some of India’s finest schools
approached me to ask me how I became a ‘successful’ entrepreneur. After disavowing the title in its
conventional use, I went on to explain the dimensionality of wealth that I
describe using the optics of Integral Accounting. These young men – all in their early to
mid-20s – were enlivened by a conversation that included topics like my
involvement with the National Innovation Foundation, the Global Innovation
Commons, grass-roots initiatives around the world, quantitative text-based
trading algorithms, and innovation-based, productivity-linked capital
solutions.
“Why aren’t we
taught about these things in business school,” several asked, their faces
evidencing a yearning for greater purpose?
As I reflect on
our exchange, I realize that these young men, like me, want to live vibrant,
examined lives. Sure, we want to be
productive and be capable of interacting in many dimensions of life. But we don’t have the School of Athens. We don’t get to “attach” to our Socrates with
whom we can “cross-question” and learn. In
a generation and a half, their world has done its best to diminish what millennia
of wisdom sought to build. Until We The
People actually end the rush towards automated digital consensus, we run the
risk of deepening our version of the European Dark Ages. It’s high time some of us step up and
evidence an alternative: one that seeks to gain knowledge rather than train; to
collaborate rather than prevail.
Starting today, read something from a field about which you think you
know nothing and find out how great it feels to exercise your mind. Speak to someone from a different culture or
language and find the joy in imperfect communication with perfect
intention. See your world through the
smoke of rites and flavored with all the spices of a palate that’s as foreign
as you can imagine. Examine your life
and in so doing, we may rekindle the joy of unfettered learning and thereby
forge a More Perfect Union.
.
Intriguing thoughts, Dave. I think there's another element to what you described ... one that complements and extends what you have correctly observed. I refer to the process of creating priests and investing them with the duty to guard, perpetuate, and mediate the sacred knowledge. Whether the Brahmans you observed, the theolgians and bishops of Western faith, the Socrates of Plato's Apology, or the central bankers of the capitalist temple, too often we the people demand that others hold the keys and appease the powers on our behalf. And sadly there is no end to the lovers of power and influence who will gladly assume the role we so blithely consign to them.
ReplyDeleteUntil common (I do not say "normal") people assume the responsibility to engage on these planes, not only on their own behalf but on each other's, and renounce the clergy-laiety dichotomy on things both "spiritual" and "material," the error you so rightly decry will be perpetuated.
The mercenary surrogacy that allows us to have the "other" do our spiritual, social, ethical, or educational work for us is the consensus elixir that's keeping us from advancing.
DeleteDavid, while I agree the requirement is to take back the control of "power," an inculcated fear many do not realize they have governs them and it ultimately acts as a barrier. That fear can be almost palpable at times.
DeleteHowever, the point I really wanted to make as I continued to read was that your words crystallized the nebulous phrases and words that have been swimming in my head after reading the Pope's recent Evangelii Gaudium. I believe he pointedly charged each person, whatever your religion or spiritual position (at least as far as I am concerned) to step back and think for themselves as they assess their physical and spiritual external and internal surroundings. Many have said its just to help the poor but I think he demands more. I think he also means intellectually as well. As you have suggested that would require we take charge and relieve the surrogate of the responsibility. Relieving the surrogate of the responsibility (whether they want to be relieved or not) will be to our benefit.
Denise, what a beautiful expression! You couldn't be more spot on with respect to the fact that we've surrogated our own capacity to live in liberty by falling for the paradoxical acceptance of fear.
Delete