This is the second post in the series Quaker Business Method and Theological Diversity.
If you haven't already, you will get the most out of this post if you read the opening post
in the series. That post will also include links to all other posts in the series as they are
posted.
Materialism describes
schools of thought that hold that matter is the fundamental stuff of
reality, and everything else – including mental processes and
cognition – are purely results of interactions among material
things. I use the term strict materialism to refer to those
materialists who most strongly and sceptically reject anything that
even smells like a non-material effect, in the absence of strong
evidence and a clear explanation. They accept rationally explained,
reproducible effects like radio transmissions and the internet, but
reject ideas like mind-to-mind contact or other parapsychic
phenomena, or such things as spirits and gods.
It is important to
understand that materialism does not necessarily inherently lead to a
rejection of such things. It is possible to see the fundamental
underlying nature of reality as material, but still believe in such
unexplained and unproven phenomena; it simply requires the idea that
such phenomena occur and have a material explanation, we just haven't
found it yet. As such, a materialist might even believe in spirits
and gods, but that they have underlying material existences and
interact with the world in a material way. Such material interaction
need not be through gross matter – materialists do not deny the
impact of ionising radiation or wireless communications, after all –
so a materialist can have quite a mystical bent, they would just hold
that ultimately all of these effects are rooted in matter, that there
is nothing immaterial, and most likely no “soul” as distinct from
brain and mind. Perhaps gods are some sort of gestalt impact of the
minds of people, to some – provided one can imagine a material, if
not direct, means of that happening.
The strict materialist
would reject all such things, in similar fashion to the sceptical,
science-oriented atheist; indeed, such an atheist would fall into
this category. Yet, there are people who take such an approach to
questions of spiritual things, and are Quakers. They participate in
worship, and in business, and do not understand things in a
metaphysical way at all. It's not hard to see why this causes some
discomfort to the more traditionally-minded, or even to some mystical
non-theists (more on which in a later part of this series). How does
it make sense to them? Do they think Meeting for Worship is just
relaxation/meditation? Is business just some mystical window-dressing
on modified consensus decision-making?
To be perfectly frank,
for some Friends, yes. They don't see anything beyond the everyday in
these key practices. I struggle to cope with the inclusion of such
Friends, and yet I would not demand their removal, because there may
simply be a gap in understanding, a failure to see on one or both
sides, that would allow things to make more sense.
However, most strict
materialist Friends that I have spoken to are not at this extreme.
They do understand a special meaning and relevance to Quaker
processes, they just reject any metaphysical meaning to them. This is
where there's a conceptual leap to be taken; how can they see a
special meaning to these religious activities, and yet not see it as
metaphysical?
Well, there is one way
of conceptualising it for such Friends that I have come across, which
I find particularly helpful for these sorts of exploration and
comparison. This is the conceptualisation that I will share with you
now.
Rather than seeing the
inner light as something external or mystical, in this conception it
is a subconscious part of our own mind, a “better self”, with
innate ethical sense, perhaps also superior abilities to make
connections in insufficient data. It is the source of inspiration,
what is working when an idea or concept suddenly “clicks” in the
mind. The part of the mind of a veteran firefighter that knows just
when a ceiling is about to collapse, or tells an experienced doctor
when they should run that test that is usually pointless.
In this view, the
discipline of silent worship is about creating a greater, more
deliberate connection between the conscious mind and this hidden
genius. In a Meeting for Worship, ministry for those who hold this
view is the insight of this hidden mind brought to the surface by
that discipline. Likewise, in Meeting for Worship for Business, the
discipline allows the attempt to deliberately bring this brilliant
subconscious mind to bear on the matter in question. The process of
unity may be seen as some sort of subconscious connection, though
some unknown physical means or through subtle, subconscious use of
body language, between this subconscious element in the participants.
The sense of the meeting is thus where there is broad agreement
between the subconscious intellect of those present, and the fact
that we can reliably reach such a position a validation of the
somewhat consistent capability of this hidden mind between
individuals.
This holds the
human mind supreme, that source of inspiration that other Friends
ascribe to a deity or some non-specific divine force is entirely and
completely human. It is not, however, entirely and completely us
in the usual sense. It is another us. Starting from a Freudian view,
it could be seen as a fourth component of the psyche. In the Jungian
view, it might be part of us more strongly associated with the
collective unconscious. I certainly think it is a part of the mind
that exists, though I do not associate it so much with the inward
teacher we encounter in the silence.
The principle
peril here is almost the converse of that in the traditional
conception. While this conception allows that it is not the rational,
conscious mind, considering that it is your own mind may lead to a
perilous tendency to bring the rational mind in to the matter too
much. Taken to an extreme, it
may lead one to question several traditional elements of business
discipline, such as leaving silence between contributions or limiting
the number of times you rise to speak. It may also deny the ability
to make a decision with inadequate information – an ability which
should not be relied upon too much in any case, as more information
generally leads to better results, but I expect that many Friends
have witnessed astonishing decisions that turn out to be correct
based on sparse information. Of course, I expect many Friends have
also witnessed the poor results that can come from over-reliance on
the Spirit in want of information. This conception also lends itself
to a strong trust in expertise; while the traditional conception
might disregard expertise through excessive trust in a theistic god,
in most cases expertise cannot supplant the discernment of the whole
group. In my experience, such expertise should be heard, and valued,
but not deferred to except in relatively extreme circumstances.
Indeed, I find it best if Friends with relevant expertise not endorse
a particular outcome on the basis of their expertise, but rather set
out advantages and disadvantages of different courses.
It is an interesting
conception. It is not one that I subscribe to, but there are ways in
which it is closer to my own thinking than the traditional view is;
of course, there are also ways in which the traditional view is
closer to my own thinking than this model. Six of one, half a dozen
of the other… were it not for there being further conceptions than
these two and the one to which I subscribe.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
