{"id":145002,"date":"2019-11-11T12:00:27","date_gmt":"2019-11-11T12:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=145002"},"modified":"2019-10-10T09:52:38","modified_gmt":"2019-10-10T08:52:38","slug":"e-f-schumachers-a-guide-for-the-perplexed-mapping-the-meaning-of-life-and-the-four-levels-of-being","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2019\/11\/e-f-schumachers-a-guide-for-the-perplexed-mapping-the-meaning-of-life-and-the-four-levels-of-being\/","title":{"rendered":"E.F. Schumacher\u2019s “A Guide for the Perplexed”: Mapping the Meaning of Life and the Four Levels of Being"},"content":{"rendered":"

How to harness the uniquely human power of \u201cconsciousness recoiling upon itself.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em>\u00a0\u201cNever to get lost is not to live, not to know how to get lost brings you to destruction,\u201d<\/em> Rebecca Solnit wrote in her sublime meditation on how the art of getting lost helps us find ourselves<\/a>, \u201cand somewhere in the terra incognita in between lies a life of discovery.\u201d<\/em> But the maps we use to navigate that terra incognita \u2014 maps bequeathed to us by the dominant beliefs and standards of our culture \u2014 can often lead us further from ourselves rather than closer, leaving us discombobulated rather than oriented toward the true north of our true inner compass. A decade after his influential meditation on \u201cBuddhist economics,\u201d<\/a> British economic theorist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher<\/strong> set out to explore how we can improve those maps and use them to better navigate the meaning of life in his magnificent 1977 essay collection A Guide for the Perplexed<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (public library<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n

Schumacher begins with an apt anecdotal metaphor for how these misleading maps are handed to us:<\/p>\n

On a visit to Leningrad some years ago I consulted a map to find out where I was, but I could not make it out. I could see several enormous churches, yet there was no trace of them on my map. When finally an interpreter came to help me, he said \u201cWe don\u2019t show churches on our maps.\u201d Contradicting him, I pointed to one that was very clearly marked. \u201cThis is a museum,\u201d he said, \u201cnot what we call a \u2018living church.\u2019 It is only the \u2018living churches\u2019 we don\u2019t show.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

It then occurred to me that this was not the first time I had been given a map that failed to show many of the things I could see right in front of my eyes. All through school and university I had been given maps of life and knowledge on which there was hardly a trace of many of the things that I most cared about and that seemed to me to be of the greatest possible importance for the conduct of my life. I remembered that for many years my perplexity was complete; and no interpreter came along to help me. It remained complete until I ceased to suspect the sanity of my perceptions and began, instead, to suspect the soundness of the maps.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Map of Palmanova, from Umberto Eco\u2019s \u2018Legendary Lands.\u2019<\/p><\/div>\n

Instead, Schumacher set out to \u201clook at the whole world and try to see it\u201d \u2014 which requires examining what it really means to map knowledge and meaning in life, including its invisible, unprovable layers. Peering into the history of \u201cphilosophical mapmaking,\u201d he writes:<\/p>\n

The maps of <\/em>real knowledge, designed for real life, showed nothing except things which allegedly could be proved to exist. The first principle of the philosophical mapmakers seemed to be \u201cIf in doubt, leave it out,\u201d or put it into a museum. It occurred to me, however, that the question of <\/em>what constitutes proof was a very subtle and difficult one. Would it not be wiser to turn the principle into its opposite and say: \u201cIf in doubt, show it <\/em>prominently\u201c? After all, matters that are beyond doubt are, in a sense, dead; they do not constitute a challenge to the living.<\/em><\/p>\n

To accept anything as true means to incur the risk of error. If I limit myself to knowledge that I consider true beyond doubt, I minimize the risk of error but I maximize, at the same time, the risk of missing out on what may be the subtlest, most important and most rewarding things in life.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

\u2018Isle of Knowledge\u2019 by Marian Bantjes.<\/p><\/div>\n

To do that, however, we need a tolerance for doubt<\/a> \u2014 more than that, an active embrace of uncertainty<\/a>. Corroborating the idea that our compulsion for plans limits us<\/a>, Schumacher cites the famous Jos\u00e9 Ortega y Gasset line<\/a> that \u201clife is fired at us point-blank\u201d and writes:<\/p>\n

We cannot say: \u201cHold it! I am not quite ready. Wait until I have sorted things out.\u201d Decisions have to be taken that we are not ready for; aims have to be chosen that we cannot see clearly. This is very strange and, on the face of it, quite irrational. Human beings \u2026 hesitate, doubt, change their minds, run hither and thither, uncertain not simply of how to get what they want, but above all of what they want.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mapping our wants is a core part of the human journey. If we don\u2019t do that, Schumacher argues, we are \u201cleft in total perplexity.\u201d But the art of existential mapmaking is a delicate one:<\/p>\n

Mapmaking is an empirical art which makes use of a high degree of abstraction but none the less clings to reality with something akin to self-abandonment. Its motto, in a sense, is \u201cAccept everything; reject nothing.\u201d If something is there, if it has any kind of existence \u2026 it must be indicated on the map, in its proper place.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Graphic for Skepticism from \u2018Philographics,\u2019 a visual dictionary of philosophy.<\/p><\/div>\n

But as Rationalism and Skepticism rose to power in philosophy, Schumacher argues they wrought a \u201cvery great impoverishment\u201d in the ability to map abstraction, because these movements \u201cstrove with determination, not to say fanaticism, to get rid of the vertical dimensions<\/em> [of being],\u201d the distinction between lower- and higher-order ideals that traditional wisdom distinguished between. He writes:<\/p>\n

Thus the maps ceased to be of any help to people in the awesome task of picking their way through life.<\/em><\/p>\n

[\u2026]<\/em><\/p>\n

The loss of the vertical dimension meant that it was no longer possible to give an answer, other than a utilitarian one, to the question, \u201cWhat am I to do with my life?\u201d The answer could be more individualistic-selfish or more social-unselfish, but it could not help being utilitarian: either \u201cMake yourself as comfortable as you can\u201d or \u201cWork for the greatest happiness of the greatest number.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

[\u2026]<\/em><\/p>\n

Without the qualitative concepts of \u201chigher\u201d and \u201clower\u201d it is impossible to even think of guidelines for living that lead beyond individual or collective utilitarianism and selfishness.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

To remedy this flattening, Schumacher maps out four essential \u201cLevels of Being\u201d and proposes a model \u2014 a formula of sorts \u2014 for how they relate to one another and where they belong on the philosophical map: m<\/em> marks the \u201cmineral level\u201d of inorganic matter; x<\/em> is the \u201clife force\u201d of organic matter, which animates plants and animals, setting them apart from rocks; y<\/em> denotes consciousness, which distinguishes a cat from catnip (though it has been argued, since Schumacher\u2019s time, that plants may have a consciousness-like capacity<\/a>); and z<\/em>, which denotes the human capacity for self-awareness. Schumacher considers this uniquely human \u2014 though, one could presently argue, questionably so<\/a> \u2014 faculty:<\/p>\n

This power z has undoubtedly a great deal to do with the fact that man is not only able to think but is <\/em>also able to be aware of his thinking. Consciousness and intelligence, as it were, recoil upon themselves. There is not merely a conscious being, but a being capable of being conscious of its consciousness; not merely a thinker, but a thinker capable of watching and studying his own thinking. There is something able to say \u201cI\u201d <\/em>and to direct consciousness in accordance with its own purposes, a master or controller, a power at a higher level than consciousness itself. This power z, consciousness recoiling upon itself, opens up unlimited possibilities of purposeful learning, investigating, exploring, and of formulating and accumulating knowledge.<\/em><\/p>\n

[\u2026]<\/em><\/p>\n

We must, however, take great care always to remember that such a word label is merely (to use a Buddhist phrase) \u201ca finger pointing to the moon.\u201d The \u201cmoon\u201d itself remains highly mysterious and needs to be studied with the greatest patience and perseverance if we want to understand anything about man\u2019s position in the Universe.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By this model, then, a rock is described as m<\/em>, a plant as m + x<\/em>, an animal as m + x + y<\/em>, and a human being as m + x + y + z<\/em>. Where scientific reductionism and philosophies like Skepticism fall short, Schumacher argues, is in dealing with the lowest level, m<\/em>, and pretending the rest don\u2019t exist. He writes:<\/p>\n

To say that life is nothing but a property of certain peculiar combinations of atoms is like saying that Shakespeare\u2019s Hamlet is nothing but a property of a peculiar combination of letters. The truth is that the peculiar combination of letters is nothing but a property of Shakespeare\u2019s <\/em>Hamlet.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Illustration from \u2018Geometrical Psychology,\u2019 Benjamin Betts\u2019s 19th-century mathematical diagrams of consciousness.<\/p><\/div>\n

It is from the ineffable power of z<\/em> \u2014 \u201cconsciousness recoiling upon itself\u201d \u2014 that our core humanity springs, and it is through harnessing this power that we can reach our highest potentiality along the vertical dimension:<\/p>\n

Because of the power of self-awareness (z), [the human] faculties are indeed infinite; they are not narrowly determined, confined, or \u201cprogrammed\u201d\u2026 Once a human potentiality is realized, it exists. . . .<\/em><\/p>\n

This \u201copen-endedness\u201d is the wonderful result of the specifically human powers of self-awareness (z), which, as distinct from the powers of life and consciousness, have nothing automatic or mechanical about them. The powers of self-awareness are <\/em>essentially a limitless potentiality rather than an actuality. They have to be developed and \u201crealized\u201d by each human individual if he is to become truly human, that is to say, a <\/em>person.<\/em><\/p>\n

[\u2026]<\/em><\/p>\n

Self-awareness is the rarest power of all, precious and vulnerable to the highest degree, the supreme and generally fleeting achievement of a person, present one moment and all too easily gone the next.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But self-awareness, Schumacher implies, also makes us invariably aware of the other \u2014 of our fellow human beings \u2014 without whom our individual experience would be vacant of meaning. Once again, he rebels against reductionism:<\/p>\n

The most \u201creal\u201d world we live in is that of our fellow human beings. Without them we should experience a sense of enormous emptiness; we could hardly be human ourselves, for we are made or marred by our relations with other people. The company of animals could console us only because, and to the extent to which, they were reminders, even caricatures, of human beings. A world without fellow human beings would be an eerie and unreal place of banishment; with neither fellow humans nor animals the world would be a dreadful wasteland, no matter how luscious its vegetation. To call it one-dimensional would not seem to be an exaggeration. Human existence in a totally inanimate environment, if it were possible, would be total emptiness, total despair. It may seem absurd to pursue such a line of thought, but it is surely not so absurd as a view which counts as \u201creal\u201d only inanimate matter and treats as \u201cunreal,\u201d \u201csubjective,\u201d and therefore scientifically nonexistent the invisible dimensions of life, consciousness, and self-awareness.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He returns to the progression between the levels and considers our ultimate human potentiality:<\/p>\n

At the level of animal \u2026 the power of doing, organizing and utilizing is immeasurably extended; there is evidence of an \u201cinner life,\u201d of happiness and unhappiness, confidence, fear, expectation, disappointment and so forth. Any being with an inner life cannot be a mere object: it is a subject itself, capable even of treating other beings as mere objects, as the cat treats the mouse.<\/em><\/p>\n

At the human level, there is a subject that says \u201cI\u201d \u2014 a person: another marked change from passivity to activity, from object to subject. To treat a person as if he or she were a mere object is a perversity, not to say a crime. No matter how such a person may be weighed down and enslaved by circumstances, there is always the possibility of self-assertion and rising above circumstances\u2026 There is no definable limit to his possibilities, even though there are practical limitations which he has to recognize and respect.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Illustration from Ralph Steadman\u2019s visual biography of Leonardo da Vinci.<\/p><\/div>\n

A Guide for the Perplexed<\/em><\/strong><\/a> is excellent in its entirety. Pair it with Schumacher on how to stop prioritizing goods over people<\/a> and Alan Watts on becoming who you really are<\/a>.<\/p>\n

_______________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em>Brain Pickings<\/em> is the brain child of Maria Popova, an interestingness hunter-gatherer and curious mind at large obsessed with combinatorial creativity who also writes for <\/em>Wired<\/em> UK and <\/em>The Atlantic<\/em>, among others, and is an MIT Futures of Entertainment Fellow. She has gotten occasional help from a handful of guest contributors<\/a>. Email: brainpicker@brainpickings.org<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 brainpickings.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How to harness the uniquely human power of \u201cconsciousness recoiling upon itself.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":145003,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[801,1487,1177,642],"class_list":["post-145002","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-inspirational","tag-consciousness","tag-e-f-schumacher","tag-inspirational","tag-literature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145002","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145002\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/145003"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}