Ignatius
On the Concept of Non-Begetting
(Tentative reflections)
Somewhere around 1985–I forget the exact date–a fellow monk (Robert Morhous, ocso) and I had a series of impromptu discussions here at St. Joseph’s Abbey revolving around the central theme of the Book of Ecclesiastes, “vanity of vanity, all is vanity.” Since that was approximately twenty years ago, I am unsure as to the exact context of our exchanges and what had brought this up. Regardless of the time lapse, I recall our conversations with great pleasure. Recently I came across a manuscript archived on my computer containing an outline of our reflections which prompted me to re-examine them and to see if any insights–so meaningful at the time–might be relevant now. By any standards, a time lapse of approximately twenty years offers more than sufficient distance to reassess one’s insights. I do remain grateful to Fr. Robert for those discussions, for in the ensuring years they helped me to better appreciate the role of philosophy as related to theology...not just this but as situated within the living context of monastic living. It should be noted that between the year 1985 and the present (2002) Fr. Robert and I both revisited the topic of our discussion several times but nothing much came of it.
The actual focus of our exchanges centered around a term we coined at the time, “non-begetting.” How this word came into being, God only knows; the impetus for formulating it is lost in obscurity despite both our efforts at trying to reconstruct the details. I do remember that we spent quite a few months jotting down ideas and later submitting them to another person or two for feedback. This turned out to be embarrassing because the feedback revealed that the terminology was too abstract for the casual reader. Furthermore, the person who reviewed it said something like, fine for you two. What about the rest of us? Maybe we were too enamored by the insight, at our cleverness at having come up with a new word. Fr. Robert later remarked that we should have approached the subject with the intent of making it personal, of presenting it to a reader who didn’t have the slightest clue about the word. Following this approach enabled a reader to better grasp what we were trying to say instead of turning him or her off with abstract language. I also recall that we were taking the negative feedback a bit too seriously; a more lightsome spirit could have helped to better integrate the corrections generously offered.
The only thing I recollect with certainty is that non-begetting somehow evolved from Ecclesiastes’ cry of vanity. Another element of our discussions associated with this term stands out, the ambivalent feeling most religions have towards the created realm. They are all inclined to favor the invisible or spiritual realm as endowed with a greater reality than the stuff before our eyes, a tendency fraught with endless difficulties. “Non-begetting” grew out of this tension as lived within a specific context, Cistercian monasticism, where everything directly or indirectly tends to favor things spiritual. It is the atmosphere which monks live and breath. At the same time monks have their feet firmly rooted in the earth. They have to get up in the morning, brush their teeth, eat and make a living just like everyone else, only this universal human phenomenon assumes a specific form of community living coupled with an atmosphere of silence.
If I recall correctly, Fr. Robert and I were both struggling to better articulate this tension while we wished to avoid conventional expressions, both theological and spiritual. In religious or monastic life we are saturated with abstract language which can become a real challenge to put into practice day after day especially when contrasted with the nitty-gritty details of daily life. I was a bit suspicious that non-begetting might smack of gnosticism, an intellectual inclination associated with spirituality that has dogged Christianity throughout its history. Some of the tension behind using the term “non-begetting” was that it might not fit in with the traditional thought patterns and ways of looking at things you’d expect in a monastic context...in other words, gnostic! Despite these misgivings–along with the realization that Fr. Robert and I were coining a different term–it was originally intended for “private consumption” and not with a view towards creating a new word for Webster’s Dictionary.
Another element involved in having chosen “non-begetting” was the general atmosphere during the mid 1980s. We had just come through a twenty year period of experimentation which started with the Second Vatican Council; we hit upon the idea of non-begetting a mere twenty years afterwards which forms the broader context from which the term had emerged. I had entered several years after the Council when the community–like most religious institutions–was undergoing a period of intense soul searching and renewal. Some of it was good and some of it was not so good; with time we sorted it out as is the case with most major changes. Here at our monastery we had experimented with various forms of meditation including Zen Buddhism and Transcendental Meditation. Also the Cistercian Fathers were just being discovered. On top of this, we had just moved from a strict environment of silence, literal observance of monastic regulations and had begun (painfully at first) to have dialogue sessions with the help of professionals. Not everyone got involved, yet the atmosphere created by these experimentations was very different from the days prior to the Second Vatican Council. “One bloody thing after another” as an elderly monk remarked at the time which was not unlike Ecclesiastes’ cry of “vanity.” Clearly the community realized that we were different and could never return to life-like-it-was before the Council. In sum, looking back on those days is a combination of joy and pain coupled with anxiety as to where we were going.
+
The advantage of choosing a word with the prefix “non” suggests a middle ground between two realities. Its intentional ambiguity allows for broader or more inclusive definitions which can be disconcerting to anyone accustomed to think in black and white categories. That would include most of us. Perhaps one of the most well known words containing this prefix is “non-violence.” It isn’t exactly the opposite of “violence” nor or of “peace.” At the same time “non” prefixed to “violence” allows for just enough association with this destructive human tendency to suggest the opposite state. Certainly “non-violence” has more appeal than “not-violence;” in fact, this latter expression makes little or no sense. It may be a stretch of the imagination, but the concept of non-violence may derive much of its appeal through the subtle use of this quasi-negative prefix. People of all persuasions can ascribe to non-violent movements regardless of race or religion. I did look up the term “non-violence” on the Internet and several reference books but it did not prove helpful. I was more interested in tracking down the reason why the prefix “non” is used and came up empty handed. One thing did stand out: many websites situate non-violence in the context of Eastern spirituality, a significant clue. The original intent for coining the word “non-begetting” doesn’t seem to have been influenced from that direction, at least as memory serves me.
“Non-” accommodates the fully negative “not” but tends to signify a negation that either partial or hasn’t been fully achieved, living as it does in a kind of no-man’s land. Use of the verb “tends” is intentional, for it signifies moving in a certain direction and thus keeps in line with the ambiguity of this prefix. You could say that “non-” is a little bit less emphatic than an outright “not.” This prefix puts us on guard and can make us suspicious–even downright uncomfortable–because we lack clear-cut insight into the word it modifies. Our innate tendency is to prefer concepts which are clearly defined; “non-” is a nebulous word existing somewhere out there. Perhaps such ambiguity made it impossible for opponents to squelch movements following the doctrine of non-violence; a clearly defined enemy would have been much easier to defeat. One only has to recall Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. Certainly these two notable practitioners of non-violence had an insight which confounded their opponents and brought about lasting changes in society. As for the word non-begetting...I hesitate to compare it with these lofty examples but see a parallel only in that both realities signify withdraw from outright confrontation with pressing concerns. Like its famous counterpart of non-violence, non-begetting does not directly confront the continuous coming into birth and passing out of existence we have come to associate with Ecclesiastes’ cry of vanity.
+
It is helpful to bring up the roles of analogy and metaphor because they enable us to better comprehend a newly proposed concept such as non-begetting. Virtually every means by which we make sense of the world is based upon these two linguistic functions. We’re constantly comparing what we know in order to reach out, become acquainted with and finally appropriate what we don’t know. If a new insight is helpful for us, there’s a chance it might be of service for others who can take up the same work and offer their own insights. The conversations Fr. Robert and I had back around 1985 must have involved this element because it led me to read books and articles on the use of metaphors. The milieu in which these early discussions took place is important to keep in mind, that is, a monastery devoted to both solitude and life in common. Thus the monastic environment is saturated with particular analogies and metaphors which trace their ultimate root to the Old and New Testaments. These are expanded in the monastic tradition with the intent of making them come alive in the monks. The years spent in this environment created familiarity with the richness of this tradition. It, in turn, became the breeding ground for news ways and expressions which formed part of the general spirit of experimentation of that period. Therefore when groping about for different terminology within a familiar, lived environment some mistakes and inaccuracies are bound to arise; considerable time is needed to let them mellow and hopefully come to fruition.
The familiar yet often unappreciated process of formulating analogies and metaphors hearkens back to the theme of Hans Vaihinger’s book, The Philosophy of As/If, noted in another article on this Home Page. During the winter of 2001-02 another monk (Fr. Gabriel Bertoniere) and I carried on a series of spontaneous discussions centered upon Vaihinger’s theory. They occurred mostly on Sunday afternoon walks while exploring more remote parts of our 2,000 acre plus monastic property. Actually the walks were an excuse to get out and talk without the usual distractions you find in a community. Taking in the scenery was enjoyable but in fact was secondary. It didn’t dawn on me until recently but our conversations pertaining to Vaihinger’s “as/if” theory bears resemblance to those on non-begetting which hearken back over twenty years. Even though these winter walk-discussions took place a few months prior to beginning this essay, I’m hard pressed as to recall the exact stimulus which got them going. However, I do recall Fr. Gabriel first mentioning the name Vaihinger in connection with Jeremy Bentham and thought it would be a dead-end. One thing I know for sure: that Fr. Gabriel and I were groping around for non-religious terminology to better express what it’s like to live in a monastery. This term “non-religious” isn’t meant as a correspondence to non-begetting; it pretty much came up on second thought. The prefix “non” is revealing in that Fr. Gabriel and I instinctively wished to avoid conventional religious expression while remaining solidly within this tradition. At one point we kiddingly said that only monks have the luxury to come up with such ideas.
I might add by way of footnote that these winter walks had as their primary focus how to live the second half of one’s monastic career as noted in another essay entitled “Reflections on Monastic Living for the New Millennium.” People are living much longer than even their immediate ancestors. When a young man joins the monastery he spends roughly the first half of his career learning the ropes, getting settled and trying to master a way of life which in many ways is more radical than his pre-Vatican II predecessors. In “Reflections” I touched upon a practical application of Vaihinger’s “as if:” the first half of one’s career is lived because you wish to be a monk. The second half of one’s life may be viewed living “as if” you were a monk...but as if taken in a technical sense. The two halves can’t be reversed, a temptation that arises when you are starting out; the “as if” phase is fully dependent upon what you had learned in the first phase.
To briefly review...both the concept of non-begetting and the Vaihingerian “as/if” can be tools for opening up new avenues for the expression of religious and monastic experiences in the face of alienation from God which nowadays has assumed manifestations very different compared with earlier ages. Putting it better, people do not seem estranged so much from God but from terminology associated with what has become outmoded (though still valid) methods of spirituality. The language and catch-phrases of former times speak of God in a dogmatic fashion, coming down from above with little appreciation of their meaning. What gave this language validity was the authority of the Church, and to question the Church was to question the language and hence the obedience associated with this institution. That’s another matter which is not pertinent to this essay.
Permit the addition of two brief remarks to amplify Vaihinger’s proposition: first, Bob O’Brien, a good friend of the monastery and retired businessman from the Boston area told me about a little technique around the time Fr. Robert and I were formulating our thoughts on non-begetting. Prior to making a crucial business deal, an executive should examine the positive ramifications of his decision by living out as best as possible through vivid use of his imagination how it will affect him and his company. After he had vigorously exerted himself, he uses the same process in order to analyze the negative side. If he makes a wrong decision, will he and his company be able to cope with it? Once the positive and negative sides have been scrutinized in this impartial yet fully involved manner, the issue at hand boils down to: will the right decision be made? Will the executive be able to function independently of both? Will he and his company come off unscathed? This is not entirely unlike a practical application of Hans Vaihinger’s “as/if” thesis. The businessman in his imagination functions as if his company hit upon a way to make millions of dollars; later he creates scenarios or as if the company went belly-up. Thus a personal experimentation has a way of spreading out to effect other persons and institutions. A kind of faith is at work here given life through use of a fiction regardless of which decision the CEO chooses; it is not unlike faith in a religious context.
The second “footnote” pertains to a more recent situation. Starting in the winter of 2002 the Catholic Church has witnessed an unparalleled crisis of pedophilia which centered around several notorious civil cases of abusive priests in the Boston archdiocese. It quickly spread to other dioceses throughout the USA as well as abroad. Apart from the sensationalism it was very interesting to hear responses from the laity ranging from pure disgust and rejection of the Catholic Church to a healthy appreciation of its real worth. Despite the pain and embarrassment, this seems to be a growing and educative process for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I mention this scandal not because it relates to the essay but is illustrative of how people perceive not just the institutional Church but Christianity in general. Of particular interest is discomfort with traditional ways of talking about God, of how language about God has assumed a dogmatic stance and as presented through the Church’s hierarchy. It’s the rigidity of most points of view which is so striking whether from the alleged priests, the victims and their lawyers/supports and of course, the media. At the same time folks are seeking ways to incorporate the Church’s tradition which roughly parallels those discussions between Frs. Robert, Gabriel and me. Perhaps people can experiment with ways or how the Church can function in the future...as if it adopted such-and-such a stance, etc. Rigidity of thought is a sure-fire symptom that the “as if” method is absent as a remedial tool. It bespeaks dogma, a notion discussed below.
+
Further clarification is needed with regards to the concept non-begetting in an attempt to make it more comprehensible to a wider audience since it was intended for private consumption or only for a handful of people. First, people are asked to assume that this novel concept offers a valid point of view. What strikes you immediately is the prefix non-; I noted this earlier, but it requires more fleshing-out. This ambiguous prefix sets the stage for something out of the ordinary, the unexpected. It has a unique ability for bridging gaps, for making comparisons between widely different realities which we are accustomed to perceive in hard-and-fast categories. Even the hyphen sets the prefix itself off from the term it modifies; it acts as a veritable neutral space between the prefix and noun’s significance. Furthermore, non- is a means by which a familiar reality is not referred to directly by its complete opposite. It takes the same term and throws it slightly out of context. This is not unlike looking at the world from the corner of your eyes as opposed to directly beholding it. In the case at hand, begetting is a term which comes from the experience of everyday life. This familiarity with one half of the picture, as it were, can lead to familiarity with the second half even if our knowledge of this second half is tenuous at first.
As for “begetting,” it seemed better to employ the gerund “-ing” which signifies something in a continuous state of development as opposed to a static entity which is the case with many adjectives modifying nouns. The gerund may be applied to things within temporal duration (“begetting”) or things which may not be affected by this all-pervasive medium (i.e., that which is “non-”). Thus begetting-as-gerund is a form derived from a verb but functions as a noun. On the other hand, “to beget” utilized as a verb is subject to the three temporal durations of past, present and future. Off hand I am unsure if there is an equivalent noun. “Begetter” may fall under this category as an agent who/which brings into existence or is responsible for a particular act. Note the relative pronouns: begetting may be personal or impersonal. For the purposes of this essay, I prefer the latter because it is more inclusive. The matter is not of special issue for the moment, just the fact that it relates to anything which comes into existence and passes out of it.
Begetting as a fairly continuous though ultimately limited bringing-into-existence covers a lot of territory; admittedly it sounds a bit vague, but further examination reveals that it signals a reality which is far-reaching. That’s the appeal. The same applies to non-begetting which signals the same notion of all-inclusiveness and which bring everything under its umbrella. All our experiences come into existence–from where, we are not always sure–are sustained during their lifetimes (let’s also include inanimate objects such as rocks, waterfalls and so forth), can change into something else and eventually pass away or expire. In brief, people, animals and things are begotten which is a more technical word to indicate their definite origin and limitation. They all ex-ist or literally, “stand out” from their source and remain secondary to this source. It’s not the purpose of this essay to focus on the specific nature of this origin; the important observation is that without exception all things are begotten...are being begotten...almost swarm-like, to push this word further. Such is the primary insight from which all others flow. Perhaps by focusing attention on the very act of begetting minus the natural tendency to impose all sorts of categories we can intuit the unknown source, that is, have an inkling of where all these things come.
There’s the possibility of deriving real joy from realizing that you, people around you and everything else is begotten, pure and simple. This perception arises prior to any mental or emotional baggage we throw on later. Actually the insight of created beings as appearing magic-like on earth is liberating because it helps free us up from compulsiveness and those limitations accrued with age. At the same time the insight is terribly demanding because it...well, embraces everyone and everything. How do you focus upon a rock which we claimed earlier is begotten, let alone a living human person? Then you have to throw in all the other people and stuff out there and extend it to sub-atomic particles, the solar system and galaxies. A bit-far fetched, but it’s how our minds work when we’re honest to ourselves, rather childlike. Maybe that’s the secret; start off small and then expand according to your ability. The gesture can apply either up or down from the universe as a whole as well as to molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles. Everything about us (including ourselves, of course) are being begotten in accord within differing scales of time. You can’t focus upon it continuously, else you’d go crazy. There’s always the tension between this general insight and the situation in which we find ourselves. You might commence with a grand feeling that “all is begotten” and immediately fall into life’s pressing concerns and thus fall flat on your face. The problem is that the constancy of begetting is both so intense and comprehensive that we can’t be in tune with an awareness of coming-to-birth all the time and in every place. The same applies to non-begetting. Maybe this is where faith helps. You have an experience of both sides of the coin, stray away from them yet “believe” in their operations even when you’re distracted or simply don’t have the strength to press on.
With regard to this problem of consistency in perception, the Orthodox Christian tradition speaks of “prayer without ceasing.” This can easily be misunderstood. It is as though you take traditional ideas of prayer and apply them in a forced mental sort of way (a wrong way to apply the Vaihingerian “as if!”). Such prayer is more an act of the will which fails to consider the rest of our human constitution. Consider the Greek term “without ceasing” or “always,” diapantos. It literally means “through-all.” I.e., diapantos seems to suggest a general “through (dia)-ness” or ability to comprehend what this “through” is all about. Not a bad corollary to non-begetting which indirectly makes itself felt upon...through...the world of begetting while not partaking of it.
Because anything which exists obviously endures for a longer or shorter period of time, we could make a parallel between this temporal duration and Ecclesiastes’ “vanity.” There comes to mind the famous list of “times” in Chapter Three: “For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under the heaven.” The list continues through vs. 9 and covers every aspect of human existence. Thus begetting has its roots in time or duration and extends to all Ecclesiastes’ “times.” Note the pair of opposites:
-born/die
-plant/pluck
-kill/heal
-break down/build up
-weep/laugh
-mourn/dance
-cast away stones/gather stones
-embrace/refrain from embracing
-seek/lose
-keep/cast away
-rend/sew
-keep silence/speak
-love/hate
-war/peace
At the very beginning of the Book of Ecclesiastes we find a typical example which runs throughout all these “times:” “All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done” [1.8-9]. The key point here are the dimensions of time: “has been, “will be” and “will be done.” The first couplet pertains to being in general; the second, most likely to anything fabricated or brought into existence by human means. Ecclesiastes intuits both pairs as the same. What they have in common is a certain blandness...“weariness”...which infers some other reality not partaking of them and quite unlike the paired opposites of the last paragraph. The Preacher gives classical expression to the not unfamiliar human response of dissatisfaction with temporal duration. For this reason the inferred opposite to “vanity” (we could almost substitute non-begetting here; Ecclesiastes lacks an analogous term) presupposes a standpoint not fully identified with duration. If you wish to take a theological stance, this a-temporal vantage point can be viewed in terms of our being made in the divine image. We may take the likeness as our “begotten” nature which attempts to bring into line this realm with our unchanging (unbegotten) nature. However, it is not the point of this essay to focus on this more strictly theological viewpoint, just to bring in a familiar Christian idea or two which are different from the aim of this essay.
The Preacher deals with the important notion of beginnings which are of a different order than Genesis’ familiar “In the beginning.” There everything comes into existence at God’s command whereas Ecclesiastes speaks about individual or particular beginnings. Furthermore, he does not treat the idea of an ending, the other half of any beginning; more specifically, Ecclesiastes considers the “round and round” [1.6] nature of that familiar in-between land. This is a space between a beginning and an end in which we find ourselves and must get along as best as possible. A closer read of the text intimates a kind of despondency as opposed to outright despair at this in-between land–it is the realm of “vanity”–and offers no way out except general exhortations here and there about fearing God and keeping his commandments (cf. 12.13). Not very encouraging but notable by reason as a kind of afterthought. Nevertheless, the Book of Ecclesiastes is a must-read for a proper grasp of begetting in order to make the transition to non-begetting.
One can compare Ecclesiastes’ sullen observations about the fleeting nature of life with Wisdom in Proverbs crying out, “Does not wisdom call, does not understanding raise her voice? On the heights beside the way, in the paths she takes her stand; beside the gates in front of the town, at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud” [8.1-3]. The verses which follow spell out the alternative to places frequented by people, caught as they are in an ignorance that everything is begotten/“vain.” What you see in both Ecclesiastes and Wisdom (also consider the beginning of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, texts in the Septuagint) is a detached, somewhat remote position from human intercourse. Each character is standing apart but apart with the intent of summoning people to turn aside from the folly of begetting or treating things as though they had lasting value. The same applies with the term “non-begetting.” You have to stand outside the reality of begetting but in essence you can’t...another reason for the prefix “non-.”
It’s interesting to further observe that when the human mind has realized that all stuff is begotten it automatically jumps to the other end of the scale or the eventual dissolution of these things. The author of Proverbs, plus the other two Septuagint books, offer alternatives to the effects of human folly which can also assume the form of virtue or observance of divine precepts. To focus upon vanity/begetting alone (as is the case with Ecclesiastes) is insufficient and requires further instruction. The form of proverbial guidance at first strikes us as trite; nevertheless, the terse observations about life are quick glances or attempts at offering wisdom which may be applied to the universal reality of begetting in order to make it personal.
Patristic authors of the early Christian centuries such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa drew up a three-fold plan which treated the spiritual life based upon the insights of Philo of Alexandria and earlier Greek philosophers. This theory boils down to an account of the spiritual life as purgative, illuminative and unitive, or to put it in active verbs, “to cleanse,” “impart light” and “make one.” Here we have a logical approach if there ever was one. These three divisions were assigned to the three books of the Old Testament: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. It was Origen who laid out this three-fold path which was modified slightly by other Christian authors such as Gregory of Nyssa. However, these modifications are not essential to this essay. For an outline, consider the brief observation taken from Gregory’s Song Commentary: “The purpose of the book of Proverbs is to teach, while that of Ecclesiastes is to preach. The philosophy of the Song of Songs transcends both by its loftier doctrine.” While the Song of Songs represents the summit, Proverbs is essential for beginners because it touches upon the notion of a beginning already noted: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” [1.7]. This order is helpful, for it would otherwise be impossible to jump right into Ecclesiastes–which lacks the notion of a beginning–and his gloomy observations about repetition in nature and human affairs. A person might be in danger of getting lost or worse, despair; one wouldn’t be properly prepared for appreciating the Song of Songs as summit of the spiritual life.
One advantage which the Book of Ecclesiastes enjoys is its philosophical character taken from first-hand observations and preference for avoiding a strictly theological posture. It has little if any reference to God which makes it an ideal parallel to the concept of non-begetting more by indirect inference than by offering specific details. As a side note, consider the term “vanity” in Hebrew–hevel–whose fundamental meaning is “breath” or “breathing.” It pertains to exhalation (i.e., air), something which can’t be grasped and disappears as soon as we attempt to perceive it. Thus Ecclesiastes’ reflections allow us to look at the created realm from this ephemeral vantage point while avoiding speculation as to its cause...the task of Proverbs and the Song of Songs.
+
Creation is the basis–the absolute foundation–for positing any analogy between its concreteness and what may lay outside its domain. We have no reliable way to verify if anything does lie outside creation, so theories are fraught with uncertainty and suspicion. The characteristics of begetting–of coming into birth and passing out of existence which form that umbrella term for reality–is therefore the starting point for making analogies and metaphors. As we have already observed, something unmistakenly real exists within us that intuits the existence of an entity altogether different and totally contrary to common sense. And despite the overwhelming evidence, we cling to it like nothing else. If this is true, the statement “Everything is non-begotten” belongs to a different nature than what lies before our eyes. Here’s the first and most important step, making a clear line of demarcation. This is an act of some courage, like a fish getting outside his watery environment and realizing that his native habitat is water. Since the distinction between these two realities are so radical, it is beyond our capacity to realize how this is accomplished. It seems to be a datum present in human nature impervious to direct observation. Since direct insight is impossible, the only alternative is to examine in indirect fashion the nebulous vantage point from which observations about creation’s fleetingness are made. This indirectness is one reason for the appealing nature of the prefix “non.”
Even to adopt a position that something exists which is not subject to begotten-ness and hence “not vain” goes against the grain of common sense. All you have to do is look at the evidence around you, for all things are caught in the cycle of birth and death. Despite repeated efforts at disproving the tenuous reality which beholds it, people persevere in believing some type of immaterial existence, usually expressed through religious or philosophical terminology. Practically speaking, even the juxtaposition between the world of begetting/“vanity” and that which is perceiving it is sufficient evidence to probe further into this mysterious pair of opposites. Something must be there, for anyone who looks closely and impartially enough finds the distinction compelling. It can even evolve into changing one’s way of living or at least to question how you looked upon life up to this point. Since most of us are unadventurous, we prefer relying upon the advice and witness of other persons; their enthusiastic testimony can convert us not so much by exhortation but by simple witness. Usually this witness is characterized by hope and lack of despair because something else is held out for us all to behold even if we can’t see it at the moment. There springs to mind the often overlooked fact that the power of persuasion (the ancients called it rhetoric) arouses in listeners a desire to adopt the view of the person presenting it.
Ecclesiastes is such a rhetorician. He starts out by describing “vanity” as the bounded nature of creation or more precisely, our inordinate attempts to control it. Such control is a form of self-expression or expansion where the self flourishes, grows and achieves a sort of incarnation embodying that which it has appropriated. The means of self-expression are numerous: biological (propagation of the species), practical (or artistic), social (or political), intellectual and spiritual or (trans-personal). Each stage may be seen as hierarchically related to the other, the higher containing the lower. They form a ladder upon which a person may freely communicate himself, grow, expand or engage in a variety of other meaningful activities. Society has numerous ways to recognize and affirm these stages, the most obvious of which is marriage. Through society’s formal recognition of marriage, a person is empowered to beget children on a biological level.
Begetting isn’t confined to the biological level. It is the foundational image for examining the various ways people seek to prolong or indefinitely expand themselves into an equally indefinite future. This restless, future-oriented drive is best perceived as assuming a linear direction. That is, it starts or is “begotten” from a specific point with the intent of projecting one’s biological existence into an indefinite future. We have here a tendency to substitute that which is indefinite for that which unlimited. Perhaps this is where the real application of “vanity” comes into play with respect to the notion of begetting; the latter is well and good in itself. Only our way of dealing with it is subject to “vanity.”
Begetting can tie in with another concept dear to us moderns, progress. We’ve come to take for granted that human endeavors began at a given point and proceed to a some kind of goal. Certainly religious elements had a role to play with giving birth to this insight, but they are generally absent today. It was easy in past times to posit the end result as God; now various, obscure terms often borrowed from science are used which preclude an explicit divine dimension. Actually, the notion of an end is just as mysterious as a beginning. It’s still alive enough to motivate people or make them fulfilled, but when you look at it more closely, is it a human invention just like the idea of a beginning? This is obviously questions no one can answer. Still, an idea of beginning implies an end and visa versa. Maybe this conundrum can be resolved by realizing that it does in fact fall within the sphere of begetting/“vanity.” Just this alone is enough to spur one to seek an alternative, keeping in mind that that-which-is-asking-the-question is reason enough to pursue it.
The more specific element we can attribute to begetting is weariness over the give and take of everyday human existence with its unending rounds of birth and death, not to mention responsibilities laid upon us as we go through life. Here is the heart of Ecclesiastes’ discourse. At this juncture it may be helpful to briefly outline the key elements from Chapter One which relate to “vanity:”
-what does man gain by toil
-a generation goes, a generation comes
-the sun rises and sun goes down
-the wind blows...round and round
-streams run to the sea
-all things are full of weariness
-the eye not satisfied with seeing; the ear is not filled with hearing
-what has been is what will be
-nothing new under the sun
-something new has been already
-no remembrance of former things or of later things
We could readily substitute “begetting” for many if not all these italicized words, but that would be placing this insight on the same negative plane as Ecclesiastes’ observations. Begetting certainly has positive connotations, otherwise there would be no people, plants, animals and the like. However, for some reason or other we are more attracted to negative elements as opposed to the positive ones. Therefore begetting in the human sphere can imply a compulsive preoccupation with self-expansion which results in weariness due to demands it lays upon a person. At the same time, fatigue can turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Begetting can so exhaust a person with the generation of activity that a mind which has become weary with begetting’s endless variations must relax. Once we achieve such rest, we become aware that the restless activity of begetting is circumscribed by limitations. We are constantly trying to break out of these limitations and are tempted to see our efforts at liberation in terms of further begetting. In other words, its more of the same (a la Ecclesiastes), a trap to which we easily succumb. Fatigue enables a person to perceive another dimension to reality which normally would not have been visible amid the usual wear and tear of begetting’s activity. This is not to claim that begetting is inherently wrong; this was stated several times earlier and is important to keep in mind. Refer only to Ecclesiastes’ treatment of the created realm; he sees it as good-in-itself and singles out the repetitive nature of coming into and passing from existence as mirroring human “vanity.” Despite its affirmative aspects, begetting’s complex nature as applied to our attachments lends itself to the creation of multiple, highly structured entities and situations which the mind cannot manage easily despite its “vain” efforts.
How does a person come to realize the existence of a hitherto unknown reality (“from above,” to put it in Christian terms with regard to the necessity of being born a second time) independent of the familiar spacial-temporal plane which is the domain of begetting? Again, recall that the prefix “non” signifies a state which does not fully imply the opposite of the noun to which it is attached. It lacks the characteristics of something specific and introduces an element of intentional ambiguity. Non-begetting therefore intimates a reality transcending the distinction between entities which are either overtly positive or negative. In the case at hand this would be “begetting” and “unbegetting.” Obviously the latter signifies voluntary or involuntary restraint concerning the inability to procreate, again, having in mind the general notion of this word. As far as this essay goes, “unbegetting” is not the goal towards which we are striving. Perhaps more can be said about this at a later time; suffice it for now to say we are concerned here strictly with clarifying the notions of begetting and non-begetting.
A person can start out from Ecclesiastes’ point of view (“vanity”) and work backwards until he or she hits upon that which is doing the perceiving. This critical first step was already mentioned. Closer consideration reveals that it’s easier to do this than at first glance; nothing mysterious is involved, only our unfamiliarity with the process. Actually our unfamiliarity is revealing because it indicates how much we are caught up in the world of begetting. When you perceive the difference between everything which is begotten and that mysterious spectator or part of us engaged in the observing process, you don’t simply walk around and say “This is begetting” and “That is non-begetting.” If you do, you’re on the way into what Vaihinger calls the realm of dogma where an insight’s usefulness is so compelling that it immediately becomes transformed into something you get attached to and compel everyone else to accept. This is an easy attitude to recognize in other persons but hard in ourselves; the proclivity for dogma is present more than we’d like to admit. It takes time to absorb the difference, to get accustomed to the distinction, before attaining ease at shifting attention in between begetting and non-begetting. Since the concept of non-begetting is rather new, a means to describe an old distinction–namely, that which is created and not created–it requires a serious questioning with regards to one’s whole way of life. Surely this consideration affects behavior and enters the realm of morality. However, this is not the explicit theme of the essay; it can form a theme all by itself. For the moment we want to get at non-begetting as straight-forward as possible and make it accessible for beginners.
Okay, so here we are situated at a junction: one road leads off to begetting and the other to non-begetting. Maybe we could say that the latter enfolds the former by reason of it not being subject to the birth/death process, or so it seems at first glance. Going on the classical principle that anything invisible is prior or superior to that which is not visible, we may presume that non-begetting enfolds begetting. There is no objective evidence to take this stance, yet the history of religions throughout the world indicate that we humans have this inbuilt tendency. Since we have two terms for two experiences, the next insight that logically follows is some kind of hiatus existing between them. It might be better to use this term as opposed to “gap,” the latter intimating two completely unbridgeable realities. A hiatus can be associated not only with a spacial difference but a temporal one, the latter being more relevant because like the prefix non-, it infers an interaction between both. Thus we can infer a certain disjunction as opposed to an outright contrast. Although we can’t tack anything familiar on to our experience of non-begetting, the very fact that our cognition is delayed or held in abeyance...“is non-ed”...is reason to say that there’s a possibility of perceiving reality through use of the term non-begetting. A hiatus creates a mode of expectancy, a slight pause in the passage of time which effects a disjunction. This is quite unlike the case when we’re caught up in the world of begetting which sees no way out of our predicament of boundedness.
Because non-begetting lacks familiar spacial and temporal orientations, the only alternative we can garner is that it exists in the here and now. Begetting and non-begetting therefore have radically different world views; the former often perceives the latter’s freedom and apparent unpredictability as a threat to the former’s very existence. On the other hand, the latter fails to obey the familiar rule of linear movement which proceeds, for example, from point A to point C by going through point B, and so forth down the line. Already existing without dimensions in the here and now, non-begetting simply has no need to identify with familiar positions or ways of viewing the world.
Non-begetting is totally free from the need of self-expression, guilt produced by failure and the disquiet that can arise from accountability to a higher authority, all characteristics belonging to the negative side of begetting. In other words, non-begetting is free to be present not only in the present but in the past (origin) or future (an intended goal). It is also free from the notion of progress, that modern invention noted above, which tends to overlook the value of the present moment. Yet if we were to consider non-begetting after a quick read of the Book of Ecclesiastes which focuses upon that endless “round and round” cycle [1.6], we could misidentify the former’s timelessness as equivalent to the latter’s boundedness. This is a classic example when categories are confused due to partial similarity.
Begetting seeks various ways and methods to prolong its existence since it is primarily concerned with propagation or expanding the self or ego in space and time. This restless, future-oriented drive so typical of begetting may be perceived as assuming a linear direction. That is, begetting is constructed upon the past with the intention to project or prolong one's ego into an indefinite future. We have here a tendency to substitute that which is indefinite for that which unlimited. Indefinite extension within space and time already rests on familiar ground since its quantitative and qualitative aspects have already been discovered and serve to create a favorable atmosphere. And so, indefinite extension projects these familiar attributes into a vaguely undefined future. To sum up then, an indefinite future can act as security against a future which is both unfamiliar and unlimited.
+
One other way of seeing if the term non-begetting has any validity is through personal experimentation even though at first we can’t prove its existence to anyone else. You have to start by playing around with the word for some period of time before it resonates true to yourself. Then you can bounce it off other persons and get their feedback. “Play” is a good word because it implies flexibility and a lightsome spirit. If the results don’t turn out to be as you expect, that’s fine; there’s plenty of room and time to follow another lead and see where that ends up. This is one of the chief insights I realized after reconsidering non-begetting back around 1985.
With this in mind, here is an experiment which had direct bearing upon the idea of non-begetting. Around the time when Fr. Robert and I were working on the concept I had taken a walk in the woods not far from the abbey. I had already explored virtually every nook and cranny and went out with the vague intent of discovering something new. Part of our nine mile trail system contains a well-trodden old fire road leading to North Hill, a lovely area which has two streams converging just south of the path. All this was very familiar territory; perhaps I could walk towards the east into the thick of the woods and come out around Seven Mile River, at least that was my original intent. The season was around late September just when the foliage was turning bright colors. Since the sky threatened rain, I decided not to venture far off the beaten path. However, the weather improved, and I opted to sit on a ledge just above the point where the two streams converge. Suddenly this familiar area appeared transformed by the gurgling sound of the nearby streams. Such a sound is symbolic of much what we like to think of nature: pristine and untouched by human intervention. Then the sound seemed to merge with the scenery about me. It was as though (a close parallel to the Vaihingerian “as if”) the sound and sights had become harmonized. I was aware of the distinction of rocks, trees and streams yet simultaneously aware of the unity. What brought this about? First, we have the familiarity of natural surroundings. Second, the possibility that any combination of perception–in this instance sound and sight, the senses we rely upon most heavily–have the strange ability to coalesce and produce new perceptions. They seemed to have an ability to open up whole worlds which hadn’t existed before. This is a bit inaccurate because you could infer that the combination of everyday perceptions can produce a new world. Here is a fiction of our imagination (as opposed to the positive sense below) ready to be peopled with all sorts of dimensions and bizarre creatures.
It is easy to see how this perception of unity engendered by the sound of a brook in a lovely pastoral scene offers material for all sorts of poetic images. Despite this possibility, the insight gained out in the woods seemed to focus upon what may be called the “bottom line”–the common denominator–belonging to any combination of insights regardless of their variety. Here was the raw material from which all insights could be built. The problem was how to articulate the unity perceived out there. Every aspect of the natural world was outside me yet I was part and parcel of the same reality. It was possible to examine the connections and to situate them within a spiritual reality; such is what you’d expect in the monastic context which is open to experimentation in these matters. Still, adopting a religious insight would smack of a particular world view–Cistercian and Catholic in this instance–both of which are fine but subject to specific religious modes of expression. The reason for not adopting language proper to these points of view rests in part upon a total immersion within a religious atmosphere over an extended period of time. For a change of pace, I thought it would be interesting to see if I could hit upon a term, phrase or concept embracing these realities yet bespeak a more comprehensive quality with which larger audience could identify. At the same time there’s a danger of getting too abstract at the expense of the Cistercian and Catholic traditions...of bending backwards to accommodate as many points of view as possible. Such was the situation: the experience of unity out in nature and how to articulate it.
Being out in the woods is a kind of laboratory where conditions are most favorable for experimentation. It’s artificial but necessary to optimize the conditions before trying them out in other situations. Even more important, it’s helpful to repeat the same conditions (i.e., the same brook, rock ledge or similar locale) at a later time to see if the “experiment” can be repeated. The chief advantage of the natural world is its wholly otherness from human affairs. You try to abstract from your everyday dealings in society, that is, life without-human-beings, and see if the same insight gained from nature can be applied to it. In natural surroundings we are lifted from our usual environment and placed in one which resembles a laboratory. In the case at hand, it isn’t a question of focusing in on the myriad variety of flora and fauna, let alone literature dealing with them. The question boils down to: what is the common denominator of “all this stuff” which includes the person perceiving it?
There’s a term common to some forms of Buddhism called “suchness” which may help out here. From what I gather (and this is an unprofessional observation), it applies to an immediate perception of physical reality just as it is...“such” as it is...minus the embellishments we’re fond of attaching to it. Practitioners are relentless at pointing out suchness in and through every circumstance. In theory this is easy because all we have are perceptions. Practice is something else. Even should a person insist that we need to order these perceptions, the suchness thing is pressed even harder. This desire for order is so ingrained that we’re prone to claim it is present in us before our perceptions, that is, our suchness ability. Right away suchness is dismissed as a useless practice because it doesn’t lead anywhere, going round and round which is parallel to Ecclesiastes’ observations of natural processes. However, insight into this cyclic behavior is misleading. There’s a confusion between the two form of observation: that of Ecclesiastes infers our preconceptions with regards to nature whereas suchness lacks–is totally devoid of–these preconceptions. Perhaps part of the problem is that we don’t want to try out suchness; afraid to do so because it cuts to the quick and reveals the superficial correspondence of the former to the latter.
+
Just about the best way of getting a handle on non-begetting is through death which is the absolute terminus of every form of bringing-into-existence, that is, of begetting. Not that we are expected to die outright nor be morbid about it, but to see if we can simulate its process. It’s the unconditional nature of death that compels us like no other reality to undertake the simulation. Real physical death brings to an end everything which is begotten, so much so that despite all the talk, nobody really knows what death is like until he or she undergoes it. Even though we hear that God is infinite and unknowable, these two perceptions about the divinity are equally applicable to death. To put such abstract observations more concretely, how do we imitate something absolute when all our experience is reducible to begetting, the opposite of that which is absolute? We can start with the actual dying process which involves shutting down our entire minds and bodies...in short, bringing to a halt anything in ourselves that moves. This is not as strange as it looks; it is a common form of spiritual discipline employed by the world’s great religions. As these practices testify, physical mortification is secondary to mortification with regards to our behavior which precedes corporeal death. This gets into morality–extremely important–yet not the focus of this essay which is simply an attempt to look at the matter through different (and hopefully) more appealing terminology. Death with respect to immoral behavior is the most difficult challenge of all; even to experience victory over some of our inappropriate inclinations is to have an inkling into what this whole discussion is about.
Start the physical imitation of death by sitting as still as possible (this imitates rigor mortis); it may not get to the spiritual and moral aspects right away, but at least it’s a beginning. Being faithful to this initial practice inevitably leads to the more important aspects of mortification. Physical stillness is crucial; it automatically spills over to our minds and works on settling down thoughts and the imagination. This is one of those things hard to explain but really does work. Once more the emphasis is on practical experience. Upon having “died” for a period of time and then having come back to “life,” you see the need for access to religious/philosophical terminology. Words from other fields of human experience don’t quite measure up. Maybe because we are accustomed to receive traditional religious terminology from on high and without an emphasis upon application that it is at odds with what we’ve just experienced. This is why non-begetting is offered not to replace conventional religious terminology, only as an alternate to shed greater light and make the practice of mortification more palatable. The mock dying replicates everything involved in the process, to approximate that which we know for sure is an absolute, with the big exceptions of pain and suffering, a real limitation. After all, this is an experiment where two completely different realities are brought together.
Now that the imitation of death is offered as a direct means to experience the distinction between begetting and non-begetting–Ecclesiastes’ clarion call of “vanity” is naturally associated with death–we can turn closer attention to Hans Vaihinger’s theory of “as if.” The reason? He seems to offer a way out of the mess we usually find ourselves in when it comes to things both moral and spiritual...not a panacea but the possibility that an alternative to our muddled way of looking at things does exist. “As if” is a tool; like all tools, it is limited yet has beneficial effects should we make use of it.
Let’s start with a perception so many people have about themselves: “I feel as if I were absolutely of no value to anyone.” A bit desperate, but we’re attempting to stick to human reality as best as possible. What pops out in this statement about oneself? Neither the “I” nor the feeling of uselessness but the Vaihingerian “as if.” These two particles bridge the person and his or her sentiment with something external and symbolic of present self-awareness. This is a common technique often not reflected upon yet once it is, has the potential of opening up new insights. “As if” (exercising this banal example) is automatic–a consciously false statement–and therefore a fiction. Although we’re conscious that it is a fiction, unconsciously we take these “as ifs” as hypotheses which can be proved by experimentation and therefore verified. In the case at hand, we feel so consistently valueless that it evolves into an operating principle, a hypothesis. One example common to the context of this essay is when a person says, “In the monastery I feel as if I were living in the Middle Ages.” Everything about us is suggestive of this period which means familiarity with that period of history; in turn it evokes an actual representation of it in the present. By becoming aware of the Middle Ages as a fiction, we externalize it and can verify it through accounts of that epoch. This is not unlike acting where the actor knows the distinction between his or her person and that which is being played out. A problem would arise when a person feeling “as if” he were in the Middle Ages thought that he had actually lived at that time. His memories of it may lead to saying something like, I am familiar with life’s details in the Middle Ages but am now re-incarnated and will undergo further re-incarnations until this memory is purged from my system.
A closer look reveals that we somehow equate twentieth-first century monasticism with the Middle Ages. It probably comes from books and movies, even the perception of an actual monastery. Memory plays an important role, for it offers material to our imagination living in the here and now or an actual situation. A problem would arise if we really thought we were in the Middle Ages and all that involved. This would be transferring ourselves from the lived present to another age which no longer exists. One can easily imagine a person having had this experience. He or she transfers it into a dogma... “we must live such-and-such a way because we are, after all, in the Middle Ages.” Should the fiction be properly maintained, we would see that “Middle Ages” is a transit point from the present into an actualized reality of the past without confusing two distinct temporal periods. Here is an opportunity of keeping our insight as a fiction without letting it degenerate into a hypothesis. Not so much a hypothesis but the quick shift into a dogma (NB: dogma in Greek also means “opinion,” a revealing side note).
Hans Vaihinger offers two illustrations of “as if” which fill out the point we’re trying to get at here with this example. The first applies to the concept of an atom. I don’t know if scientists today can see certain atoms through high-powered microscopes, but most likely they can detect their presence. This is irrelevant for our purposes. Around the turn of the twentieth century when Vaihinger was formulating his ideas, atomic theory was starting to seep down to general public awareness. Thus he proposes that science behaves as if the world were composed of atoms even though nobody has seen them. The other example pertains to jurisprudence. Take a rich man who has willed a million dollars to his son who later has an accident and ends up brain dead. Here law treats the son as if he were dead and can’t inherit the million bucks. Vaihinger gets into commonly accepted terms such as “freedom” which he considers a useful fiction. Although it isn’t with the scope of this essay to debate the full scope of his idea, still it’s intriguing to adopt the “as if” stance. It’s not unlike play which seems closely allied with fiction.
Now let’s make a practical application. We “die” according to the process noted above with regard to simulation of real physical death and later come back to “life.” The quotation marks, of course, indicate that this practice isn’t in accord with the real thing but simulates it to some degree. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be a better parallel between true physical death and the simulation of it by shutting down our faculties. Putting this into Vaihingerian terms, our simulation allows us act as if we were dead. In reality we don’t die nor do we come back to life because we had been alive when we started out. Our experiment is a fictive device: death is feigned instead of being an actual fact; life is actual but our departure from it is feigned. Not entirely unlike a description of acting. It may be more to the point to say that we return from “death” to life in accord with the fictive as-if pattern, for that is the original state in which we had found ourselves. Being alive is so general and inclusive that moving from it to an all-inclusive condition (physical death as in our simulation) is not possible unless we pass away physically. This shows the incomparability of both life and death, their inability to be simulated in an absolute sense since nothing can stand outside them. The problem is also applicable to artificial intelligence which seeks to replicate the human brain. The brain is so complex that the only analog to it is the brain per se. As for death, closer examination reveals that we don’t really know about it except second hand as when we read about death and see actual dead bodies. When we’re looking at dead bodies we know we are not like them but are in the opposite state, life.
+
If we believe that the terms begetting and non-begetting have something worthwhile to communicate, we’re in a better position to appreciate that the former is the sphere of our actual life in all its concreteness and activity and that the latter resembles an ideal towards which we strive. Instead of falling short of an ideal as conventionally understood, the all-pervasive character of non-begetting offers continuous opportunities of attuning us with the ultimately limited sphere of the begotten world. Comprehension of non-begetting reduces the enormity of begetting’s complexity into small units through a fictive leap of the imagination. It then allows us re-assemble them in a way other than a head-on attempt to grasp every feature of the world of begetting. This isn’t a way of reducing complexity to simplicity but is a two-step intuition. First, we get at one lowest common denominator of creation (begetting) and second, have a new term (non-begetting) to reveal how the perceiver isn’t affected by the processes of creation. The person stands outside creation and beholds it, all this while remaining right in the thick of createdness. Another way of putting it: if we adopt the position of non-begetting–that-which-is-perceiving the world of begetting–we would view the world as if it were situated within a larger reality. We would act as if such and such a thing were so. Most likely Hans Vaihinger would subscribe to view that even though non-begetting is helpful, it does not exist. It is a product of our imagination but one geared to improving the quality of our lives. Should we choose other possibilities, these possibilities would fall under the same formula: as if they already existed.
All this talk about “as if” such and such a reality existed may appear fanciful at least and misleading at worst. Fanciful in that we harmlessly daydream and hit upon some figment of our imagination, our image-making machine, and let it spin out all sorts of ideas. Misleading in that “as if” may be an equivalent to “all things are relative,” the bane of the twentieth (and thus far, twenty-first) century. These are black and white concepts–not the theme of this essay–which is just an attempt to look at familiar things in new terms. Or to put all this in now familiar Vaihingerian terms, if we are asked to assume that such a reality exists, that’s fine. The end result is what matters, how it can be put to good use. Of course, we can take utility only so far. The structure “as if” is useful...as if non-begetting existed...but we’d find it hard to center our lives around something whose existence if problematic. Some kind of faith is needed insofar as non-begetting corresponds to a valid experience. It’s an inbuilt part of human nature which gets back to where the beholder perceives the world of begetting. Only now we locate this beholder within the realm of non-begetting.
These observations about our new terms are well and good, but we need to flesh them out through the analogical process. It’s just as natural as our inbuilt “faith” in something/someone which/who is beholding the world or begetting. We can fabricate an endless source of analogies related to the created realm, but the task is daunting when we come to the unfamiliar nature of non-begetting. The question is, if you can identify begetting...coming into birth...as something palpable to all the senses, how can you identify something which has nothing to do with it? Is non-begetting a product of our imagination? Where role do the analogies have to mediate between such disparate realities? The term “witness” in the general sense helps; someone has to know about non-begetting and be persuasive in order to pass it on to another person. This implies sensitivity with regards to one’s audience which is wholly unfamiliar with this new term. It’s also helpful to avoid speaking about categories as much as possible which give rise to further categories down the line. This is revealing because categories show how we have been brought up, the language we speak plus the philosophic and religious beliefs we maintain. So you have to start off with an awareness that categorical thinking is central to most people even if they not consciously aware of its operation in their lives. Thus a descriptive, open-ended approach to non-begetting helps which seems more adapted to face questions and challenges that will come our way.
Since Vaihinger’s “as if” has been offered as a kind of method to comprehend begetting and non-begetting, several matters naturally emerge to anyone unfamiliar with his approach. I deliberately use “kind of” because it doesn’t seem to be a method per se. Perhaps the intentional ambiguity of “as if” runs parallel to the equally ambiguous “non-” employed as a preface I spoke of earlier. To start with, inquiring persons can come off with a rebuttal, namely, that non-begetting is a product of an over active imagination. They would be right to take this position. Furthermore, most likely Vaihinger would agree with them. A new insight coupled with a newly coined word is unsettling, so you have to be careful with its presentation. You can start with the facts discussed earlier, the lowest common denominator: everyone can subscribe to Ecclesiastes’ “vanity” because it’s readily observable. It’s a rock-solid point of departure. The next step is to deal with apprehensions about where-do-we-go-from-here since the prospects of living in a “vain” world appear bleak. Here is yet another rock-solid observation both we and other persons can agree upon.
Surely some features of vanity run parallel to begetting as described, so we can take a step forward and say that Ecclesiastes’ “vanity” is like begetting (see the verbs from the text which have the verbs in italics). A quick read of the Book of Ecclesiastes obviously shows that the Preacher has found many examples. Should a person persevere by shifting from “vanity” to that-which-is-observing it, we’ve moved to a realm where one has to come up with words...any words even if they are gibberish at first...to get a handle on this ambiguous situation. Here’s the tough part where we depart from clear-cut knowledge of “vanity” or begetting to whom/what is beholding it. Even this is acceptable, that someone/thing is actually engaged in beholding. Despite the inadequacy of words that follow, this experience provides raw data which is just as universal as any insight into “vanity.” Now we’re at the juncture where we begin groping around for analogies and metaphors. Here the ground on which we are standing is hazardous, for the natural sequence of this process leads to something like, “the incomprehensible observer of vanity (begetting) is like...”
From this point on we are in terra incognita. No one knows for sure what this beholder of vanity/begetting is like. Language is insufficient, so we have to keep in mind the principle enunciated above: our sensations alone are real as opposed to the categories we utilize for getting around in the world. We can follow this basic principle in our slow but methodical drift from begetting to that-which-is-not it. Here’s where the prefix “non” comes into play. Since “non” intimates an in between reality–“non” creates a hiatus as opposed to a gap–it is useful for making the transition, to bring over something from our sensations while gently leaving aside perceptions built upon them. At this juncture it is helpful to bring up one point, namely, to avoid use of “like.” This word makes a direct correspondence between two things, a simple example being, “Mary is like an angel, she’s so sweet” (This would be different from saying, “Mary behaves as if an angel, she’s so sweet”...less clear and more elusive). Thus we prefix “non” to begetting (vanity) and create an intentional hiatus (-), i.e., non-begetting. This gesture results in not the transformation of begetting but making it undergo a disjuncture, a slight un-alignment, which incorporates the reality of begetting with that-which-is-perceiving it.
The newly postulated fictive realm of non-begetting doesn’t just sit there in isolation from its counterpart giving us license to forsake all the stuff in the process of coming to birth. Here a temptation to adopt a form of gnosticism may arise: non-begetting is far superior to begetting. Therefore we’re obliged to do everything within our power to break away from whatever comes to birth. If that’s the case, gnosticism favors a gap over a hiatus. A true appreciation of non-begetting makes no gap with its created counterpart; we can take both anywhere we wish to go. Such an intent is a gesture (this word is preferable over “process” or “method” which smack of a technique) from begetting to the perceiver of it and finally over to non-begetting. The three are seamless but aren’t when we’re starting out; some adjustment is obviously needed as we go along.
All this leads to a specific application of Hans Vaihinger’s “as if” insight. That is, we can now perceive everything “as if it were non-begotten” while we are right in the thick of begetting’s messiness. This tool opens the further possibility of shifting tentative notions about non-begetting as a helpful insight into a fiction but fiction in a technical sense, not as a mental fabrication. Should we find non-begetting useful, we can make it a working hypothesis to which further insight is subjected, tried out and then stored away in our memories for further use. Other persons can endorse the hypotheses making the term non-begetting more acceptable. Instead of scientific verification, the authenticity of one’s persuasive rhetorical capacity is the agent at work.
Once non-begetting is developed into a hypothesis, it can stabilize our perceptions and make them normative for application within the world of begetting/“vanity.” The world isn’t changed in the least, just our way of looking at it. Still a danger is present: according to Vaihinger, a hypothesis (which takes its root in a fiction as noted in the last paragraph) which seems valid can be endorsed with great enthusiasm. Everyone should...must...look at the world in this particular way! Most likely this wouldn’t happen, but it illustrates the next step–a degeneration of fiction/hypothesis–into what Vaihinger calls dogma. We can briefly describe a dogma in the case at hand by the sentence, “Because non-begetting is of a higher plane than begetting, you must acknowledge it as so.” Dogmas make us easily satisfied, for the fiction-to-hypothesis development of non-begetting gradually becomes reified and leads to immobility. This crystallization comes about when an insight transformed into a dogma is further transmuted into a because which belongs to a radically different order than “as if.” The conjunction “because” is closely akin to “for that reason.” It presents a straight-forward way of doing things with little or no deviation...almost like the unalterable laws of causality. Here are two common examples: 1) “a young man joins the monastery because he wants to be a monk.” 2) “She goes to college because she wants to earn a degree.” Certainly quite different from the Vaihingerian “as if.”
“Because” isn’t an enemy of “as if” but should take its proper place as an essential introduction to the latter. This conjunction deals with matter-of-fact statements and injunctions required to perform a task or to conduct oneself in a certain manner. While helpful, it isn’t that creative and at worst dictatorial when it falls into the wrong hands. Also, a problem comes in when “as if” gets unduly familiar. Then people get excited over a new discovery and imperceptibly turn it from a fiction (bypassing the hypothesis stage) until it achieves final crystallization as a dogma. Should we take non-begetting as a dogma, we go around and tell people something like, “Such and such is non-begetting. Subscribe to it or else!” A dogmatic stance provides comfort and assurance which may be fine for an individual. The trouble comes in when we force it down the throats of other persons. Here those categories spoken of earlier become hardened and must be enforced. We can put this in two ways with respect to the two terms, begetting and non-begetting. “Because” makes both dull and uninteresting; it presupposes some form of categories and conveys an attitude that we’re intent upon teaching them. It would be more interesting...fun...to introduce “as if:” “The world looks as if it were subject to begetting.” And, “There is a principle which enables us to perceive the world as if it were subject to non-begetting.”
It seems that many creative insights have an air of “as if” about them; just consider your personal experience. They are not fully stable nor do we intend them to be so because they are continuously subjected to modification and renewal. Thus “as if” has a certain open-endedness about it. Once this device has performed its role, we adapt the appropriate insight and move on from there. Hence Vaihinger’s observation about “as if’s” ultimate utility.
In order to prevent non-begetting from sliding into a dogma, we always need to introduce (rather, re-introduce) the element of play. Since it and the realm of begetting are so radically different, to insert the former into the latter is a kind of “as if” gesture. Take an example. We can envision ourselves as if we had just landed on earth from another galaxy. We step outside our spaceships and watch the curious two-legged mammals walking about, mammals being defined as those who suckle their young. These beings are subject to every imaginable form of begetting and don’t even realize it. Our novelty at beholding them remains as long as we don’t subject ourselves to such mammalian behavior but retain our identity as alien beings, i.e., rooted in the sphere of non-begetting. Obviously a play of the imagination, but it’s intended to make the point more vivid.
In a sense, this fanciful gesture of non-begetting prevents our minds from becoming locked within our own ideas which little by little enervate our ability to function. It is therefore a type of enlightenment but one which requires constant vigilance to remain fresh. Now the contradictions so familiar in daily life gradually become transformed into driving forces that they may reveal the action of non-begetting. After all, only our perceptions are real; what we make of them is up to us, whether to act “as if” they suggested another reality or “because” they are indicative of such-and-such. This fictive process is personal and purely subjective. Yet it can be confirmed by experience and make use of any hypotheses which result from its exercise by means of those services it renders to experience.
+
One final note. The title of this essay is “On the Concept of Non-Begetting.” Note the italicized word which I chose deliberately as a kind of counterpart to the inscrutable prefix “non-.” The equally simple preposition “on” implies making stabs at something, of leaving the subject matter incomplete and subject to further revision. Such is the case with the established “as if” of Vaihinger and the newly minted word, “non-begetting.” As for the subtitle (“tentative reflections”)...more work is needed to associate insights into non-begetting with those derived from Hans Vaihinger’s fictive device. The current form of this document (early summer of 2002) is an unprofessional exposition. That’s okay, because it was developed within a lived monastic environment where glimpses are caught here and there from a multitude of sources and shared experience. As I noted in the opening paragraph, non-begetting came into existence back in 1985 because it seemed a helpful twenty years ago. Perhaps another twenty years is needed to develop non-begetting...as if it may lead to further insights!
+ The End +
July 2002