Divine Laws are Imaginary

I recently posted this as response to another thread somewhere else. I have included a few excerpts of the original post to which I was responding. I have modified it slightly for purpose of making it fit into this weblog (provide context), and to remove names (and protect the innocent!). The short version is that I consider "divine laws" an imaginary notion. The other person did not think so, and contended that we could not leave divine laws to mere imagination. The other person argue for a true nature, and for God as process of improvement. Below are some thoughts on all that.

Here's the context from the first post of mine:

...divine laws are imaginary. In other words, they require that we engage our moral imagination in envisioning a source or fountainhead of such laws, a mechanism by which they are disseminated, a class of people who can understand them, interpret them, and otherwise can speak authoritatively about them (we don't need to imagine the people themselves, but the fact that they hold such authority is an act of moral imagination), and a scope and magnitude for such laws (how far they apply, to whom, etc.) ... the products of our moral imagination are indeed very real in history. In my estimation war is a product of very failed moral imagination, and it is very real indeed. The inquisition was an act of moral imagination, a flawed one at that, but nonetheless, also very real. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the product of a pathological moral imagination. Of course, by moral we don't mean good. We are speaking of the capacity of human beings to render moral judgment -- what *they* think is moral. But "Divine Laws" are not real things in history -- the actions by followers who believe in such "Divine Laws" are.

From the second post:

Let me step back and clarify what I mean by imagination and imaginary, because it is easy to misunderstand it when we put it in too sharp a contrast to the "real." That is, one way to make sense of "imaginary" and "imagination" is to understand it as myth, unreal, illusory, a mental construction and thus without the same legitimacy as whatever we deem "real." And yet, the power of imagination, the power to envision, is critical to anything we deem real. The category of the imaginary is crucial to social reality. The word imagination comes from the Latin "imaginari" and "imago" (likeness), and referred to forming a mental picture. Interestingly, Borges, in Funes El Memorioso (Funes The Memorious) tells us at the end that: "To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract." So, If we could not imagine we could not "conceive" of things, we could not forget that difference... and imagine. We cannot think without imagining.

But in speaking of imagination I was also alluding to the notion of social imaginary. Charles Taylor provides us with a nice definition for the purposes of this conversation. He tells us that social imaginaries are the "ways in which people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations." These imaginaries are, rather than static, "schematized in the dense sphere of common practice" (Taylor 2002: 106). Hence, imaginaries are the ways we envision, and conceive, of our social existence (and the answers those relations provide). To borrow from Laclau in On Populist Reason, that definition highlights what the operative principle is here: *relation.* Why is "relation" the operative principle? Because, as he tells us, "relations" between elements is what plays a constitutive role in shaping that which we conceive. Hence, that complex of elements that forms say, "divine laws" do not pre-exist the relational complex of imagination. In fact, "divine law" is constituted through that relational complex.

A good and simple way to understand what I meant by imaginary is the following: the imaginary refers to the collection of symbols, images, tropes (metaphors, etc.) and representations that helps us envision diverse forms of subjectivity (of conceiving being). In my estimation, divine laws are imaginary in all senses noted in the above, although I refrain from calling them "illusory" given what I've already said about the power of such imaginings. Besides, as we know, imaginaries can also take material form(s), with serious consequences. If anything, we've seen the truth of that in the consequences of the imaginary of the neoconservative cabal in power in the U.S.

So, I'm not just "dethroning him [God] to merely imagination." The task of imagination is not mere thought. I'm saying however, that God and divine laws are in fact imaginary constructs; whatever "reality" they obtain for us, comes from our "imagining" of it: conceiving of that relational complex and symbolic hierarchy that orders, structures, and can have material consequences for us. Which harkens back to the statement about God not being a fact in history, belief in God is. From your two posts I think you are conceiving of God as the actualization of unfolding human potentiality. Imaginaries can be provocatively described the same way. A social imaginary is not merely illusion but the actualization (altough not static) of unfolding human potentiality and creativity.

Still, some imaginings are better than others.

You ask, "when we talk about the sum total of our bodies and minds, our "chaotic human nature", when we talk about our hopes and our dreams and the better person that we aspire to be, is this better person merely a figment of the moral imagination? Or is there some tangible basis for it?" My answer is both/and.

[Edit: this better person cannot be other than a product of imagining -- we conceive of it as a goal to attain, and see it take particular form. Tangibility? Only insofar as say, imagining yourself twenty pounds lighter you work out until such is the case. Later, you put on an old pair of pants and all of a sudden they fit better, and you feel the difference. Maybe that is indeed a better you, though it might not be the entitity as you imagined it.]

An excerpt from this person's reply to my thoughts above:

...you say that divine laws are imaginary. Would you also say that human nature is imaginary? That the dichotomy between how a person acts when they are following other people's rules and how they act when they follow their "true" nature is a false one, since the idea of a "true" nature is entirely imaginary???

Yes, the notion of a true human nature that we have only to find and apprehend is imaginary. We cannot but imagine such a nature, and the adjective "true" clues us in rather quickly that we are postulating a supposedly more authentic conception. How would we know it when we find it? What makes it more authentic for us than what we are right now at this very moment? Why would any of my experiences of whateverness, which I might think of as pointing to my true nature, be generalizable? More to the point, why are you defining "true nature" as following one's "own" dictates as opposed to those of others? Why would my own counsel be more authentic than those of others? How can I take my own counsel as sane, and why would I conceive it as free from influence or shaping by worldview, culture, etc.? If the point is that this "true nature" exists outside of "conditioned" existence, then... what access do we have to that unconditioned existence? Zen provides somewhat of an answer... without positing divine laws or gods of any kind, and by constantly challenging (if not undermining) any grasping for conceptual firmness.

In my estimation, true nature is a claim we make, not something existing abstractly (outside of historical consciousness) waiting for us to tap into. And it seems nicer that way, because we can always continue to work lovingly toward transforming ourselves in better and better ways (no concept of true nature required).

Another excerpt:

So, I wonder what is the point of emphasizing that divine laws are "imaginary", when I have taken such pains to support the possibility that, even without people recognizing or articulating them, divine laws describe the governing dynamics of human existence in as real a way as the laws of physics govern a falling bowling ball.

Obviously, to play with a Clinton phrase, I can't feel your pain. In other words, your great pains haven't helped me see your point very well yet. So help me do that. Write down a few laws you consider divine. Are divine laws different than physical laws? See the question below regarding the "divinity" of such laws. Also, isn't this exercise in argument itself a product of our capacity to imagine, and if so, why would you posit divine laws outside of that process? Unless your answer is that divine laws grant us the power to imagine in the first place. If so, it seems to me that you are clearly working from is God as a supreme lawgiver (provider of divine laws), fundamental explanatory principle, constitutive of order, and ultimate causal ground (if divine laws are to be "divine" in the sense usually associated with that term).

I don't know what this means: "divine laws can describe the governing dynamics of human existence in as real a way as the laws of physics govern a falling bowling ball." Could you explain what you mean by "real," "governing," and "governing dynamics of human existence?" Part of my confusion stems from my thinking that we need to articulate some divine laws first before we make the claim that they can describe anything... and certainly that they can somehow describe anything in as "real" a way as anything else. Lastly, your statements seem to create an opposition between divine and non-divine. Yet, if we have divine laws as you stipulate them, how could we have anything in the universe that would *not* derive from that, that would not be divine?

A few more questions:

On what basis can these notions labeled "divine laws" be considered "Laws?" Furthermore, what makes these laws "Divine?"

By population of peeps do you mean those little multi-colored soft sugary candy that comes out around Easter?

Why should a concept of true nature be connected to a notion of the good?

Why should a concept of true nature be connected to a notion of God?

Some Resources

Others provide a sense of imaginary that could be helpful, although perhaps too much to get into here (i.e, Lacan and the imaginary as the relationship between the ego and the specular object of desire; and Castoriadis and social imaginary as system of meanings that helps institute social structure). The Journal Public Culture 14, no. 1 (2002) is a special issue devoted to new imaginaries (edited by Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar and Benjamin Lee). A classic work re imagination is Sartre, Jean-Paul. Imaginary. Trans. by Johnathan Webber, New York: Routledge. 2004. Sartre claims that the imagined is not "real," yet without it we cannot be free. The imaginary and intentionality go together as essential in constituting our world. Finally, Moira Gatens, Imaginary Bodies: Ethics, Power and Corporeality (Routledge, 1996), and Drucilla Cornell, The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography and Sexual Harassment (Routledge, 1995), are wonderful books on the notion of the imaginary. Cornell's in particular engages with liberal democratic theory in profitable ways.

Comments

[scruffysmileyface]

Wow! Am I correct in assuming that the other party involved is also in academia?

For my two cents, let me say that I have no idea what you're writing about. You lost me about three lines into it. In fact, it reads as if you lost each other. However, based on the title of your post, I can say this:

All dharmas are forms of emptiness. In some translations of the Sutra, the word "laws" is used in lieu of "sutras". So, ergo, therefore, and it must follow that, all laws - to include the laws of nature (which are of course what the Buddha and the Bodhisattva are talking about in the first place) and so-called divine laws (which I assume are those natural laws asserted by some diety according to one's religious beliefs) are forms of emptiness. And forms of emptiness can be imaginary, no?
Natural laws like "right" and natural phenomena such as "time" and "space" are created and maintained within the human psyche in order to help said human make sense of nature.

Even if the emptiness itself is quite real. Right? Right.

~scruff

[scruffysmileyface]

correction: In some translations of the Sutra, the word "laws" is used in lieu of "dharmas".

Need an "edit" function ...;)

[Belly]

Wow. Yeah, my over medicated brain had to slow it down to follow for a bit there but definately engaging. I have to say that your questions near the end are the questions I asked right at the begining. I cannot comprehend a conversation on "Divine Laws" real or imaginary without first defining the working terms and further clarifying what makes them divine, what makes them laws and what makes them divine laws. Of course the pivotal piece of information would be with regards to peeps, are they divine or imaginary? I don't get where the peeps came from...

In other news I hope all is well with you these days,
Take care!

[Nacho]

Scruffy thanks for the thoughts. I definitely do think that the other person did not understand the distinction I was trying to make about the term imaginary. Nevertheless, they continue to argue that "divine laws" are this or that, or can have this or that effect, but they have not bothered to define what divine laws are.

Yes, I thought of the Heart Sutra, but the other person is not Buddhist and does not have that context, so I figured I would not bring that stuff up. Then again, I did mention Zen. I like the Heart Sutra precisely because it highlights this ultimate indecipherability and indescribable nature of the world/universe/reality, and that what we have are conceptions, conceptualizations all the way down like turtles on top of other turtles (Dr. Seuss, Yertle the Turtle once again!). Nice constructs some, but ultimately our constructs, symbolic schemes to help us make sense, give meaning. All dharmas are marked by emptiness. All dharmas have no positive content that is to be found outside of the symbolic, outside of those constructions. That is, we look and filter through the skandhas (forms, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness), so we don't grasp the totality of anything, it is not conceptualizable. This is a stretch, but we could read Sartre's point about the imagined not being "real" as precisely the idea that our imaginings are always partial, always from particular lenses (and for him a certain wishfulness). In imagining ourselves we don't grasp how we "really" are.

I'm not sure emptiness is real... : ) we make claims to reality, we make claims to emptiness...

Belly! So good to "see" you again. Ah, the peeps are imaginary right now! Come Easter plenty of peeps will be really in my tummy (the other person used peeps as in slang meaning people, and I was just being silly about such usage). Yes, the questions really pop up right at the beginning. This post is really fragments put together quickly. The thread of that conversation is much longer and I can't put it all here. But yes, those questions did come up immediately for me. Unfortunately, the person on the other end believes it unfair to require that divine laws be defined before we assert anything about them!

Thanks again,

N

[Nacho]

Oh, one other bit. In the Heart Sutra, I take emptiness not just as "empty of content" but rather as interdependent/interdependence. Saying "Listen Shariputra, form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness. Emptiness is not other than form. The same is true with feeling, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness. Listen Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness, they are neither produced nor destroyed... for me speaks that nothing has a separate self, its own being separate from anything else.

Thanks,

N

[scruffysmileyface]

That's my take on it as well, Nacho, which is a viewpoint that I learned by reading John Daido Loori, Roshi of Zen Mountain Monastery in New York. I don't believe "emptiness" was meant to mean "devoid of form," which is why at first the Sutra appears to contradict itself.

Also in my own research, I find that in the Chinese, the word used for "form" is "se" 色 (pronounced suh), which also means "color". This reminds me of the bowl of water post, also known as the Tao of scruffysmileyface, found here:
http://tenguhouse.zaadz.com/blog/2006/7/the_same_piece_of_water_parts_i_ii_and_iii

~scruff

[Dukkha Earl]

Gah! Get right to it: show me whereon these "divine laws" are writ.

From Thoreau; "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right."

It is all in the thinking....

[Dar]

First, doesn't one have to have the recognization that change is in order. Secondly, the knowledge and ability to try to make changes? Thirdly, the desire to even begin?

If it can be dreamed, it can be acheived. I beleive this.