Dr. Michael Beachley
February 8, 2007
"Topoi of the Mysteries"
We Speech Commies are infatuated with language behavior. We share a precious kindred relationship with the avocation of Philosophy, arising in the history of Western thought at the same time and under the same circumstances during the golden age of Greece. Rhetoric is one of the first and oldest of all academic disciplines to be articulated in Western history. It has been venerated and denigrated. It has lifted us up to lofty heights of consciousness and it has been used to plummet us into the depths of banality. It is both the source of enlightenment and the instrument of devolution. In short, Rhetoric is an instrument of both the sacred and the profane. The difference lies precisely in how we humans use Rhetoric.
The purpose of Rhetoric is to influence. It is for this reason that Aristotle, Plato and certainly Socrates questioned deeply the ethical implications of Rhetoric. Indeed, one need search no deeper than the differential between the learned and the unlearned to understand how Rhetoric may be used to the one's benefit and to another's detriment. Access to knowledge and the means of its communication to others has always been a strong measure of a differential of power, and its almost universal progress toward unethical misuse of that power - the control of ideas. But Rhetoric has also been employed as a means of passing on much needed knowledge from one generation to another, from mentor to student, from the enlightened to the neophyte. Regardless of the context, the essence of Rhetoric is the identification and employment of all the available means of Persuasion, and persuasion requires a complex set of symbolic language behavior, code if you will, in order to do its deed. And any differential in access to that code - English, in our case - correlates directly with a differential in power - that is to say, If you got the Code, you got the Power. It is thus that the Church has always had a completely inordinate power over the people, at least until recently, because the Church not only has control over the code, but has actually created critical parts of the code.
The term, Topoi, is a Rhetorical term from which the word Topic derives, and topology, and topography. It refers to the notion of 'place', as in a literary place or intellectual place. In a sense, a topus is a cluster or coalescence of ideas in an argument that persists in dialogue or even in history or story. The mythical topus of "the Flood" is a good illustration. Many ancient stories ranging from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the great Flood of the book of Genesis, from the Sumarian writings of 4000 years ago to the Azteca, Mayan and Incan flood stories, all point to the persistence that such a topus has. The flood topus flows (no pun intended) through nearly all of the lore of early civilizations of which we are aware. Its rich imagery and deep meaning is used often in stories, as examples of illustration, as figures of speech. This particular topus is powerful because of the deep lying meaning of its symbolism. Literalists and Fundamentalists will point out quickly that these wide ranged mythic examples are actually clear evidence that God used waters to wash away the sin of the world, while fossil and geological records demonstrate clearly that the Earth is a truly dynamic planet upon which floods occurred frequently and, if we continue to burn fossil fuels, will surely do so again, all of which is, in a strange sort of way, a kind of confirmation that the "Fundies" might actually have a point.
I want to play with a few Topoi most closely associated with Religion. I am neither apologist nor polemicist. These are simply the results of my devotion to such inquiry in which I engage while mowing my lawn. It takes me 3 hours to do it each time. That is 3 hours of contemplation, done mostly in the Spring and Summer of the seasons. One may quickly chastise me for burning so much fossil fuel and contributing greenhouse gases to the environment. But all progress costs, all enlightenment has its price, and there is a great deal to be said for understanding Topoi while one does Topiary.
First, a brief history.
The sense of touchoccurs in all life forms. All forms of life are aware of their environment, at least to the extent of touch. When life forms come into physical contact with anything there is a reaction. Touch is the most primitive of senses - there is no mediation - just direct interaction.
The sense of tasteoccurs in higher life forms, and involves a mediated interaction with the object of sensory data; that is, we still come into contact with that of which we are concerned, but only in small collections of molecules of the object. In essence, we take in particles of the object, sometimes as food. Taste is mostly a mediated sense in that the air, or liquid, or the transporting of particles of the object occurs as the substance is taken in.
The sense of smellis similar to taste in that life forms still take in particles of the object, but in gaseous or vapor form or very tiny particles that are sensed in the nostrils. Both smell and taste work very closely together interpreting data of the external world. But in a slight sense, the sense of taste is a bit more primitive than smell.
The sense of hearingoccurs only in higher life forms, although there are corollaries and similarities in the sense of touch. Hearing is a mediated sense in that the physical actions of the object are carried on airwaves, and it is the interaction of the airwaves themselves that are sensed.
Finally, the sense of sight occurs only in the highest life forms, as we know them. Sight is a mediated sense in that visions are the result of the interaction of light waves with the eye. As light reflects off of surfaces, it is changed by the absorption of certain light waves resulting in the transmission of differentiated light we sense as color and shape. Further, information about shapes and even physical dimension are carried by the same light waves, and the result is a picture, if you will, of the external world, complete with movement, depth, and other data for interpretation.
When anthropoids stepped out of the trees and began roaming the plains in upright fashion, certain changes took place in the body, the most notable of which is the effects of gravity in the upright position. The brain settled, and this made a convenient, albeit small space at the top of the cranium making it possible for the brain to expand upward to fill the empty space, and as a result of natural complexification, a very powerful cerebral cortex developed. For those brains that focused this new and powerful grey matter upon the function of integrating the various senses into a structure of reality, the need existed to share aspects of this reality to others of one's own kind - in essence, communication - in a compelling urge to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty, to extend cooperation and achieve a greater degree of survival and comfort. Thus was born the Word.
Words are primarily representations of experience encapsulated into symbolic form conveniently capable of being transmitted from one person to another.
As senses are abstractions, that is, stuff taken out of the physical external world, words are abstractions of the senses. But words have a peculiar time-binding function that allows for the meaning of our experiences to be captured and held, external of our own existence. Thus, we can create messages for others to consume, and those messages persist even when the message creator is no longer available. Complex recreations of experience, especially in a communal sense, account for the beginnings of stories, tales, lore, myth constructions, compact and powerful message forms that express responses to such overwhelming questions such as:
Who am I?
From where do I come?
Where am I going?
Why am I here?
What is expected of me?
We know these questions rose early in human cultural yearnings from evidence remaining on rocks, animal skins, parchments, papyri, and clay tablets. From earliest evidence it seems that the symbol took on a tremendous meaning of special impact that we equate with the notion of the "sacred". Those who had special talents in the creation of symbolic markings were held in high esteem, much as we do today with writers, artists, musicians, sculptors and, occasionally, even speakers.
Here's the point of this brief history: All of our senses and sensory data are integrated with this marvelous brain of ours, and synthesized into a comprehensive image of the world which we use in the construction of meaning and understanding, as well as the basis from which to form decisions and projections of potential futures. And the instrument of that organization is the code: The language in which we speak and think. The code allows us to expand our capacities of consciousness immensely, while limiting us to functioning within the boundaries of the code itself. We can really go no further, unless we are able to restructure the code more efficaciously, or recreate the code in more creative forms. We are doing that all the time.
But note one thing. Talking about the Mysteries involves formulating words and phrases that are particularly associated with sensory experience, particularly sight. This is not trivial. The most common metaphoric transcription is the application of things we see to things unknown. So the meaning of new things is already coded in terms of human sight.
Case in point: The Latin word plîcâré is an infinitive verb like other infinitives such as to go, to be, to see, to eat, to hear.Plîcâré means 'to fold'. When the verb in conjugated and prefixes are added we have inventions such as:
The meaning of the unknown, then, takes on the meaning of the known when the same words are applied, even in variation. While this is a powerful instrument of explication, it is also a tremendous complication which leads to great implications of meaning.
The second most common metaphoric transcription is the application of physical experiences to things unknown.
Case in point: The Latin word Spîrâré means 'to breathe'. Thus we have:
Inspire, Inspiration, to breathe in
Expire, Expiration, to breathe out
Respire, Respiration, to breathe again
Perspire, Perspiration, to breathe through
Conspire, Conspiracy, to breathe against
Spirit, the Breath
Inspiration, the taking in of the Spirit
Holy Spirit, the Breath of God
Thus, we come to know the unknown by application of the known. This is the power of metaphoric language
Mysteries
In common usage, a mystery is referred to as being something which is inconceivable, unknown or unexplainable. Normally we understand the mysteries through the means of a Belief in realities beyond empirical perception. But in my estimate, one may also understand the mysteries by means of a Belief that includes and utilizes empirical perception as confirmation and verification. I am not convinced, therefore, that the mysteries are unknowable at all.
I do understand, however, that mystical experiences cannot be expressed in common ordinary language, and require metaphor or simile in order to be expressed. Thus it is that art and poetry, music and dance are often excellent vehicles with which to express the sacred. After all, ordinary language is based on sensory experience and intellectual differentiation.
Let's look at the language of some Topoi of the Mysteries.
The Singularity of God.This topus speaks to the universality of God, the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, all knowing. This topus references a belief in Monotheism, the great Singularity, in distinction from Polytheism, a plurality of gods. One of the immediate questions to be asked is whether the understanding of such a distinction is accurate. In other words, is "Polytheism" as we understand it actually our ethnocentric misunderstanding of another theological tradition, and is it possible that what we regard as Polytheistic is actually a multifaceted expression of the nature of God? I choose the latter as a beginning point of understanding such that these seemingly disparate traditions are actually expressions of the same thing.
The Face of God.Westerners regard God as having Character - often human characteristics.Male, White, with gray hair, and Elderly, really elderly. In this regard, we can thank the Church for giving us this image.In 1622, shortly after the start of the Thirty Years' War, Pope Gregory XV founded the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide ("Congregation for Spreading the Faith"), a committee of Cardinals, whose charge was to spread the faith as far as possible. The word Propaganda, something of which we Rhetoricians are intimately aware, comes from this body. Indeed, those who had access to the Code went about creating images all over the place which propagandized the Face of God. One can travel all over Europe, especially Italy, and see for yourselves the nature of such propaganda - Images in the Sistine Chapel for example, or any of literally hundreds of sites where frescoes and paintings represent a concerted effort to cast understanding of God in human terms.
Is God gendered? Again, we understand the unknown by making application of the known. And in order to have a relationship with God, the god must have some characteristic that is relational. Problem is, in doing so, we sort of denied the power of the sacred within half of the population while we were busy painting pictures of really old white men with beards up on the ceilings of our chapels.
Where is God? Is God a being somewhere? If so, is God corporeal in Space and/or Time? For most of us the answer to God's location is "Heaven". That opens up a huge new topus in its own right. What is Heaven? Heaven is where God dwells. Not lives, or resides, but Dwells. Or, God dwells in our hearts, or in the heart of hearts, the Key Place, the Center, the Sacred Heart. I have a heart. You have a heart. My God has a heart. It is a muscle. A pump. It moves blood through the corpus carrying oxygen and nutrients to nourish our cells. And it is not in the center. It is actually off to the left side. The point here is that God is viewed as dwelling, existing somewhere, corporeal or not, and in an identifiable place, a place to which we would surely like to go, if only we could lead lives deserving of such a place. Ah, which leads to the topus, "The Good Life."
Is God above or Below? Is God up? And are we down? Such an image arose during a time when humans understood the universe in a much more two-dimensional fashion. After all, the Earth is flat. Light comes from above. The sky is lighter, more ethereal, more heavenly, while the Earth is heavier, denser, darker. Jesus didn't dissolve, or disintegrate, or even simply disappear. Jesus rose, he ascended, as did Mohammed, and Guatama, and Baha'ullah.
Does God speak to us?Of course God speaks, and does so in the old formal ecclesiastic language of King James I of England or, if you like, King James VI of Scotland. Same King. We know this because that's the way we talk about God. The God Book says so. And if you want to pray real good, you use words like Thee, Thy, Thou, Thine, Shalt, just to make sure that God understands, or at least to remind ourselves that we are profane. Is there something sacred about King James' English? Or do we invest the meaning of the sacred into the language and thereby setting it aside as special?
Can we have a relationship with God? It may be described in a variety of ways. And the manner in which we describe it identifies us in one form or another. Not the following phrase:
"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Amicus Curiae - Friend of the Court. This is a legal brief written and submitted to the courts in support of an argument the author wishes to bring before the court. The court will accept and consider an Amicus brief if the writer has standing in the court, or if the writer has a particular expertise that may assist the court in its deliberations. In the The Elk Grove Unified School District vs Newdow, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Supreme Court to rule that the phrase above is unconstitutional inasmuch as it is an instance of the Congress making law respecting the establishment of religion. Newdow is a self-described atheist, and objects to the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court ruled that Michael Newdow lacks the "prudential standing" standing, i.e., the lack legal custody of his daughter, necessary to bring the suit before the Court on behalf of his daughter. I submitted an Amicus brief in support of Newdow's appeal in which I argued that the preposition "under" does indeed describe and determine a particular relationship with God and, as such, in unconstitutional. Consider these examples:
Prepositions are Non-Trivial
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
Does God have a Name? Names for God are Sacred. Hear some of them: God, Gott, El, Elohim (plural), Adonoi, Allah (praise be his name), Alaha and Eloi (Aramaic), Yahweh. In Hebrew God is referred to as YHWH, expressed as "haShem", meaning "the Name." Modern Christian bibles removed the word replacing it with, "The Lord", an appellation befitting the absolute power of the King, or Duke or other member of royalty. The word sacred means literally, untouchable. What is interesting to note here is that the Name of God was once considered to be utterly sacred and to be unspeakable, because in speaking the name of the infinite, one automatically profanes the name by reducing it to finite human language. This is Hubris, an extreme act of arrogance.
But remember that we do this all the time, these acts of hubris. For example, the stars and stripes are considered sacred. Aren't all flags? How about the song, "Drop Kick Me Jesus Through the Goalposts of Life." How about "Honk if you love Jesus." It never fails to amaze me at the disconnect demonstrated by the placement of the name of God, or the sacred name of Jesus on the bumper of one of the most profane creations in all of humanity - the automobile. What arrogance.
There are many other such Topoi.
Topus: Amazing Grace
Topus: Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.
Topus: I am the Alpha and the Omega
Topus: Creation and Evolution
But for now, let me speak of a final one.
Is God for Human Beings only?Our understanding of the sacred is limited to human beings. The only other consideration is that creation was turned over to us in stewardship. But we have so utterly botched up that one which leads me to be on the lookout for the next sin-washing flood. But I do believe, strongly by the way, that we are not the only conscious intelligent life forms in the universe. I do expect that we will be profoundly startled when the inevitable happens - Contact with some of the others. When that wonderful day does arrive, how will we respond? Will we draw again upon our swords as we have always done? Or will we make a place at the table for the others, or sit at the place made in our honor by the others? Will our faith talk be up to the task of engaging these newly found travelers in the Cosmos? Will we be able to share with them our understanding of the infinite, the sacred, the eternal?
In my final estimate, we have outgrown the archaic language we use to talk about the sacred. The semantic structures of faith talk created centuries ago have invariably led to the entrenchment of ideology. As, as we all have seen, whenever ideology rises its ugly head, people die in the millions.
We have developed ourselves so that humanity is an example of the Cosmos aware of itself. It is time to bring our faith talk into our real world of experience, and be responsible for our experiences. It is time to set aside the limitations of primitive faith structures and to begin seeing all the variations of faith as expressions of the same sacred urge, the search for meaning and self-identity, and the convergence of all of human consciousness.
Thank you.