Giorgio Buccellati 2012 Coerenza
Buccellati 2012 Coerenza
“Coerenza e storia. La Mesopotamia nell'ottica storiografica di 'Ordine e Storia': Istituzioni politiche, trasmissione del pensiero e percezione dell'assoluto”,
in Giorgio Buccellati et al. (eds), Prima della Filosofia, Milano: V&P, pp. 113-124
[PDF version]
Back to top: Giorgio Buccellati 2012 Coerenza
Extended summary of Buccellati 2012 Coerenza
The contribution traces the development of the perception of the absolute in ancient Mesopotamian culture. It posits that the encounter with the absolute can be fulfilled only through the self-consciousness of the human being, which is embedded in the elaboration of writing systems, at the base of any order and historical perception.
Paragraph 1 deals with ‘a bond of solidarity’ (for which see also Buccellati 2014), developing this concept by means of the so called ‘urban revolution’ or even by means of the previous, first agglomerations of men in groups (i.e., ‘villages’).
Paragraph 2 describes how the first phenomenon led to the creation of a ‘image of thought’, mostly throughout the means of the scripture which is the “visual image of the thought already embodied as word” (p. 116).
This thought led then (Paragraph 3) to the ‘perception of the absolute’: “The reification of thought throughout scripture corresponds to the reification of reality with polytheism” (p. 117). The best outcome of polytheism was this, indeed “to have detected the whole coherence of the data of the reality” (p. 118). The paragraph continues in sketching out the major differences of polytheism with monotheism (for which, see in detail pp. 119-120; cf. also Buccellati 2014).
Paragraph 4 investigates the relationship between the binomial ‘order and history’, the latter seen as an ‘organic evolution’, implying different developments all connected to a general ‘sense of order and coherence’ in human evolution.
Back to top: Giorgio Buccellati 2012 Coerenza
Excerpts from Buccellati 2012 Coerenza
NOTE: in the excerpts, some of the headings (the bolded ones) were assigned by the author of the present page.
The notes in square brackets and in smaller font are by the author of this excerpts page.
| Perception of the absolute | pp. 117-120 | The reification of thought 3. The perception of the absolute To the reification of thought [on this topic, cf. also Mes-Pol, chapter 1.6] as it happens in writing corresponds the reification of reality as it happens in polytheism. It is in the light of this aspect, that is, of the analytical categorization of things, that we can develop a better appreciation of polytheism in its full spiritual and intellectual value. It is insufficient, in fact, to stop at the more superficial aspects, those that describe the divinities with the often bizarre characters of a dramatic narrative but, just as often, convulsive and contradictory. The myth, even studied in a critically refined way, is not sufficient to account for the great intellectual achievement that underlies and informs what might otherwise appear to be little more than a vast screenplay rich in an immense “cast of characters”. The reification of reality It consists, in fact, in a determined and systematic reification of reality that allows us to think that we can also categorize the absolute – and thus impose a certain measure of control on it. Because it is precisely this: the reduction of the forces that condition human life to definable, predictable, and ultimately controllable categories, that is, precisely, to gods and goddesses with whom a mechanistic dynamic is established that imprisons the autonomy. The ability to predict, to predict lies at the roots of the entire Mesopotamian tradition (like other polytheistic traditions: the Aztec one is even more impressive). The observation of celestial bodies is perhaps the most significant moment of this tradition, having resulted in a categorization of the firmament based on centuries of observations, which has come down to us. Divination is generally based on the premise of the repeatability, and therefore predictability, of events, once the great universal schemes that represent the supreme conditioning of human life have been grasped. Fate (as a horizontal conditioning, i.e. of nature) or destiny (as a vertical conditioning, i.e. of time) are the inert or passive aspect of the absolute: inert or passive because fate/destiny does not act, but is only inscribed in the reality almost like a genetic code. The gods are its agents, that is, the active expression, the operational channels that do not decide, but only actualize what has already been decided. The coherence of reality The great intellectual achievement of polytheism lies in having identified the total coherence of the data of reality, and in having built, on this basis, an equally coherent framework within which the constitutive elements of an organic system are identified. The coherence of the real is the founding axiom of polytheism, just as it is of scientific thought. What does not consistently fit into this framework, and that is cannot be explained (that is, reduced to the established categories) is considered as an “outlier”, something only temporarily outside the established framework, which presents a challenge. Confronting this challenge must lead to broadening the scheme to the point of absorbing the apparent abnormality in a restructuring of the interpretative paradigm. Eventually we will have in our hands the true general theory of the universe, we will fully know the mind of God – as Stephen Hawkins writes at the end of his Brief History of Time (see presently Hawking 1988 Time). Deities' anthropomorphism In this perspective, the gods and goddesses are anthropomorphic only on the surface. They have, yes, human faces, but not a real personality. They are, properly speaking, icons of mental categories superimposed on reality. Their activities, their mutual relations, convulsive and unreal, are described with an expressionistic sensitivity that exaggerates and privileges a single aspect to the extreme (strength, wisdom, sexual attractiveness, etc.) precisely to emphasize its specificity. The deities are the facet of reality as it is understood through the analytical approach. In this way, we successfully arrive at that conceptual fragmentation that alone allows true control of the data. Divinities' agency An important implication of all this is that, while fate/destiny is an absolute that does not act, the divinities appear instead as its corresponding agents, certainly not endowed with the qualities of the absolute on their own. This is what biblical monotheism is opposed to in a radical way. Among the most significant concepts in this regard are those of the “living god” and God's fidelity. From the very beginning, with creation, then gradually with the figures of the patriarchs, the exodus, the collapse of the kingdoms, and so on away until the messianic secret and the crucifixion of Jesus, what is proclaimed is a total unpredictability, in which, however. God remains true to himself. It is in this that we come to perceive God's “life” as a fate/destiny which, at the same time, acts consequently to what he wants and decides. Here the coherence lies in the continuous element of surprise, but a surprise that does not derive from the uncontrolled arbitrariness of the case. There is only apparently a lack of consistency. What remains supremely consequent are the two extremes of the binomial: on the one hand, God as the absolute center, absolutely decision-making, and perfectly consistent in his fidelity to himself; and on the other hand the human acceptance of this will perceived as above our human fragmentation, and alone capable of maintaining its profound unity. Faith It is about “faith”. How it is, on the other hand, an “enigma”. But, in the perspective outlined just now, it should be noted that the difference from polytheism must be seen in a very different key from the usual one. (1) Polytheism, Mesopotamian or contemporary (the “cosmological form”), is based on an equally rooted belief (“faith”, but impersonal), that in the ultimate coherence of reality: what cannot be explained will be. But the aporia is that when everything is explained, everything will have to be finished (as Voegelin saw well). Monotheism is based on an equally rooted faith that coherence derives from a life principle inherent in the inexplicable. (2) In polytheism (whether it is, again, Mesopotamian or contemporary) what cannot be explained is a functional secret to our capacity for analysis, an enigma that must be solved, with the only surprise of seeing the paradigm expand indefinitely. In monotheism, the inexplicable is only in part something ultimately explainable; in much greater part it is a mystery from which one expects the surprise of a personal communication, of a revelation that splits the possibility of analysis and synthesis. The contrast is therefore not between faith (in monotheism) and reason (in polytheism), but between faith/reason and explanation (understood in the two cases in different ways). [English translation from Italian by mDP]. |
Back to top: Giorgio Buccellati 2012 Coerenza