The podcast included an interview with John Armstrong, an Associate Professor in Philosophy working in the Melbourne Business School, and an author of a new book called 'In Search of Civilization: Remaking a Tarnished Idea'. It rocks that Business Schools now have resident Philosophers, and it's an outcome of a trend that John himself identifies in this interview. I like this talk because it looks at possibilities, because it nurtures a deeper understanding of the human condition than pop-culture positive psychology has available to it and because it follows a trend of linking philosophy and spirit together. This has some outcomes that I do find awkward, I'll explain these at the end.
My five favourite frames from John Armstrong's interview are:
FRAME 1: Abbott Suger
Armstrong starts with discussing his attempts to find a connection to an audience from deeply complex academic places, by approaching the attractions, or the intimacies, that particular fields or ideas hold for people. What are my feelings towards this thing? Why is this important? Where does this logically lead to?
As a guide in charting a course into a process for 'finding' the audience this way, Abbott Suger (soo-jay) is introduced, who was the leader of an abbey in France in the twelfth century. Suger felt that his abbey was of tremendous spiritual import, and so he wanted to open his arena of spiritual meaning to others. He came up with a developmental process, in which the core of religious ideals is seen as having beginning versions that can be accessed by all - for example seeing beauty and grandeur in a wine goblet can be a starting avenue into contemplating abstract notions such as spiritual beauty or intellectual beauty or ethical beauty. Suger was not a populist - he retained his own vision of true ideals, but found the means to connect these ideals to the community that surrounded him.
FRAME 2: Armstrong identified that relativism is often motivated by a type of generosity - a goodwill is built in to relativism, that is oven accompanied by sheer dismay at the shallowness of materiality. He speaks of retaining spirituality with materiality - learning how these complement each other, rather than encountering the conflict or competition of spirituality with materiality. Armstrong speaks of spiritual 'prosperity', and he's not talking about a shallow new-age 'believe it and you'll see it' mindset, rather that individual flourishing can be enhanced through living the big questions, out loud, deeply (see below).
FRAME 3: Flourishing - when Armstrong talks about 'flourishing' it's not an orientation towards happiness to which he points, but growth. He identifies a need in professional people to address the big questions in life, about 'how should we live?' but argues that no process has been put in place, yet, that assists the quest. He is looking for the place where points of contact between material aspects of the world connect to people's senses of meaning, and of purpose. Flourishing is not succcess, flourishing has negative and positive qualities, that is, flourishing here is based on the notion found in Aristotle's 'Ethics'.
FRAME 4: Barbarism and decadence - barbarism is 'strength without sensitivity' and is polarised against decadence, 'sensitivity without strength'. These are not characterised as negative qualities but rather are aspects of ourselves that we need to own a relationship with and to.
FRAME 5: Civilisation is a mechanism to help us cope with our darker selves, 'the beast in me', 'the crooked timbers of humanity', as quoted by Kant. We have to cope with our own weaknesses and incapabilities, and civilisation gives us a guide map for dealing constructively with our tendency to self-destruction.
Armstrong identifies three big characteristics of 'spiritual prosperity' that is, rich inner life - these are: attachment to higher things, a feeling and a drawing towards depth and complexity, and finally mental space where paradox can be held in mind.
I felt enlivened by listening to this podcast - I felt like 'it's okay to have big concerns!!' and I'm grateful that the author is charting a path for philosophy in an interdisciplinary space. My minor concern comes down to the philosophical use of the word 'spirituality' - where spirituality in a philosophical context seems often to get channelled into a highly individualised (dare I say Western culture-influenced) calyx, a spirited 'personality', a spirit of ideals.
Whereas Spirit, well, Spirit flows. You know?
