My directed reading (thanks, Max) is on Goethe and Iqbal..Orientalism and Islamic theology and the simple beauty of their poetry. I've started with (many) of Annemarie Schimmel's (see) books on the topic--Mystical Dimensions of Islam is the only one I've tackled so far. All this to say, what of gnosticism?
Let me get around to it. First, there is a passage in Mir's Iqbal that discusses Intellect and Love in Iqbal's poetry. Interesting that he separates the two, isn't it? Take this passage, for instance (quoted in excerpt form from Mir's 2006 publication from Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies):
"Intellect deals with the sensible world. It serves an important function in that it guides us through the maze of life by providing answers that are amenable to logical analysis. Since it operates on the physical world and in historical time, it has certain built-in limitations: 'Intellect is a prisoner of today and tomorrow; it is a worshipper of the idols that can be seen or heard.' It can witness only a slice of reality at one point in time--it is given to 'worshipping of the part'--and that is why the sages have failed to explain fully the truth about the human being, not to speak of the truth about the angels or God. Quite understandably...the intellect lacks certitude. Being unsure of itself, it is always busy weighing up the pros and cons of a matter, and...drags its feet in a situation that calls for bold action. Not so Love, which resides in the heart and, like the heart, is free from the limitations of time. Unlike Intellect, Love has no vested interests to guard and no ulterior motives to camouflage. ... Aluding to the idolatrous king Nimrod's attempt to burn Abraham the monotheist in a fire, Iqbal cites Abraham as the paradigm of Love:
'Love jumped fearlessly into Nimrod's fire--
Intellect, on the rooftop, is still absorbed in the view below.'
...The secrets of life are revealed not through book-reading but through active engagement with the realities of existence.
... Notwithstanding the differences between the two, Intellect and Love have a deep mutual affinity. In fact, they are united in essence, purpose, and function. Both are born of arzu--the 'desire' to seek and discover--both thus being goal-directed. Intellect, while it lacks the freedom and range of Love, is...indispensible as an organizing principle of life. ...after an exchange between Knowledge and Love, in which each argues for its superiority over the other, Love settles the argument in the following words:
'Come--turn this earthly world into a garden,
And make the old world young again.
Come--take just a little of my heart's solicitude,
And build, under the heavens, an everlasting paradise.
We have been on intimite terms since the day of creation,
And are the high and low notes of the same song.' "
'Love jumped fearlessly into Nimrod's fire--
Intellect, on the rooftop, is still absorbed in the view below.'
...The secrets of life are revealed not through book-reading but through active engagement with the realities of existence.
... Notwithstanding the differences between the two, Intellect and Love have a deep mutual affinity. In fact, they are united in essence, purpose, and function. Both are born of arzu--the 'desire' to seek and discover--both thus being goal-directed. Intellect, while it lacks the freedom and range of Love, is...indispensible as an organizing principle of life. ...after an exchange between Knowledge and Love, in which each argues for its superiority over the other, Love settles the argument in the following words:
'Come--turn this earthly world into a garden,
And make the old world young again.
Come--take just a little of my heart's solicitude,
And build, under the heavens, an everlasting paradise.
We have been on intimite terms since the day of creation,
And are the high and low notes of the same song.' "
What to make of it...
It's hard to get around an Aristotelian reading of 'intellect' as reason, which pushes the reader against the text. It is difficult for me to accept that man's highest capacity is not reason, but love. Not to simplify too far, because Iqbal's Love here is love applied with Intellect. I want to push against the text and take offense, thinking that throwing out my oh-sacred-reason is somehow degrading. My mindset, western-educated, is hard-pressed to accept the kind of thinking required to understand eastern poetry and Islamic theology.
Schimmel's book was on Sufism, gnosticism in Islam. How does the Sufi relate the Intellect and Love? Is it an analogous 'dichotomy' to faith and reason?
I am also enjoying God and the Philosophers right now. The authors deal with how strange it is to think of faith and reason in opposition to one another. At first glance, they do have separate realms and separate reaches. But does forsaking one for the other lead to gain or loss of understanding? I can only be convinced that choosing one side--Intellect or Love, reason or faith--limits the thinker. Intellect, reason.. what is intelligible to it is limited: material (perhaps?), within my limits as a finite being, incomplete (imperfect). Is the order and connection (thanks Spinoza) of things totally within my grasp as a material, finite, incomplete being?
I think not. In which case, the exploration of existence via Love--faith--seems the logical (sigh) choice. If reason can lead me to truth about this world, why can't faith lead me to truth about its order? About what makes this world the way it is? About metaphysics and God? Should I rule it out?
Yes, I have made it obvious that I'm still operating under reason. Maybe it's a flaw. Am I capable of thinking with both capacities? Would I even have both if I weren't?
And so here we are, gnosticism. What does one give up by choosing faith (gift of faith, revelation) over reason? Clearly my Intellect is limited--otherwise I'd know all this already. Maybe I do. Would I be aware of it?
What is there to gain by utilizing both? Do gnostics engage with God only through faith? How close can one get to God through reason? What can be taught, and what is left that must be experienced? Why doesn't God give the gift of faith to everyone? Besides that it's a *gift*. Why do people so often feel like rats in mazes where the crazy scientist forgot to throw in the cheese?
Thoughts for the day. Feel free to (please) answer my questions. Do it.
It's hard to get around an Aristotelian reading of 'intellect' as reason, which pushes the reader against the text. It is difficult for me to accept that man's highest capacity is not reason, but love. Not to simplify too far, because Iqbal's Love here is love applied with Intellect. I want to push against the text and take offense, thinking that throwing out my oh-sacred-reason is somehow degrading. My mindset, western-educated, is hard-pressed to accept the kind of thinking required to understand eastern poetry and Islamic theology.
Schimmel's book was on Sufism, gnosticism in Islam. How does the Sufi relate the Intellect and Love? Is it an analogous 'dichotomy' to faith and reason?
I am also enjoying God and the Philosophers right now. The authors deal with how strange it is to think of faith and reason in opposition to one another. At first glance, they do have separate realms and separate reaches. But does forsaking one for the other lead to gain or loss of understanding? I can only be convinced that choosing one side--Intellect or Love, reason or faith--limits the thinker. Intellect, reason.. what is intelligible to it is limited: material (perhaps?), within my limits as a finite being, incomplete (imperfect). Is the order and connection (thanks Spinoza) of things totally within my grasp as a material, finite, incomplete being?
I think not. In which case, the exploration of existence via Love--faith--seems the logical (sigh) choice. If reason can lead me to truth about this world, why can't faith lead me to truth about its order? About what makes this world the way it is? About metaphysics and God? Should I rule it out?
Yes, I have made it obvious that I'm still operating under reason. Maybe it's a flaw. Am I capable of thinking with both capacities? Would I even have both if I weren't?
And so here we are, gnosticism. What does one give up by choosing faith (gift of faith, revelation) over reason? Clearly my Intellect is limited--otherwise I'd know all this already. Maybe I do. Would I be aware of it?
What is there to gain by utilizing both? Do gnostics engage with God only through faith? How close can one get to God through reason? What can be taught, and what is left that must be experienced? Why doesn't God give the gift of faith to everyone? Besides that it's a *gift*. Why do people so often feel like rats in mazes where the crazy scientist forgot to throw in the cheese?
Thoughts for the day. Feel free to (please) answer my questions. Do it.
