Thoughts
Dr. Faustus
April 17, 2007
I am sitting in Cheyenne, floating at anchor, reading Dr. Faustus by Thomas Mann and I have come upon a paragraph that I feel the need to further understand and intellectually dissect for my own edification.
Mann talks about Aristotle’s theory of entelechy, which he describes as “a piece of eternity that penetrates and animates the body, manifesting itself in and giving shape to the organic, and guides the body’s mechanism, knows its goals, and watches over its fate.”
This sounds amazingly like what I am currently studying— Kundalini. Kundalini, according to my source, Genevieve Paulson, is defined as an individual’s basic evolutionary energy, being a Sanscrit word meaning “circular power.” Ms. Paulson first started her study of the force in the 1960’s, and Dr. Faustus was written in the Forties.
According to Ms. Paulson, the energy has been studied and expounded upon since the earliest of times, quoting a passage from the Upanishads that makes reference to the phenomenon, and another that she attributes to Jesus of Nazareth, in answer. Mann describes the energy force differently than either Jesus or the Upanishads, or Kundalini, or actually, Lao Tsu’s Tao, but it is the same, when closely analyzed.
Energy is Energy is Energy. God is God is God. Tao is Tao is Tao. To paraphrase, the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao (Chapter 1 Tao te Ching). Energy that can be conceived is not true energy. One can neither touch, nor smell, nor taste, nor see, nor hear any of the above mentioned. I can begin to grasp Mann’s point here.
What has me puzzled is Mann’s explanation of the protagonist’s (Adrian Leverkuhn) understanding of Aristotle’s theory of entelechy. As Adrian’s thoughts, he says, “theology declares the soul is from God—that is philosophically correct, for as the principle that forms each individual manifestation it is a part of the pure form-of-being in general, arising out of the thought that eternally thinks itself, which we call “God.”
Is the principle to which Mann refers God, or the soul? I think perhaps the soul, but the next phrase troubles me the most— “…arising out of the thought that eternally thinks itself…which we call “God.” Is he saying that God conceives himself? If God is defined as the “supreme being,” then of course He conceives Himself, as He does/did all other things—if you subscribe to the traditional concept of “God.”
God eternally thinks Himself, and God is a thought. Turning the words around, this is what I read. This is an interesting concept as God IS a thought, and really, to me, nothing more. He is a conception of divinity that I, subjectively of course, perceive as Man’s (not Mann's, but humankind's) effort to rationalize the forming of the universe.
Scientists have, in relatively recent times, rationalized the creation of earth, though the religious conception persists as people need a “scapegoat” for their actions, and have a problem conceiving of the greatness of the power generated by the swirling and interacting bodies of the universe. It actually does boggle the mind to try to get a handle on the concept of infinity and the creation of such.
This is all a little too “God-dy” for me, as I believe in “Universal Energy” and not in a concrete supreme being, but I still see Mann’s point. I suspect Mann, like so many authors, felt inclined to interweave traditional religion into his work as it was the accepted perception of the day (though I think he probably believed in God as a being as well). The concept of God is still prevalent in the current worldly perception, and those of us who deviate from the concept of God as Being are in the extreme minority.
I suppose just the term “God” can be used to describe any form of divine perception. Even my Universal Energy could be considered “God” of a sort. I think that most people’s conception of God is that He has a consciousness, however, where I don’t believe the Universal Energy has consciousness.
Consciousness is reserved for sentient beings, of which only the animals on earth, and perhaps extraterrestrial beings (if there really are such entities), are part. Universal Energy cannot have a consciousness as it is generated, or recycled, as it truly is, as energy is neither created nor destroyed, through the spinning of the universe around and within itself (read my theory of evolution).
Put simply, energy is not conscious, it just is, and we are all part of that Universal Energy. We are all part of “God,” if one wishes to view the energy force as God… God is all, all is God. Energy is all, all is Energy. Therefore God is Energy and Energy is God. One may perceive this if one feels driven to give Energy a name other than Energy. I feel no need of such folly. It is what it is. Energy is Energy and nothing more, and there is no practical reason to give it any other nomenclature, unless one must rationalize that there must be a “God” to perpetuate life as we know it.
Furthermore, Energy won’t “save us from our sins.” If one feels it necessary to believe that one must have a “way out” of one’s sins, then one must believe in a “supernatural” being. I have no need. Only I can “save myself,” by living in a manner that perpetuates positive energy emanating from myself, thus “pushing” negative energy out of the way to make way for healthy vibrations toward the earth and other beings. I suppose this is getting way off my current topic, and should be addressed in further writing, but it does tie into the whole Kundalini/Universal Energy idea.
Previously, in this same passage (the one to which I referred in the first paragraph of this mini-treatise), Mann talks about Aristotle’s theory of content and form. I basically understand this. From what I read, "Content" is the potential of all things that seek to find realization in some sort of form through which they may be expressed. He describes "Form" as something that moves but is unmoved. This smacks of the Tao... The Tao. Kundalini. Entelechy. It's all one.
I do so wish I had someone with whom to discuss these difficult concepts. If you waded this far, and would like to swim with me and my thoughts, feel free to contact me!
© Kat Wynne-Roberts 2007
Go to Top [You're at the end (of this writing)!]