Florin Ianovici – Doi oameni, Doua destine, tu ce alegi? La Biserica Poarta Cerului (Pocainta tilharului)

sursa ciresarii.ro

Pagina Florin Ianovici – Predici aici

Textul Luca 23:26

Daca Simon nu ar fi luat crucea lui Isus Hristos, Domnul Isus nu ar fi putut sa isi ridice privirea. Si daca Domnul Isus Hristos  n-ar fi putut sa-si ridice privirea n-ar fi vazut ficele Ierusalimului care plingeau. In toata nebunia aceasta pe care Biblia o descrie, o nebunie de care mi-a fost de multe ori rusine ca sint om ii multumesc lui Dumnezeu pentru stropul acesta de lumina care a fost lasat. Femeile acestea nu seamana cu multi dintre oamenii pe care ii cunosc. Femeile acestea plingeau, se boceau si isi rastigneau durerea ca rastignesc un nevinovat.

Daca nu ne-ar ajuta Dumnezeu sa ne ridice din cind in cind crucea am sta numai cu ochii in pamint. Tarina asta nu este un bun invatator. Citi dintre dumneavoastra, mergind pe calea aceasta a lumii, n-ati sesizat de multe ori ca parca uitati de Dumnezeu? Iesind din Biserica se intimpla ceva ciudat. Aproape cu fiecare pas care il pui intre tine si Biserica parca sintem ca un sac spart, care tot scapa. Ii multumesc lui Dumnezeu de fiecare venire la Biserica pentru ca de fiecare data Dumnezeu se atinge de ochii mei. Ori de cite ori vin la Biserica DUmnezeu imi ia de pe spate povara acestei zile ca trebuie sa ne punem ceva pe masa si trebuie sa ne crestem copii sa aiba si ei un viitor si trebuie sa dam socoteala de nadejdea care este in noi si trebuie sa traim pe pamintul acesta ca sa lasam o urma.

Dar stind numai cu ochii in tarina, ajungi sa uiti pentru ce traiesti.

Cunosc oameni care au spus: “Pastore nu-i nici o problema daca miine nu ma mai trezesc ca si asa ziua de azi care a trecut nu stiu la ce mi-a folosit” Ii multumesc lui Dumnezeu pentru Simon din Cyrena care a luat crucea Domnului Isus si a putut privi aceste femei, femei care intr-un fel au spalat obrazul nostru pentru ca nimeni de acolo in nebunia aceia nu s-a gindit sa verse o lacrima pentru Acela care murea nevinovat. Femeile acestea au spalat cumva obrazul nostru. Privind spre ele spun si eu astazi: “Doamne, poate-o mai fi o urma de speranta pentru noi, va mai fi o farima de bunatate in sufletul asta pustiit.

Nu orice lacrima este onorabila

Eu cind ma uit in sus si vad cerul lui Dumnezeu parca ceva se vindeca in mine. Oridecite ori ma uit in sus am o nadejde si ma gindesc ca intr-o zi  acest asternut la picioarele Lui se va da la o parte si ma voi duce acasa la Dumnezeu. Dumneavoastra stiti ca pe pamintul acesta nu orice lacrima este onorabila. Stiti ca pe pamintul acesta lacrimile noastre pot fi premiul lui Dumnezeu sau trofeul Satanei? Ori de cite ori pe obrazul tau vor fi lacrimi de ciuda, de umilinta pentru ca traiesti o viata departe de Dumnezeu, ori de cite ori vei avea pe fata lacrimi datorate rusinii a fi prins cu lucruri care nu se cuveneau sa fie facute sa sti ca atunci Satana are un trofeu. Dumnezeu nu ne-a facut pe pamintul acesta sa fim brazdati de lacrimi ale rusinii. Dumnezeu ne-a dat un obraz pe care sa curga lacrimile recunostintei. Ori de cite ori vei plinge, sau vei avea lacrimi gindindu-te ca Dumnezeu din cer S-a dat si pentru tine a facut lucruri nemaipomenite si vei aduce lauda lui Dumnezeu, sa sti ca lacrimile tale vor fi premiul lui Dumnezeu.

Domnul Isus Hristos cind s-a uitat la femei Le-a zis: “Femeilor nu plingeti pentru ca voi nu intelegeti un lucru, unde ma duc Eu, ma duc acolo unde am planuit; viata Mea nu este un esec. Mai am putin si voi pleca de pe acest pamint pe care L-am brazdat de 33 de ani in speranta ca voi sa intelegeti pentru ce ar trebui sa plingeti. Nu plingeti pentru visul pamintesc refuzat. Nu plingeti pentru examenul neluat. Nu plingeti pentru mofturile pamintului acestuia.Ci daca e sa plingi in aceasta seara, sa plingi gindindu-te ca cerul lui Dumnezeu se indeparteaza cu fiecare zi. Daca eu, pomului verde i se fac aceste lucruri ce va fi cu cel uscat? Si bate un vint de stepa de multa vreme si ne-a uscat pe multi pe dinauntru. Arsita aceasta cu fiecare zi parca creste in intensitate.

Nu plingeti pentru ce nu merita ci plingeti pentru ce merita

Pentru ce merita sa plingi pe pamintul acesta? Pentru ce merita sa am lacrimi pe obraz? Domnul Isus a spus: “Nu ma plingeti pe Mine, plingeti-i pe cei care traind pe acest pamint nu vor gasi usa raiului. Plingeti-i pe aceia care odata pusi in tarina pamintului, acolo vor ramine o eternitate. Plingeti-i pe aceia care traiesc fara cer. Plingeti-i pe aceia care traiesc de pe o i pe alta fara sa isi dea seama ca au fost facuti sa fie lauda lui Dumnezeu. Traiesti cu scop inalt. Sa traiesti vertical. Dumnezeu nu ne-a facut curvati, ne-a facut sa stam drepti si noi tot cu capul in jos scormonim. 

Doi Oameni – Doua destine

Doi oameni au stat la egala distanta de Domnul Isus. Amindoi tilhari au suferit aceiasi moarte si osinda. Amindoi aveau aceiasi problema si erau rastigniti pentru acelasi lucru in viata lor. Si totusi, in conditiile in care oamenii acestia erau atit de aproape de Hristos, unul a nimerit usa raiului si unul nu a nimerit-o.

Atitia oameni nu stiu ce inseamna sa fi protejat de Dumnezeu si cind vad soarele pe cer nu multumesc lui Dumnezeu. Dar Dumnezeu zice: “Nu pentru asta iti ce socoteala”. Exista un punct in universul acesta, functie in care destinul tau si al meu se va hotari: Crucea din Golgota. Poti sa faci ce vrei cu anii tai, poti sa faci ce vrei cu ceia ce ai dar daca nu faci ce trebuie cu Golgota, pentru ca Golgota si crucea lui Isus Hristos aduna si separa; la stinga si la dreapta lui Isus Hristos. Ce vei face cu crucea lui Isus Hristos va fi raspunsul si vei iesi din viata asta.

Lucruri pentru care ne desparte crucea:

  1. Cum vei auzi. Intr-un moment Isus zice: “Tata, iarta-i ca nu stiu ce fac.” Unul dintre tilhari a auzit aceste cuvinte si celalalt nu a auzit aceste cuvinte pentru ca in viata cind nu iti ies lucrurile nu ai urechi sa auzi ce spune mama, tata, pastorul sau prietenii tai. Sunt asa de multi oameni care s-au bagat in datorii, in lucruri in care nu trebuia si sint asa de tensionati ca nu mai aud. Iti cer sfatul si intr-un mod paradoxal nu aud absolut nimic din ce spui tu. Ii spui unui om: “Omule tu nu vezi ca iti scuipi plaminii? Arunca odata tigarile!”  Dar din nou se duce si din nou fumeaza. Ii spui: “Omule tu nu vezi ca iti nenorocesti viata? Nu vezi ca bautul acesta a facut din tine neom? Nu mai aduci nici un ban acasa?” Te aude? Nu te aude. Ii spui: “Tu nu vezi ca viata ta se duce in jos? Tu nu vezi ca nu mai dormi? In fiecare noapte sari de cinci ori in pat? Ai numai cosmaruri. Dimineata esti lac de apa; te framinti. Paraseste stilul asta de viata ca te baga in mormint.” Te aude cineva? Nu te aude nimeni. Pe pamintul acesta va trebui sa invatam un lucru: Oamenii s-ar putea sa ne ofere informatii. Cartile ne ofera informatii, mass media ne ofera informatii; Dumnezeu ne da revelatii. Dumnezeul nostru nu vine sa ne dea doar un calup (o cantitate) de informatii. Dumnezeu este descoperire. Dumnezeu este ungere, o lumina duhovniceasca. In atitea imprejurari ale vietii mele, cind am ascultat glasul lui Dumnezeu mi-a fost bine. Functie dupa cum vei asculta ce iti va spune Dumnezeu din cer, asa va fi viata ta.  Ciudate dopuri in urechi avem. Ne spune Dumnezeu in fiecare zi: “Rugati-va si nu va lasati. Cititi cuvintele Mele si luati fagaduintele Mele si ne uitam mereu si mereu pe nenorocitul ala de laptop si ne uitam in fiecare dimineata si ne trezim cu capul la stiri. Ce sa spuna stirile? As vrea sa citesti dimineata Cuvintul care spune: “Si iata ca Eu voi fi cu tine in fiecare zi”. N-auzim ce spun. Biata mama a albit. Nu mai stie cum s-o spuna. A spus-o cu blindete. A spus-o dindu-ne ciocolata. A spus dindu-ne poate hainele pe care le-am dorit si tot n-am ascultat-o si ne-am nenorocit vietile. Nu mai stie bietul taica-tu cum sa-ti spuna.  Palmele lui sint pline de bataturi si vine acasa obosit de la 2-3 servicii si nu mai are timp sa discute cu tine (in Romania). N-auzim sfaturile pe care ni le da Dumnezeu. Credeti ca Dumnezeu a tacut vreodata? Credeti ca Dumnezeu ne-a vorbit fiecaruia dintre noi? La sfirsit Dumnezeu ne va spune: “Am fost acelasi Dumnezeu care ti-am vorbit ca si celorlalti dar tu n-ai auzit prietene. Ca si celalat tilhar, cind singurul simt car eil am este sa blestem pe cei care ma ocarasc, pe aceia care sint jos la piciorul crucii si nu sint mai putin vinovati decit mine si El pe cruce striga: “Tata iarta-i ca nu stiu ce fac”. Credeti voi ca Dumnezeu din cer vine la noi ca sa ne ia fericirea? A-ti auzit vreodata de un Dumnezeu care ne jefuieste de ce avem mai bun? Dumnezeul nostru ne uste un Dumnezeu  al divorturilor. Este un Dumnezeu al unei singure neveste si a unui singur sot. Asta invata Dumnezeul nostru. Dumnezeul nostru spune sa nu avortezi copilul, ca nu sintem ciini. Dumnezeul nostru iti spune sa-ti pastrezi copilul. Dumnezeul nostru spune sa lupti pentru cel de linga tine. Este Dumnezeul care te face sa te ridici in autobuz si sa lasi locul unui batrin. Cind il asculti pe El iti dai seama ca tot ce spune El duce la fericire.  Dumnezeul nostru este un Dumnezeu care iti spune: “Nu iti irosi tineretea curvind. Nu-ti irosi tineretea stind si bagindu-ti capul in ecran si lasind ca toate acestea lucruri sa iti schimbe tot sufletul tau. Nu te spurca, zice Cuvintul lui Dumnezeu. E rau ce spune Cuvintul si ce ne invata? Intotdeauna in viata destinul nostru se va raporta dupa cum am avut urechi de auzit.Asculta omule, tu nu vei putea ierta niciodata. De zece ori promiti ca o sa ierti; nu o sa poti. De zece ori promiti ca te schimbi; nu o sa poti. Este nevoie de putere launtrica, de ajutorul Lui, este nevoie de cel venit de sus.
  2. Cum vei asculta – asa iti va fi destinul. O mare putere are in viata spiritul de legare, spiritul de turma. Daca va uitati in Scriptura veti vedea acolo ca preotii isi bateai joc de Isus. Fruntasii, ostenii si trecatorii isi bateau joc de Isus. Si tu care stai pe cruce ce sa faci? Iti bati si tu joc de Isus. Asta a facut si unul dintre tilhari. L-a infruntat si si-a batut si el joc de Isus. Daca cel din stinga sau dreapta ta isi bate joc, daca in viata ta esti imprejurat de oamenic care fac anumite lucruri te vei trezi ca le faci si tu. Tovarasiile rele strica obiceiurile bune daca le ai, daca nu le ai le intareste pe cele rele. Pe pamintul acesta sa stai linga oamenii sfinti ai lui Dumnezeu e cheia. Stiti de ce iau si tin tinerii linga mine? Pentru ca vreau sa se atinga de ei Dumnezeu. Vreau sa stau linga ei pentru ca as vrea sa ma cheltuiesc si sa ma investesc pentru ei. Stiti cum veti birui moartea? Investiti-va in oameni si cheltuiti-va. Risipiti-va in oameni.
  3. Cea mai scurta cale catre adevar este dragostea. Cind te iubeste cineva va gasi calea spre adevaar si ti-o va spune. Stiti de ce Dumnezeu nu-i prezent in viata noastra de multe ori?  In atitea imprejurari a vietii siti de ce Dumnezeu nu lucreaza? Noi nu stim cine e Dumnezeu. Noi nu-L cunoastem pe Dumnezeu. Unul dintre tilhari a zis: “Mintuieste-ne pe noi, ” si a adaugat, “Da-te jos de pe cruce, mintuieste-te pe Tine si mintuieste-ne pe noi”.  Tilharul de fapt zicea: “Daca Tu esti Dumnezeu scoate-mi piroanele din picioare si cuiele din miini sa ma pot da jos si sa ma duc si sa fac tot ce am facut inainte”. Vrem un Isus care sa ne rezolve problemele si ne stearga datoriile din banca. Vreau un Isus care sa repare relatia mea pe care eu am distrus-o. Eu nu trebuie sa ma schimb, numai sa mi-o repare. Viata aceasta nu este o reteta magica cum sa-ti fie tie bine. Cind Dumnezeu a venit pe pamintul acesta Dumnezeu a spus un singur lucru: “Eu am venit s-aduc lumina in intuneric. Am venit sa-i ridic pe aceia care zaeau sub puterea mortii. Am venit s-aduc mintuire sufletului vostru. Am venit sa va spun ca usa raiului este deschisa larg.” Dar unii din noi cautam un Isus al piinii, cautam un Isus care sa ne dea raspunsuri facile la intrebarile grele ale vietii. Vrem examene fara truda. Vrem fericire fara sa investim in noi. Vrem un sot care sa ne fie bun fara sa bagam de seama ca oferta noastra ii jalnica. Dumnezeu mai intii ne da o mintuire cereasca.

Dacii – Film documentar 2012

Si acest documentar va fi adaugat la PAGINA filme si documentare aici.

din istoria noastra… Dacia…

Scrie Daniel Roxin: Informatiile prezentate in acest film documentar rastoarna multe dintre teoriile pe care este construita istoria Romaniei. Filmul face parte dintr-un proiect mai amplu ce vizeaza recuperarea adevarului istoric iar acesta este primul pas hotarat!

Asa dupa cum veti constata, dovezile stiintifice la care se face referire si argumentatia bazata pe izvoare istorice autentice, aduc informatii inedite si extrem de valoroase, capabile sa determine o rescriere a istoriei acestui popor. Toate acestea sunt sustinute de personalitati si specialisti care merita cu adevarat sa fie ascultati: General (rez.) dr. Mircea Chelaru (fost Sef al Marelui Stat Major al Armatei Romane), Dr. Napoleon Savescu (director fondator al Dacia Revival International Society), General (rez.) Nicolae Spiroiu (fost Ministru al Apararii Nationale), Prof. dr. Mihai Popescu (Biblioteca Militara Nationala),Prof. univ. dr. dr. Alexander Rodewald (directorul Institutului de Biologie Umana al Universitatii din Hamburg, Germania), Dr. Georgeta Cardos(cercetator stiintific biolog specialist genetica – Institutul Victor Babes), Prof. doctorand Sebastian Stanculescu (paleografie si antropologie culturala).

C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man Chapter 3

Read Chapter 1 Men Without Chests here

Read Chapter 2 The Way here

Read the Appendix here

Chapter 3

The Abolition of Man

It came burning hot into my mind, whatever he said and however he flattered, when he got me home to his house, he would sell me for a slave.

—John Bunyan

`Man’s conquest of Nature’ is an expression often used to describe the progress of applied science. `Man has Nature whacked,’ said someone to a friend of mine not long ago. In their context the words had a certain tragic beauty, for the speaker was dying of tuberculosis. `No matter’ he said, `I know I’m one of the casualties. Of course there are casualties on the winning as well as on the losing side. But that doesn’t alter the fact that it is winning.’ I have chosen this story as my point of departure in order to make it clear that I do not wish to disparage all that is really beneficial in the process described as `Man’s conquest’, much less all the real devotion and self-sacrifice that has gone to make it possible. But having done so I must proceed to analyse this conception a little more closely. In what sense is Man the possessor of increasing power over Nature?

Let us consider three typical examples: the aeroplane, the wireless, and the contraceptive. In a civilized community, in peace-time, anyone who can pay for them may use these things. But it cannot strictly be said that when he does so he is exercising his own proper or individual power over Nature. If I pay you to carry me, I am not therefore myself a strong man. Any or all of the three things I have mentioned can be withheld from some men by other men—by those who sell, or those who allow the sale, or those who own the sources of production, or those who make the goods. What we call Man’s power is, in reality, a power possessed by some men which they may, or may not, allow other men to profit by. Again, as regards the powers manifested in the aeroplane or the wireless, Man is as much the patient or subject as the possessor, since he is the target both for bombs and for propaganda. And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.

It is, of course, a commonplace to complain that men have hitherto used badly, and against their fellows, the powers that science has given them, But that is not the point I am trying to make. I am not speaking of particular corruptions and abuses which an increase of moral virtue would cure: I am considering what the thing called `Man’s power over Nature’ must always and essentially be. No doubt, the picture could be modified by public ownership of raw materials and factories and public control of scientific research. But unless we have a world state this will still mean the power of one nation over others. And even within the world state or the nation it will mean (in principle) the power of majorities over minorities, and (in the concrete) of a government over the people. And all long-term exercises of power, especially in breeding, must mean the power of earlier generations over later ones.

The latter point is not always sufficiently emphasized, because those who write on social matters have not yet learned to imitate the physicists by always including Time among the dimensions. In order to understand fully what Man’s power over Nature, and therefore the power of some men over other men, really means, we must picture the race extended in time from the date of its emergence to that of its extinction. Each generation exercises power over its successors: and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors. This modifies the picture which is sometimes painted of a progressive emancipation from tradition and a progressive control of natural processes resulting in a continual increase of human power. In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them. And if, as is almost certain, the age which had thus attained maximum power over posterity were also the age most emancipated from tradition, it would be engaged in reducing the power of its predecessors almost as drastically as that of its successors. And we must also remember that, quite apart from this, the later a generation comes—the nearer it lives to that date at which the species becomes extinct—the less power it will have in the forward direction, because its subjects will be so few. There is therefore no question of a power vested in the race as a whole steadily growing as long as the race survives. The last men, far from being the heirs of power, will be of all men most subject to the dead hand of the great planners and conditioners and will themselves exercise least power upon the future.

The real picture is that of one dominant age—let us suppose the hundredth century A.D.—which resists all previous ages most successfully and dominates all subsequent ages most irresistibly, and thus is the real master of the human species. But then within this master generation (itself an infinitesimal minority of the species) the power will be exercised by a minority smaller still. Man’s conquest of Nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men. There neither is nor can be any simple increase of power on Man’s side. Each new power won by man is a power over man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well aas stronger. In every victory, besides being the general who triumphs, he is also the prisoner who follows the triumphal car.

I am not yet considering whether the total result of such ambivalent victories is a good thing or a bad. I am only making clear what Man’s conquest of Nature really means and especially that final stage in the conquest, which, perhaps, is not far off. The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have `taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho’ and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?

Plato

For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please. In all ages, no doubt, nurture and instruction have, in some sense, attempted to exercise this power. But the situation to which we must look forward will be novel in two respects. In the first place, the power will be enormously increased. Hitherto the plans of educationalists have achieved very little of what they attempted and indeed, when we read them—how Plato would have every infant “a bastard nursed in a bureau”, and Elyot would have the boy see no men before the age of seven and, after that, no women,1 and how Locke wants children to have leaky shoes and no turn for poetry2—we may well thank the beneficent obstinacy of real mothers, real nurses, and (above all) real children for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses. But the man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please.

The second difference is even more important. In the older systems both the kind of man the teachers wished to produce and their motives for producing him were prescribed by the Tao—a norm to which the teachers themselves were subject and from which they claimed no liberty to depart. They did not cut men to some pattern they had chosen. They handed on what they had received: they initiated the young neophyte into the mystery of humanity which over-arched him and them alike. It was but old birds teaching young birds to fly. This will be changed. Values are now mere natural phenomena. Judgements of value are to be produced in the pupil as part of the conditioning. Whatever Tao there is will be the product, not the motive, of education. The conditioners have been emancipated from all that. It is one more part of Nature which they have conquered. The ultimate springs of human action are no longer, for them, something given. They have surrendered—like electricity: it is the function of the Conditioners to control, not to obey them. They know how to produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce. They themselves are outside, above. For we are assuming the last stage of Man’s struggle with Nature. The final victory has been won. Human nature has been conquered—and, of course, has conquered, in whatever sense those words may now bear.

The Conditioners, then, are to choose what kind of artificial Tao they will, for their own good reasons, produce in the Human race. They are the motivators, the creators of motives. But how are they going to be motivated themselves?

For a time, perhaps, by survivals, within their own minds, of the old `natural’ Tao. Thus at first they may look upon themselves as servants and guardians of humanity and conceive that they have a `duty’ to do it `good’. But it is only by confusion that they can remain in this state. They recognize the concept of duty as the result of certain processes which they can now control. Their victory has consisted precisely in emerging from the state in which they were acted upon by those processes to the state in which they use them as tools. One of the things they now have to decide is whether they will, or will not, so condition the rest of us that we can go on having the old idea of duty and the old reactions to it. How can duty help them to decide that? Duty itself is up for trial: it cannot also be the judge. And `good’ fares no better. They know quite well how to produce a dozen different conceptions of good in us. The question is which, if any, they should produce. No conception of good can help them to decide. It is absurd to fix on one of the things they are comparing and make it the standard of comparison.

To some it will appear that I am inventing a factitious difficulty for my Conditioners. Other, more simple-minded, critics may ask, `Why should you suppose they will be such bad men?’ But I am not supposing them to be bad men. They are, rather, not men (in the old sense) at all. They are, if you like, men who have sacrificed their own share in traditional humanity in order to devote themselves to the task of deciding what `Humanity’ shall henceforth mean. `Good’ and `bad’, applied to them, are words without content: for it is from them that the content of these words is henceforward to be derived. Nor is their difficulty factitious, “We might suppose that it was possible to say `After all, most of us want more or less the same things—food and drink and sexual intercourse, amusement, art, science, and the longest possible life for individuals and for the species. Let them simply say, This is what we happen to like, and go on to condition men in the way most likely to produce it. Where’s the trouble?’ But this will not answer. In the first place, it is false that we all really like the same things. But even if we did, what motive is to impel the Conditioners to scorn delights and live laborious days in order that we, and posterity, may have what we like? Their duty? But that is only the Tao, which they may decide to impose on us, but which cannot be valid for them. If they accept it, then they are no longer the makers of conscience but still its subjects, and their final conquest over Nature has not really happened. The preservation of the species? But why should the species be preserved? One of the questions before them is whether this feeling for posterity (they know well how it is produced) shall be continued or not. However far they go back, or down, they can find no ground to stand on. Every motive they try to act on becomes at once petitio. It is not that they are bad men. They are not men at all. Stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void. Nor are their subjects necessarily unhappy men. They are not men at all: they are artefacts. Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man.

Yet the Conditioners will act. When I said just now that all motives fail them, I should have said all motives except one. All motives that claim any validity other than that of their felt emotional weight at a given moment have failed them. Everything except the sic volo, sic jubeo has been explained away. But what never claimed objectivity cannot be destroyed by subjectivism. The impulse to scratch when I itch or to pull to pieces when I am inquisitive is immune from the solvent which is fatal to my justice, or honour, or care for posterity. When all that says It is good’ has been debunked, what says 1 want’ remains. It cannot be exploded or `seen through’ because it never had any pretentions. The Conditioners, therefore, must come to be motivated simply by their own pleasure. I am not here speaking of the corrupting influence of power nor expressing the fear that under it our Conditioners will degenerate. The very words corrupt and degenerateimply a doctrine of value and are therefore meaningless in this context. My point is that those who stand outside all judgements of value cannot have any ground for preferring one of their own impulses to another except the emotional strength of that impulse.

We may legitimately hope that among the impulses which arise in minds thus emptied of all `rational’ or `spiritual’ motives, some will be benevolent. I am very doubtful myself whether the benevolent impulses, stripped of that preference and encouragement which the Tao teaches us to give them and left to their merely natural strength and frequency as psychological events, will have much influence. I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who, having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used that power benevolently. I am inclined to think that the Conditioners will hate the conditioned. Though regarding as an illusion the artificial conscience which they produce in us their subjects, they will yet perceive that it creates in us an illusion of meaning for our lives which compares favourably with the futility of their own: and they will envy us as eunuchs envy men. But I do not insist on this, for it is a mere conjecture. What is not conjecture is that our hope even of a `conditioned’ happiness rests on what is ordinarily called `chance’—the chance that benevolent impulses may on the whole predominate in our Conditioners. For without the judgement `Benevolence is good’—that is, without re-entering the Tao—they can have no ground for promoting or stabilizing these impulses rather than any others. By the logic of their position they must just take their impulses as they come, from chance. And Chance here means Nature. It is from heredity, digestion, the weather, and the association of ideas, that the motives of the Conditioners will spring. Their extreme rationalism, by `seeing through’ all `rational’ motives, leaves them creatures of wholly irrational behaviour. If you will not obey the Tao, or else commit suicide, obedience to impulse (and therefore, in the long run, to mere `nature’) is the only course left open.

At the moment, then, of Man’s victory over Nature, we find the whole human race subjected to some individual men, and those individuals subjected to that in themselves which is purely `natural’—to their irrational impulses. Nature, untrammelled by values, rules the Conditioners and, through them, all humanity. Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man. Every victory we seemed to win has led us, step by step, to this conclusion. All Nature’s apparent reverses have been but tactical withdrawals. We thought we were beating her back when she was luring us on. What looked to us like hands held up in surrender was really the opening of arms to enfold us for ever. If the fully planned and conditioned world (with its Tao a mere product of the planning) comes into existence, Nature will be troubled no more by the restive species that rose in revolt against her so many millions of years ago, will be vexed no longer by its chatter of truth and mercy and beauty and happiness. Ferum victorem cepit: and if the eugenics are efficient enough there will be no second revolt, but all snug beneath the Conditioners, and the Conditioners beneath her, till the moon falls or the sun grows cold.

My point may be clearer to some if it is put in a different form. Nature is a word of varying meanings, which can best be understood if we consider itsvarious opposites. The Natural is the opposite of the Artificial, the Civil, the Human, the Spiritual, and the Supernatural. The Artificial does not now concern us. If we take the rest of the list of opposites, however, I think we can get a rough idea of what men have meant by Nature and what it is they oppose to her. Nature seems to be the spatial and temporal, as distinct from what is less fully so or not so at all. She seems to be the world of quantity, as against the world of quality; of objects as against consciousness; of the bound, as against the wholly or partially autonomous; of that which knows no values as against that which both has and perceives value; of efficient causes (or, in some modern systems, of no causality at all) as against final causes. Now I take it that when we understand a thing analytically and then dominate and use it for our own convenience, we reduce it to the level of `Nature’ in the sense that we suspend our judgements of value about it, ignore its final cause (if any), and treat it in terms of quantity. This repression of elements in what would otherwise be our total reaction to it is sometimes very noticeable and even painful: something has to be overcome before we can cut up a dead man or a live animal in a dissecting room. These objects resist the movement of the mind whereby we thrust them into the world of mere Nature. But in other instances too, a similar price is exacted for our analytical knowledge and manipulative power, even if we have ceased to count it. We do not look at trees either as Dryads or as beautiful objects while we cut them into beams: the first man who did so may have felt the price keenly, and the bleeding trees in Virgil and Spenser may be far-off echoes of that primeval sense of impiety. The stars lost their divinity as astronomy developed, and the Dying God has no place in chemical agriculture. To many, no doubt, this process is simply the gradual discovery that the real world is different from what we expected, and the old opposition to Galileo or to `body-snatchers’ is simply obscurantism. But that is not the whole story. It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost.

click for naturalism on wikipedia

From this point of view the conquest of Nature appears in a new light. We reduce things to mere Nature in order that we may `conquer’ them. We are always conquering Nature, because`Nature’ is the name for what we have, to some extent, conquered. The price of conquest is to treat a thing as mere Nature. Every conquest over Nature increases her domain. The stars do not become Nature till we can weigh and measure them: the soul does not become Nature till we can psychoanalyse her. The wresting of powers from Nature is also the surrendering of things toNature. As long as this process stops short of the final stage we may well hold that the gain outweighs the loss. But as soon as we take the final step of reducing our own species to the level of mere Nature, the whole process is stultified, for this time the being who stood to gain and the being who has been sacrificed are one and the same. This is one of the many instances where to carry a principle to what seems its logical conclusion produces absurdity. It is like the famous Irishman who found that a certain kind of stove reduced his fuel bill by half and thence concluded that two stoves of the same kind would enable him to warm his house with no fuel at all. It is the magician’s bargain: give up our soul, get power in return. But once our souls, that is, ourselves, have been given up, the power thus conferred will not belong to us. We shall in fact be the slaves and puppets of that to which we have given our souls. It is in Man’s power to treat himself as a mere `natural object’ and his own judgements of value as raw material for scientific manipulation to alter at will. The objection to his doing so does not lie in the fact that this point of view (like one’s first day in a dissecting room) is painful and shocking till we grow used to it. The pain and the shock are at most a warning and a symptom. The real objection is that if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite, that is, mere Nature, in the person of his de-humanized Conditioners.

We have been trying, like Lear, to have it both ways: to lay down our human prerogative and yet at the same time to retain it. It is impossible. Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own `natural’ impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike. A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.

I am not here thinking solely, perhaps not even chiefly, of those who are our public enemies at the moment. The process which, if not checked, will abolish Man goes on apace among Communists and Democrats no less than among Fascists. The methods may (at first) differ in brutality. But many a mild-eyed scientist in pince-nez, many a popular dramatist, many an amateur philosopher in our midst, means in the long run just the same as the Nazi rulers of Germany/Traditional values are to be `debunked’ and mankind to be cut out into some fresh shape at the will (which must, by hypothesis, be an arbitrary will) of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it. The belief that we can invent `ideologies’ at pleasure, and the consequent treatment of mankind as mere υλη, specimens, preparations, begins to affect our very language. Once we killed bad men: now we liquidate unsocial elements. Virtue has become integration and diligence dynamism, and boys likely to be worthy of a commission are `potential officer material’. Most wonderful of all, the virtues of thrift and temperance, and even of ordinary intelligence, are sales-resistance.

The true significance of what is going on has been concealed by the use of the abstraction Man. Not that the word Man is necessarily a pure abstraction. In the Tao itself, as long as we remain within it, we find the concrete reality in which to participate is to be truly human: the real common will and common reason of humanity, alive, and growing like a tree, and branching out, as the situation varies, into ever new beauties and dignities of application. While we speak from within the Tao we can speak of Man having power over himself in a sense truly analogous to an individual’s self-control. But the moment we step outside and regard the Tao as a mere subjective product, this possibility has disappeared. What is now common to all men is a mere abstract universal, an H.C.F., and Man’s conquest of himself means simply the rule of the Conditioners over the conditioned human material, the world of post-humanity which, some knowingly and some unknowingly, nearly all men in all nations are at present labouring to produce.

Nothing I can say will prevent some people from describing this lecture as an attack on science. I deny the charge, of course: and real Natural Philosophers (there are some now alive) will perceive that in defending value I defend inter alia the value of knowledge, which must die like every other when its roots in the Tao are cut. But I can go further than that. I even suggest that from Science herself the cure might come.

I have described as a `magician’s bargain’ that process whereby man surrenders object after object, and finally himself, to Nature in return for power. And I meant what I said. The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know better. There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. I allow that some (certainly not all) of the early scientists were actuated by a pure love of knowledge. But if we consider the temper of that age as a whole we can discern the impulse of which I speak.

There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the wisdom of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious—such as digging up and mutilating the dead.

If we compare the chief trumpeter of the new era (Bacon) with Marlowe’s Faustus, the similarity is striking. You will read in some critics that Faustus has a thirst for knowledge. In reality, he hardly mentions it. It is not truth he wants from the devils, but gold and guns and girls. `All things that move between the quiet poles shall be at his command’ and `a sound magician is a mighty god’.3 In the same spirit Bacon condemns those who value knowledge as an end in itself: this, for him, is to use as a mistress for pleasure what ought to be a spouse for fruit.4 The true object is to extend Man’s power to the performance of all things possible. He rejects magic because it does not work;5 but his goal is that of the magician. In Paracelsus the characters of magician and scientist are combined. No doubt those who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth exceeded their love of power; in every mixed movement the efficacy comes from the good elements not from the bad. But the presence of the bad elements is not irrelevant to the direction the efficacy takes. It might be going too far to say that the modern scientific movement was tainted from its birth: but I think it would be true to say that it, was born in an unhealthy neighbourhood and at an inauspicious hour. Its triumphs may have-been too rapid and purchased at too high a price: reconsideration, and something like repentance, may be required.

Is it, then, possible to imagine a new Natural Philosophy, continually conscious that the `natural object’ produced by analysis and abstraction is not reality but only a view, and always correcting the abstraction? I hardly know what I am asking for. I hear rumours that Goethe’s approach to nature deserves fuller consideration—that even Dr Steiner may have seen something that orthodox researchers have missed. The regenerate science which I have in mind would not do even to minerals and vegetables what modern science threatens to do to man himself. When it explained it would not explain away. When it spoke of the parts it would remember the whole. While studying the It it would not lose what Martin Buber calls the Thou-situation. The analogy between the Tao of Man and the instincts of an animal species would mean for it new light cast on the unknown thing, Instinct, by the only known reality of conscience and not a reduction of conscience to the category of Instinct. Its followers would not be free with the words only and merely. In a word, it would conquer Nature without being at the same time conquered by her and buy knowledge at a lower cost than that of life.

Perhaps I am asking impossibilities. Perhaps, in the nature of things, analytical understanding must always be a basilisk which kills what it sees and only sees by killing. But if the scientists themselves cannot arrest this process before it reaches the common Reason and kills that too, then someone else must arrest it. What I most fear is the reply that I am `only one more’ obscurantist, that this barrier, like all previous barriers set up against the advance of science, can be safely passed. Such a reply springs from the fatal serialism of the modern imagination—the image of infinite unilinear progression which so haunts our minds. Because we have to use numbers so much we tend to think of every process as if it must be like the numeral series, where every step, to all eternity, is the same kind of step as the one before. I implore you to remember the Irishman and his two stoves. There are progressions in which the last step is sui generis—incommensurable with the others—and in which to go the whole way is to undo all the labour of your previous journey. To reduce the Tao to a mere natural product is a step of that kind. Up to that point, the kind of explanation which explains things away may give us something, though at a heavy cost. But you cannot go on `explaining away’ for ever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on `seeing through5 things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to `see through’ first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To `see through’ all things is the same as not to see.


The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis

  1. Men Without Chests
  2. The Way
  3. The Abolition of Man
  4. Appendix-Illustrations of the Tao

Notes

1. The Boke Named the Governour, I. iv: `Al men except physitions only shulde be excluded and kepte out of the norisery.’ I. vi: `After that a childe is come to seuen yeres of age… the most sure counsaile is to withdrawe him from all company of women.’

2. Some Thoughts concerning Education,§7:1 will also advise his Feet to be wash’d every Day in cold Water, and to have his Shoes so thin that they might leak and let in Water, whenever he comes near it.’ §174: `If he have a poetick vein, ’tis to me the strangest thing in the World that the Father should desire or suffer it to be cherished or improved. Methinks the Parents should labour to have it stifled and suppressed as much as may be.’ Yet Locke is one of our most sensible writers on education.

3. Dr Faustus, 77-90.

4. Advancement of Learning, Bk I (p. 60 in Ellis and Spedding, 1905; p. 35 in Everyman Edition).

5. Filum Labyrinthi, i.


Transcriber’s Notes

Buber, Martin (1878-1965) philosopher who said the I-Thou approach to relationships is the only way people can be fully authentic; only a part of our humanity is expressed in the I-It relationship.

Clotho - of the three Fates of Greek mythology, she was the one who wove the fabric of life

factitious - contrived, artificial

Faustus - the magician of Renaisance legend who bargained his soul to the devil in exchange for power

Ferum victorem cepit - from Horace Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et/ Artes intulit agresti Latio.: “Greece, once overcome, overcame her wild conqueror,/ And brought the arts into rustic Latium.” The vanquished were actually the victors; Lewis is saying that nature, being conquered, is the true winner.

Francis Bacon - proponent (1561-1626) of the “scientific revolution” who advocated science as a tool to gain power over nature; he is known more for his polemical writings on science than his advancement of human knowledge

Goethe Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) Romantic poet who reverenced nature as divine

H.C.F. - highest common factor

Inter alia - Amongst other things

Paracelsus - (1493-1541), more properly Theophrastus Phillippus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim, who was known for his medical innovations during the Renaisance. Traditionally it has been said that Paracelsus was taught by several bishops and the occultist abbot of Sponheim, Johannes Trithemius.

Petitio - short for petitio principii or begging the question: a logical fallacy in which the thing to be proved is implicitly assumed.

Sic volo, sic jubeo - short for sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas: “Thus I will, thus I command, my pleasure stands for law.”

Sui generis - adj. [literally, of its own kind] constituting a class alone: unique, peculiar.

υλη - hule or matter, as used by Aristotle

Wireless - radio


The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis

  1. Men Without Chests
  2. The Way
  3. The Abolition of Man
  4. Appendix-Illustrations of the Tao

Posted by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, March 2002, because the book is only in print sporadically

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/
augustine@columbia.edu

Last update: March 6, 2002

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


Zilele trec…

Click pe harta pt ora actuala World Time Click on map for timezone

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,163 other followers