morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

This thread remains interesting, although I tend to doubt that we will solve the questions of morality that have so far stumped the philosophers of the ages. However, it is fun to see what everyone here thinks.

Juantoo3, I have to wonder whether the sense of fairplay you refer to in children really is moral or altruistic. I hate to be cynical, but it seems to me that children are fair, extrememly fair, out of a sense of wanting to be sure to protect their own share. You know the old rememdy for children who are fighting over who gets which piece of cake: You tell one child they can cut the cake but the other child gets first pick of the resulting slices. But out of this selfishness we teach children the importance of sharing and eventually even thinking of others before oneself. As children get older they are more able to delay gratification, and to see the benefits of ensuring that everyone is taken care of. I've read before that the ability to delay gratification is one of the largest indicators of "emotional intelligence," which relates to successfulness in life.

I think that this type of morality is taught, nurture above nature. I also believe that this potential for compassion/love is divine, neither nurture nor nature (say that three times fast), but affected by both.

[alexa]

Hi Juan,

The time flies too fast and here we are in October.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OH MY! Please don't scare me! Last I looked, both Karl and Lisa were heading out to sea. Now they are watching a spot on the top of South America, in the Southern Carribean. Nothing formed yet, just an area of stormy weather.

I don't want to scare you. I hope Jeanne did the plan for this year and Karl and Lisa will appear as rainy days only.

About the only thing I can think of that humans have that is truly more complex than other animals, is the brain. Other than that, most mammals are mechanically very similar to us.

You read my mind !

I think you are speaking of Type A driven personalities as compared with Type B passive personalities. I was thinking a little differently. Either one, Type A or B, still gets hurt feelings if they feel they are not getting a fair shake in something. Each type handles the situation differently. The Type A often vocalizes and confronts the offender, whereas the Type B is more likely to internalize and sulk and pout.

I agree both can be hurt and respond differently. So the sense of faireness appears to be something beyond or apart from personality.

But life is not fair. So where does the concept of fairness come from?

Maybe it's a consequence of a social life.

I've got a craving for a banana about now...

I hope you still want it, so here you have it ...

[alexa]

Hi lunamoth,

Originally Posted by lunamoth

This thread remains interesting, although I tend to doubt that we will solve the questions of morality that have so far stumped the philosophers of the ages. However, it is fun to see what everyone here thinks.

I agree with you this thead remains interesting. Maybe because we are not looking for black and white answers. We are humans after all.

I think that this type of morality is taught, nurture above nature. I also believe that this potential for compassion/love is divine, neither nurture nor nature (say that three times fast), but affected by both.

After all these posts I'm inclined to believe all kind of morality is taught, whatever the source : divine, nature or human society.

P.S. May I ask you a favor ? Can you change the title below your user name, please ? You are not a new member from quite some time now.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

P.S. May I ask you a favor ? Can you change the title below your user name, please ? You are not a new member from quite some time now.

Thanks for the nudge, but I always have trouble picking titles for myself.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Thanks for the nudge, but I always have trouble picking titles for myself.

I hope I didn't offend you, lunamoth. The title bugs me as mine has changed three times and I didn't do anything for it. Maybe this is something from the set-up.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

I hope I didn't offend you, lunamoth. The title bugs me as mine has changed three times and I didn't do anything for it. Maybe this is something from the set-up.

Hi Alexa,

No offense taken! Just wish I could be as creative and witty as the other folks on this forum.

[alexa]

Hi Lunamoth,

Please don't be so hard with yourself. I personally appreciate our conversations. Maybe we cannot understand each other with some terms, but you have to take in consideration I'm a French speaker and my mother tongue is Romanian. So sometimes it's difficult for me to find my words, especially when I'm tired. This doesn't mean we cannot reach the same ground of understanding. I can feel you are sincere and you have a good heart from your posts. I really appreciate it.
So, please feel free to nudge me, whenever you feel it's necessary ! I know on the other side is a friend speaking.

Have a nice week-end,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Thank you for your post! I apologize for the delay in responding, but I am running out of thoughts to continue this with.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

As children get older they are more able to delay gratification, and to see the benefits of ensuring that everyone is taken care of. I've read before that the ability to delay gratification is one of the largest indicators of "emotional intelligence," which relates to successfulness in life.

I think that this type of morality is taught, nurture above nature. I also believe that this potential for compassion/love is divine, neither nurture nor nature (say that three times fast), but affected by both.

OK, I can see this.

The only new material I stumbled on recently pertained to a Jesuit Monk whose name I couldn't remember. This morning, I remembered: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Interesting guy. His dark cloud is that he was closely associated with the Piltdown Man hoax. But he wrote many pieces attempting to reconcile science with religion, getting himself firmly denounced by both sides. One piece I read leads me to believe one of his fiercest critics was Stephen J. Gould.

Anyway, it seems he has some interesting takes on a lot of things, some of which I have trouble following (and suspect I might not agree with), but his credentials suggest he may have some material that addresses this issue. So that is where I think I will look next.

Kind Regards to all, especially Alexa!

[juantoo3]

Here's some quick notes I pulled from two sites. I haven't any opinion yet, so I am putting these up for comment:

Teilhard insists that only by cultivating our moral sense of obligation to life can we overcome our present fear and anxiety for the human future. For him the fundamental law of morality is thus to liberate that conscious energy that seeks further to unify the world. This is the energy of human love, an impulse toward unity, an impulse of mind and heart that manifests itself particularly in the relish a person has for creative tasks undertaken from a sense of duty.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jma...s/teilhard.htm

----------------

What is far less well known is the fact that Teilhard was also a fervent Christian mystic and a deeply caring pastor of souls who helped many of his friends and acquaintances in their understanding of the Christian faith. Thus his large corpus of writings represents in many ways a modern form of Christian apologetics, for throughout his life he reflected with much courage on the meaning of the Christian gospel in the light of modern science, especially in relation to evolution.
Teilhard,s thought is a fine modern example of reflecting on the old philosophical problem of "the one and the many", of seeing the individual human being as part of the whole of humanity, and of seeing humanity as part of the stream of life within an evolving world and cosmos. In many ways we can consider his thought as very ecological, for he could not see the human being except as part of nature, as being an integral part of the larger natural environment. To see the human being in relation to humankind, and humankind in relation to life, and life in relation to the universe, that is the basic plan of his book The Phenomenon of Man which deals with the stages of "Pre-Life", "Life" and "Thought" in the past, followed by a discussion of the next stage, that of "Survival"- of a greater, fuller life. In this vision the human being is not a static centre, but "the axis and leading shoot of evolution". The rise of evolution is an immense movement through time, from the development of the atom to the molecule and cell, to different forms of life, and to human beings with their great diversity. This movement shows how the development of ever greater material and structural complexity leads in turn to an ever greater "within" of things, an increase in consciousness and reflection. He calls this development of greater complexity and accompanying greater concentration and interiority the "law of complexity-consciousness", now sometimes referred to as "Teilhardian law".
Teilhard,s thought brought together in one vision cosmic, human, and divine dimensions, which for him are all centred in Christ. Each of these dimensions is involved in a process of becoming, or what he calls genesis, a word which he used for creating many new terms: "Cosmogenesis" refers to the birth of the cosmos, "anthropogenesis" and "noogenesis" refer to the specifically human birth and the birth of thought. All these processes of growth are studied in minute detail by modern science, whereas "Christogenesis", referring to the birth of God in Christ as an event of cosmic significance and proportion, can only be seen through the eyes of faith. For Teilhard cosmic and human evolution are moving onwards to an ever fuller disclosure of the Spirit, culminating in what he calls "Christ-Omega".
This development is not automatic; it involves human responsibility and co-creativity, so that Teilhard,s mind was much exercised by the moral and ethical responsibilities for shaping the future of humanity and the life of the planet, but also for advancing the life of the Spirit. He enquired into the spiritual energy resources which are needed to create a better quality of life, greater human integration and a more peaceful and just world. He was fond of saying that we have thousands of engineers to calculate the material energy reserves of the planet, but where are the "technicians of the Spirit" who pay attention to the spiritual energy resources which can nurture and sustain the life of individuals and of the whole human community by feeding the spirit? For him, the spiritual heritage of the different world religions are most important; they provide us with our most precious spiritual energy resources. Human beings are responsible for their further self-evolution, for a higher social and cultural development and a greater unification of the human community, but ultimately these goals are only achievable through spiritual rather than merely material resources, and the greatest of these is represented by the powers of love. Using organic metaphors, Teilhard sees Christianity as a "phylum of love" which centres and channels these unitive powers of all-transforming love that alone can bring human beings more closely together. The theme of love is so strong and central in his thought that his entire work can be called a metaphysic and mysticism of love. Teilhard was convinced that we must study the powers of love as the most sacred spiritual energy resource in the same way that we study everything else in the world. Teilhard,s vision of the world and the human being was a vision of love; it was a spirituality that celebrated the wonders of creation, a spirituality "that acknowledges love as the clearest understanding we have of God, of ourselves, of history, and the cosmos", to quote the theologian David Tracy.
Teilhard,s thought represents a unique blend of science, religion and mysticism among religious thinkers in the modern world. His entire work is shaped by a deeply personal and mystic Christian faith in understanding the world and human beings.
Teilhard spoke of the "three natures" of Christ: the human, divine, and cosmic, an idea which other theologians need to develop further. He once described himself as the "apostle of the cosmic Christ" and he held such a dynamic, innovative and at the same time profoundly faithful view of Christianity that he provided the outlines for a new interpretation of the distinctive message of the Christian faith in the modern world. But traditional Christians often find his ideas, expressed through new words and difficult concepts, both challenging and unsettling; some have even accused him of being heretical and not a Christian at all, but rather a prophet of the New Age movement. This is of course a complete misunderstanding of his message. Yet it is true that his own Church misunderstood him during his lifetime, because the Catholic Church found it difficult then to accept the modern scientific teaching on evolution, especially regarding the origins of the human being, which contradict the biblical stories of human creation and the Fall.
In our current situation of cross-cultural encounter and growing global interdependence, Teilhard,s thought on evolution as a converging process is also worth reflecting on. He considered evolution as ultimately convergent, that is to say as moving eventually towards greater unity, or towards a unity-in-diversity. Within his wider, evolutionary understanding of the human being and of the world as a whole, many of his ideas are particularly relevant to contemporary discussions on globalisation, which is not only happening in the area of international economics and finance, but also in the area of cultures and religions. Teilhard was not uncritical of religion, for in his view all religions, including Christianity, are too past-oriented. They cannot offer ready-made solutions for the problems of the present world; yet their insights can still inspire and animate human thought and action. In Teilhard,s words humanity is in need "of a faith - and a great faith - and ever more faith", but it needs "a faith in a state of expansion", not numerically so much as qualitatively, by fostering world-transforming love and justice, and by promoting worship "in spirit and in truth". He ascribed an important evolutionary role to the religions themselves in providing essential ideas for the further development of the human community. In Teilhard,s view religions must grow greater and more clearly defined to the extent the human beings are becoming more adult.
http://www.farmington.ac.uk/documents/old_docs/pr3.html

[alexa]

Hello Juan,

Giving up already ? Mhm. What did you say about driving teachers crazy ?

That book I promised to read about the two sources of moral and religion, I cannot make up my mind. I really like how Bergson did the analyse and if I want to keep all what he wrote in this book I have to translate at least 100 pages ! We have Monday off, so I have a long week-end to give an 'aperçu' (glimpse) and wait you verdict.

Regards,

Alexa

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

For him the fundamental law of morality is thus to liberate that conscious energy that seeks further to unify the world. This is the energy of human love, an impulse toward unity, ...

OK, so I agree with this "heretic" of both religion and science. But, I've always liked S. Gould, so I wonder what he is critical of?

...

Teilhard,s thought is a fine modern example of reflecting on the old philosophical problem of "the one and the many", of seeing the individual human being as part of the whole of humanity, and of seeing humanity as part of the stream of life within an evolving world and cosmos. In many ways we can consider his thought as very ecological, for he could not see the human being except as part of nature, as being an integral part of the larger natural environment. ...

Sounds sort of like what Abagado was talking about.

This movement shows how the development of ever greater material and structural complexity leads in turn to an ever greater "within" of things, an increase in consciousness and reflection. He calls this development of greater complexity and accompanying greater concentration and interiority the "law of complexity-consciousness", now sometimes referred to as "Teilhardian law".

Or maybe gestalt?
....

For Teilhard cosmic and human evolution are moving onwards to an ever fuller disclosure of the Spirit, culminating in what he calls "Christ-Omega".
This development is not automatic; it involves human responsibility and co-creativity, so that Teilhard,s mind was much exercised by the moral and ethical responsibilities for shaping the future of humanity and the life of the planet, but also for advancing the life of the Spirit. He enquired into the spiritual energy resources which are needed to create a better quality of life, greater human integration and a more peaceful and just world.

Well, this is another question that interests me. Are we evolving spiritually? Are we getting better at loving our neighbors? I would like to believe that we are.

He was fond of saying that we have thousands of engineers to calculate the material energy reserves of the planet, but where are the "technicians of the Spirit" who pay attention to the spiritual energy resources which can nurture and sustain the life of individuals and of the whole human community by feeding the spirit? .....

they are called nurses and teachers, mothers and fathers, priests and lay persons, shamans and healers, chief cooks and bottle washers. We have billions of such engineers.

but ultimately these goals are only achievable through spiritual rather than merely material resources, and the greatest of these is represented by the powers of love. ....Teilhard was convinced that we must study the powers of love as the most sacred spiritual energy resource in the same way that we study everything else in the world. Teilhard,s vision of the world and the human being was a vision of love; it was a spirituality that celebrated the wonders of creation, a spirituality "that acknowledges love as the clearest understanding we have of God, of ourselves, of history, and the cosmos", to quote the theologian David Tracy.

This is what I have come to believe as well. (But I kind of feel like a peace-n-love flowerchild when I express this.)
....

He considered evolution as ultimately convergent, that is to say as moving eventually towards greater unity, or towards a unity-in-diversity. Within his wider, evolutionary understanding of the human being and of the world as a whole, many of his ideas are particularly relevant to contemporary discussions on globalisation, which is not only happening in the area of international economics and finance, but also in the area of cultures and religions. ...He ascribed an important evolutionary role to the religions themselves in providing essential ideas for the further development of the human community. In Teilhard,s view religions must grow greater and more clearly defined to the extent the human beings are becoming more adult.

Sounds very much like Baha'i teachings.

[lunamoth]

Jt3,

Wow, a large block of information there. A couple of quick reactions.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

For him the fundamental law of morality is thus to liberate that conscious energy that seeks further to unify the world. This is the energy of human love, an impulse toward unity, ...

OK, so I agree with this "heretic" of both religion and science. But, I've always liked S. Gould, so I wonder what he is critical of?

...

Teilhard,s thought is a fine modern example of reflecting on the old philosophical problem of "the one and the many", of seeing the individual human being as part of the whole of humanity, and of seeing humanity as part of the stream of life within an evolving world and cosmos. In many ways we can consider his thought as very ecological, for he could not see the human being except as part of nature, as being an integral part of the larger natural environment. ...

Sounds sort of like what Abagado was talking about.

This movement shows how the development of ever greater material and structural complexity leads in turn to an ever greater "within" of things, an increase in consciousness and reflection. He calls this development of greater complexity and accompanying greater concentration and interiority the "law of complexity-consciousness", now sometimes referred to as "Teilhardian law".

Or maybe gestalt?
....

For Teilhard cosmic and human evolution are moving onwards to an ever fuller disclosure of the Spirit, culminating in what he calls "Christ-Omega".
This development is not automatic; it involves human responsibility and co-creativity, so that Teilhard,s mind was much exercised by the moral and ethical responsibilities for shaping the future of humanity and the life of the planet, but also for advancing the life of the Spirit. He enquired into the spiritual energy resources which are needed to create a better quality of life, greater human integration and a more peaceful and just world.

Well, this is another question that interests me. Are we evolving spiritually? Are we getting better at loving our neighbors? I would like to believe that we are.

He was fond of saying that we have thousands of engineers to calculate the material energy reserves of the planet, but where are the "technicians of the Spirit" who pay attention to the spiritual energy resources which can nurture and sustain the life of individuals and of the whole human community by feeding the spirit? .....

they are called nurses and teachers, mothers and fathers, priests and lay persons, shamans and healers, chief cooks and bottle washers. We have billions of such engineers.

but ultimately these goals are only achievable through spiritual rather than merely material resources, and the greatest of these is represented by the powers of love. ....

This is what I have come to believe as well. (But I kind of feel like a peace-n-love flowerchild when I express this.)
....

He considered evolution as ultimately convergent, that is to say as moving eventually towards greater unity, or towards a unity-in-diversity. Within his wider, evolutionary understanding of the human being and of the world as a whole, many of his ideas are particularly relevant to contemporary discussions on globalisation, which is not only happening in the area of international economics and finance, but also in the area of cultures and religions. ...He ascribed an important evolutionary role to the religions themselves in providing essential ideas for the further development of the human community. In Teilhard,s view religions must grow greater and more clearly defined to the extent the human beings are becoming more adult.

Sounds very much like Baha'i teachings.

Thank you for sharing this information here.

Cheers,
Lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, lunamoth!

Thank you for the critique!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Wow, a large block of information there.

Just "brief" excerpts from the sites I quoted, trying to stay on-topic. Apparently this guy was a very prolific writer.

OK, so I agree with this "heretic" of both religion and science. But, I've always liked S. Gould, so I wonder what he is critical of?

The second site goes into that somewhat, although I was disappointed it didn't go into much detail. Apparently one of Gould's books (I forget now which) was a response directly at Teilhard.

Sounds sort of like what Abagado was talking about.

Hmmm. Maybe I missed that in Abogado's posts. Maybe you are right in this, I need to go back and re-read.

Or maybe gestalt?

Interesting take.

Well, this is another question that interests me. Are we evolving spiritually? Are we getting better at loving our neighbors? I would like to believe that we are.

I hadn't really considered that aspect. Maybe this is what Granni was getting at. Of course, how could this be demonstrated?

they are called nurses and teachers, mothers and fathers, priests and lay persons, shamans and healers, chief cooks and bottle washers. We have billions of such engineers.

I like this.

This is what I have come to believe as well. (But I kind of feel like a peace-n-love flowerchild when I express this.)

I don't know that Teilhard was much different, other than the brilliance apparent in his thinking. Teilhard was apparently, according to the second site, an influence on Aldous Huxley (Brave New World). Huxley was influencial in the "hippy" movement as an advocate of pychedelics.

Sounds very much like Baha'i teachings.

I agree, even though Baha'i predates Teilhard by a few decades. As an anthropologist, Teilhard was probably aware of Baha'i I would think, but I saw nothing specific to note that.

Thank you for sharing this information here.

You're welcome, that's what I'm here for.

I can see Teilhard deserves a good read to better understand where he is coming from. The synopses I have read slant their bias, which is understandable. It just makes understanding a bit difficult, taking the writers at their word that they have properly translated and quoted Teilhard in context, when he is so difficult to follow to begin with.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for your post!

Originally Posted by alexa

Giving up already ? Mhm. What did you say about driving teachers crazy ?

More like writer's block. Or mental constipation?

That book I promised to read about the two sources of moral and religion, I cannot make up my mind. I really like how Bergson did the analyse and if I want to keep all what he wrote in this book I have to translate at least 100 pages ! We have Monday off, so I have a long week-end to give an 'aperçu' (glimpse) and wait you verdict.

Oh my, a Master's thesis! Quite a daunting task! I look forward to your apercu!

[alexa]

Hi Juan and lunamoth,

I have to admit I have a block of imagination, too. I've just discovered Henri Bergson got the Nobel Prize in literature in 1927. No wonder I enjoy his writings !

Bergson considers love as a second force, what he calls “the impetus of love”

As I wouldn't dare to spoil his writings with an amateur's traduction, I'll let others to comment his book "The two Sources of Morality and Religion" with greater autority.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/#6

The two sources of morality and religion
Bergson himself says that his final book, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, develops ideas from Creative Evolution. It attempts to show that there are two sources from which two kinds of morality and religion evolve. As always with Bergson, Kant is at issue, in this case his moral philosophy. And as usual, Bergson starts by differentiating within a mixture. Under the word “morality” or under the phrase “moral obligation,” there is a mixture of two kinds of morality.

There is the closed morality, whose religion is static, and there is the open morality, whose religion is dynamic. Closed morality and static religion are concerned with social cohesion. Nature has made certain species evolve in such a way that the individuals in these species cannot exist on their own. They are fragile and require the support of a community. One quickly thinks of bees, and Bergson, of course, refers to them. We can see again that there are bodily needs which must be satisfied. The force of these needs is the source of the closed morality. Because of these needs, there is a rigidity to the rules of closed moralities. Kant's moral philosophy has its source in such needs. The survival of the community requires that there be strict obedience: the categorical imperative. Yet, although Kant's categorical imperative is supposed to be universal, it is not, according to Bergson. It is limited and particular. Closed morality really concerns the survival of a society, my society. Therefore, it always excludes other societies. Indeed, for Bergson, closed morality is always concerned with war. And static religion, the religion of closed morality, is based on what Bergson calls the “fabulation function.” The fabulation function is a particular function of the imagination that creates “voluntary hallucinations.” The fabulation function takes our sense that there is a presence watching over us and invents images of gods. These images then insure strict obedience to the closed morality. In short, they insure social cohesion.

But, there is another kind of morality and religion, according to Bergson. The open morality and dynamic religion are concerned with creativity and progress. They are not concerned with social cohesion, and thus Bergson calls this morality “open” because it includes everyone. The open morality is genuinely universal and it aims at peace. The source of the open morality is what Bergson calls “creative emotions.” The difference between creative emotions and normal emotions consists in this: in normal emotions, we first have a representation which causes the feeling (I see my friend and then I feel happy); in creative emotion, we first have the emotion which then creates representations. So, Bergson gives us the example of the joy of a musician who, on the basis of emotion, a symphony, and who then produces representations of the music in the score. We can see here that Bergson has also finally explained how the leap of an intuition happens. The creative emotion makes one unstable and throws one out of the habitual mode of intelligence, which is directed at needs. Indeed, in The Two Sources, Bergson compares creative emotions to unstable mental states as those found in the mad. But what he really has in mind is mystical experience. For Bergson, however, mystical experience is not simply a disequilibrium. Genuine mystical experience must result in action; it cannot remain simple contemplation of God. This association of creative emotions with mystical experience means that, for Bergson, dynamic religion is mystical. Indeed, dynamic religion, because it is always creative, cannot be associated with any particular organized set of doctrines. A religion with organized – and rigid — doctrines is always static.

The phrase with which we began, “moral obligation,” makes one think of Kantian duty. We have alluded to Kant on several occasions, but, let us conclude by examining Bergson's explicit criticism of Kant's moral philosophy. This criticism will demonstrate the strength of Bergson's moral philosophy and of his thought as a whole. According to Bergson, Kant's theory has made a “psychological error.” In any given society, there are many different, particular obligations. The individual in society may at some time desire to deviate from one particular obligation. When this illicit desire arises, there will be resistance from society but also from his habits. If the individual resists these resistances, a psychological state of tension or contraction occurs. The individual, in other words, experiences the rigidity of the obligation. Now, according to Bergson, when philosophers such as Kant attribute a severe aspect to duty, they have externalized this experience of obligation's inflexibility. In fact, for Bergson, if we ignore the multiplicity of particular obligations in any given society, and if instead we look at what he calls “the whole of obligation” (The Two Sources, p. 25), then we see that obedience to obligation is almost natural. According to Bergson, obligations, that is, customs, arise because of the natural need an individual has for the stability that a society can give. As a result of this natural need, society inculcates habits of obedience in the individual. Habituation means that obedience to the whole of obligation is, in fact, for the individual, effortless.

The psychological error then consists in externalizing an exceptional experience – which Bergson calls “resistance to the resistances” – into a moral theory. Duty becomes severe and inflexible. But there is more to this error. Kant believes that he can resolve obligation into rational elements. In the experience of resistance to the resistances, the individual has an illicit desire. And, since the individual is intelligent, the individual uses intelligence, a rational method, to act on itself. According to Bergson, what is happening here is that the rational method is merely restoring the force of the original tendency to obey the whole of obligation that society has inculcated in the individual. But as Bergson notes, the tendency is one thing; the rational method is another. The success of the rational method, however, gives us the illusion that the force with which an individual obeys any particular obligation comes from reason, that is, from the idea or representation, or better still, from the formula of the obligation.

But, there is another force. The second force is what Bergson calls “the impetus of love” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The impetus of love, like joy but also like sympathy, is a creative emotion. The emotion must be explicated into actions and representations. But, this process of explication can be extended. The representations that the mystic explicates can be further explicated into formulas, for example, the formula of each person being deserving of respect and dignity. These formulas, which are the expression of creation and love, are now able to be mixed with the formulas that aim solely to insure the stability of any given society. Since we are now speaking only of formulas, creation and cohesion, the two forces, are mixed together in reason. As before, whereas the rational method used in the experience of resistance to the resistances comes to explain the force of obedience, here in the mystical experience of the impetus of love the formulas come to explain the force of creation. A reversal has taken place. The very forces that have generated the formulas are instead now being explained by those very formulas. Indeed, this is the problem. How could some representation of intelligence have the power to train the will? How could an idea categorically demand its own realization? As Bergson says, “Re-establish the duality [of forces], the difficulties vanish” (The Two Sources, p. 96). The two forces are, however, but two complementary manifestations of life.