1
   

Numinous

 
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 01:38 am
The adjective "numinous" is associated especially with religion, but I think it's a broader concept than that. I suggest that whatever is experienced by an individual as numinous is that individual's living "religion." I suggest that abstractions can be experienced as numinous. Wittgenstein said that to feel the world as a limited whole was the mystical. Has communism been numinous for some? Is Romantic-Byronic-Satanism numinous? Is "Truth" numinous? Is "Reason" numinous? Is the ethical self concept numinous? I think that some symbols, as opposed to mere signs, are numinous.
Numen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Numinous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

numinous
"divine, spiritual," 1647, from L. numen (gen. numinis) "divine will," properly "divine approval expressed by nodding the head," from nuere "to nod" (cf. Gk. neuein "to nod").
Quote:

The word numen is also used by sociologists to refer to the idea of magical power residing in an object, particularly when writing about ideas in the western tradition.
Quote:

Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term sign. In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise. An example of a symbol in this sense is Christ as a symbol of the archetype called self.[2]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,183 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 01:45 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131776 wrote:
The adjective "numinous" is associated especially with religion, but I think it's a broader concept than that. I suggest that whatever is experienced by an individual as numinous is that individual's living "religion." I suggest that abstractions can be experienced as numinous. Wittgenstein said that to feel the world as a limited whole was the mystical. Has communism been numinous for some? Is Romantic-Byronic-Satanism numinous? Is "Truth" numinous? Is "Reason" numinous? Is the ethical self concept numinous? I think that some symbols, as opposed to mere signs, are numinous.
Numen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Numinous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Man, you are something ! :a-ok:

well, Truth is numinous and (perceived) Reason is phenomena...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 01:46 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131778 wrote:
Man, you are something ! :a-ok:

well, Truth is numinous and (perceived) Reason is phenomena...


Great minds think alike....:detective:

It was Jung who put me on the numinous. Jung is the Kant of religious experience. He seeks out transcendental proto-symbols. These proto-symbols cannot be represented directly, but must be inferred. The kernel or essense of a proto-symbol/archetype is just this numenousness. In that sense, the Truth is numinous/ness, and Reason or Symbolization is Husk/Representation.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 01:58 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131779 wrote:
Great minds think alike....:detective:

It was Jung who put me on the numinous. Jung is the Kant of religious experience. He seeks out transcendental proto-symbols. These proto-symbols cannot be represented directly, but must be inferred. The kernel or essense of a proto-symbol/archetype is just this numenousness. In that sense, the Truth is numinous/ness, and Reason or Symbolization is Husk/Representation.


To where I stand the funny part is that Numinous being all is the closest thing to nothingness...stripped from all the faked noise of phenomena...with no time no true 3D space, no nothing, just being, a well organized and frozen set of binary codes...in one dimension... I call it the AXIS. (The axis of Order)
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 05:09 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131776 wrote:
The adjective "numinous" is associated especially with religion, but I think it's a broader concept than that. I suggest that whatever is experienced by an individual as numinous is that individual's living "religion." I suggest that abstractions can be experienced as numinous. Wittgenstein said that to feel the world as a limited whole was the mystical. Has communism been numinous for some? Is Romantic-Byronic-Satanism numinous? Is "Truth" numinous? Is "Reason" numinous? Is the ethical self concept numinous? I think that some symbols, as opposed to mere signs, are numinous.
Numen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Numinous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Religion and art...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 02:56 pm
@Fido,
Fido;131803 wrote:
Religion and art...


Yessir. Religion and art. But also politics. Different individuals experience different objects/ideas as numinous. I think there's a pattern to it, though.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 06:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
I am reading a real good book called the Critique of Scientific Reason, by Kurt Hubner, a translation by Dixon and Dixon... It is really good, but for me being very busy right now and distracted, is slow reading... And he covers the numinous and art to an extent, side by side, though they are not the same, naturally, but seem to work on a similar plane..
Kant is much quoted in this section, but regardless, I think that much of the discussion really comes out of a metaphysical conception of reality, and an improper division of reality that is no division at all when it consideres the spiritual with the real...Reality is properly divided between the physical and the moral, and art is sort of transitional or perhaps transendental object of one into the other...Art works by touching moral chords, but is clearly physical, and can be measured in the physical world and yet, its measure means nothing to the moral measage... How does it work..I saw a Monet, I think, many years ago in the Metro Museum in NY, and in one picture of a sailor by his boat before the background of the sea, and his arm was an arm that looked like no arm, his shirt looked like no shirt, and the sea looked like no sea, and yet the whole worked...Is it like us throwing our interest and understanding in advance of the object onto the object as we see it, so we lose all judgement and go on belief??? If we accept before logic, before becoming reasonable the existence of magic and the supernatural, then the effort is always toward thought, and belief comes without effort...The same is true of art, that we know it is not real, so we do not have to judge it as objective reality, so physical rules do not apply...
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 06:39 pm
@Fido,
Fido;132050 wrote:
I am reading a real good book called the Critique of Scientific Reason, by Kurt Hubner, a translation by Dixon and Dixon... It is really good, but for me being very busy right now and distracted, is slow reading... And he covers the numinous and art to an extent, side by side, though they are not the same, naturally, but seem to work on a similar plane..
Kant is much quoted in this section, but regardless, I think that much of the discussion really comes out of a metaphysical conception of reality, and an improper division of reality that is no division at all when it consideres the spiritual with the real...Reality is properly divided between the physical and the moral, and art is sort of transitional or perhaps transendental object of one into the other...Art works by touching moral chords, but is clearly physical, and can be measured in the physical world and yet, its measure means nothing to the moral measage... How does it work..I saw a Monet, I think, many years ago in the Metro Museum in NY, and in one picture of a sailor by his boat before the background of the sea, and his arm was an arm that looked like no arm, his shirt looked like no shirt, and the sea looked like no sea, and yet the whole worked...Is it like us throwing our interest and understanding in advance of the object onto the object as we see it, so we lose all judgement and go on belief??? If we accept before logic, before becoming reasonable the existence of magic and the supernatural, then the effort is always toward thought, and belief comes without effort...The same is true of art, that we know it is not real, so we do not have to judge it as objective reality, so physical rules do not apply...


I think the power of art largely derives from its manifestation of archetypes or symbols in the Jungian sense. In more faithful times, the figure of Jesus was a powerful symbol of the transcendent potential of man. The living symbol is numinous. If it's not numinous, it's not a living symbol for the perceiving subject. "God is a spirit." "God is love." "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." All of these phrases point to the numen. I don't believe in god in any traditional sense. You may already know that. But I believe in the transcendental numen.

Notice I said not transcendent but transcendental. I think that man is hard-wired for a numinous response to symbols which manifest archetypes. We are talking about the mysterious foundation of culture in general, which at first was clearly not rational in the modern sense. Totems and masks and rituals that evoked the numinous response. I think that "Reason" itself functions as a numen, at least for philospohers. Or do we only pursue truth out of lust, hunger, and fear?During the French Revolution they even created the Goddess of Reason. It's not just hunger, lust, and fear that binds societies together but rather a numinous feeling toward the same myth/symbol/concept. Capitalism, for all its virtues, tends to erode this cohesion. As you say, in better societies honor trumps money. But a culture without a common numen becomes cynical. Standards of honor are not consistent. Perhaps money becomes the numen for a majority. The concept of money. Liquid Potential Satisfaction Power. Money is that magic paper that organizes social relations.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 04:20 am
@Reconstructo,
From a Wikipedia article on Rudolph Otto:

Quote:
Otto's most famous work is The Idea of the Holy, published first in 1917 as (The Holy - On the Irrational in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational). It is one of the most successful German theological books of the 20th century, has never gone out of print, and is now available in about 20 languages. The book defines the concept of the holy as that which is numinous. Otto explained the numinous as a "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self". He coined this new term based on the Latin numen (deity). This expression is etymologically unrelated to Immanuel Kant's noumenon, a Greek term referring to an unknowable reality underlying all things. The numinous is a mystery (Latin: mysterium) that is both terrifying (tremendum) and fascinating (fascinans) at the same time. It also sets a paradigm for the study of religion that focuses on the need to realize the religious as a non-reducible, original category in its own right. This paradigm was under much attack between approximately 1950 and 1990 but has made a strong comeback since then, after its phenomenological aspects have become more apparent.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 11:12 pm
@Reconstructo,
Here is some dirt on Spengler. I think it ties in. Spengler, The Decline of the West
Quote:

Spengler, in his Decline of the Westmakes two central points relevant to our concerns: that histories of various cultures--his principal point of comparison is Classical (Greek)--can be shown to follow a similar pattern and that all aspects of a culture--art, politics, mathematics, science--have related underlying principles which differ from culture to culture. He reaches conclusions about the current position of Western culture (in the 1920s) and how one can best live within it. Mo Spengler views cultures as "organic" by which he means that the follow a life pattern, one he names by analogy to seasons. The spring of a culture is the time of the origin of its basic principles, the time of the birth of the religion of that culture. He believes that all great cultures have behind them a great religion. A culture acting "in form" (a comparison to athletes who are at the peak of their form) is in its summer, when all aspects can be seen as working under the principles at the basis of the culture, and when great accomplishments are made--the artifacts of lasting value.
Our culture, as compared to other cultures, is one of directedness and will; Spengler refers to it as Faustian. We see our religion as requiring us to convert others. Our art has a perspective, a point of view and direction. Our music is directed toward a tonal center. Our science is about forces and changes. We apply it to change our world. Our mathematics goes beyond the static geometry of the Classical world to deal with the calculus of tendencies and averages.
All cultures come to a Civilization phase, an autumn when this breaks down. Mega-cities are characteristic of this time. Politics is motivated by money, and move through Imperialism and the Period of Contending States to Caesarism, a period of despots. Science no longer reaches certainties. People no longer accept common principles or goals, they fight all rules from the past. The arts, rather than working in ways that seem obvious to the artists and the people, follow fashions with constant changes of style. Later in this culture after a period of atheism, people turn to a religious renewal based on the religion developed in the spring of the culture.


---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 12:17 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;131784 wrote:
To where I stand the funny part is that Numinous being all is the closest thing to nothingness...stripped from all the faked noise of phenomena...with no time no true 3D space, no nothing, just being, a well organized and frozen set of binary codes...in one dimension... I call it the AXIS. (The axis of Order)


"All is one and one is all." Parmenides, Spinoza, Hegel, many others.

Variations on a theme. Yours is a good member of the family.
0 Replies
 
melonkali
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 04:55 pm
@Reconstructo,
How would someone describe the difference between numinous and noetic?

rebecca
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 05:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
aha. Noetic is derived from Nous, which was one of the Greek terms for intellect, especially in the works of Plotinus. (Defined as 'reason and knowledge as distinguished from sense perception', but the Greek notion of both is very different from the modern one.) Noetic is etymologically somewhat similar to 'gnostic', although Plotinus distinguished himself carefully from the Gnostics.

interestingly nous is preserved in modern slang as 'nouse' signifying one with a lot of cunning or cleverness ('he's got a lot of nouse').

Have a look at the website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), they are into some interesting things.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 05:35 pm
@melonkali,
melonkali;133005 wrote:
How would someone describe the difference between numinous and noetic?

rebecca


As far as I can see, noetic refers to thought and numinous to feeling. If a thought/concept is numinous, however, than the noetic can be a numen.

For instance, the idea that all is one. The idea is unity. (transcendental, it seems.) This unity is experienced by some as numinous, sacred, "magnetic", sublime. Freud mentions/describes the numinous as an oceanic feeling.
Quote:

After reading The Future of an Illusion (1927c), in a letter dated December 5, 1927, Romain Rolland wrote to Freud: "By religious feeling, what I mean-altogether independently of any dogma, any Credo, any organization of the Church, any Holy Scripture, any hope for personal salvation, etc.-the simple and direct fact of a feeling of 'the eternal' (which may very well not be eternal, but simply without perceptible limits, and as if oceanic). This feeling is in truth subjective in nature. It is a contact."
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 08:57 pm
@Reconstructo,
At the moment, I think that transcendental and eternal are synonymous. But I've already mentioned this. I also now think that the transcendent is just the numinous. Or shall I say that the word "transcendent" is, in my view, the description of an emotion.

A numinous concept is a radiant eternity, or "spirit-porn" (God makes love with a mirror..) "Beauty is the splendor of truth." The beauty/splendor is the numinousness/transcendence that makes this concept a numen, and not just a concept.

Negative theology is an attempt to purify or refine the numinous concept. "Truth is fairest naked," Schopenhauer tells us (who loved both Plato and Kant...)

The more naked the Truth is, the more beautiful. (Consider the law of gravity..the closer you get the greater the proportional pull.) To unite the transcendental numen with the most nakedly transcendental concept is to arguably reveal Truth perfectly. An ideal triangle. An ideal sphere.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:05 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;133020 wrote:
aha. Noetic is derived from Nous, which was one of the Greek terms for intellect, especially in the works of Plotinus. (Defined as 'reason and knowledge as distinguished from sense perception', but the Greek notion of both is very different from the modern one.) Noetic is etymologically somewhat similar to 'gnostic', although Plotinus distinguished himself carefully from the Gnostics.

interestingly nous is preserved in modern slang as 'nouse' signifying one with a lot of cunning or cleverness ('he's got a lot of nouse').

Have a look at the website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), they are into some interesting things.

Nous is opposed by logos, word, but they go together, thought and word...
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 03:53 am
@Fido,
Fido;133104 wrote:
Nous is opposed by logos.


Opposed? How so? According to who?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 06:25 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;133165 wrote:
Opposed? How so? According to who?


I don't know.. I usually have a pile of books going, and I just read it, and it makes sense sort of because Nous is sort of conceived as a speechless apprehension of one thing or another, as sort of spiritual sense, but once there, logos, or logic can name it and so apply logic to it...
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 10:38 pm
@Reconstructo,
It's a triangle. We have two types of transcendental and a pseudo-third which is their synthesis. First, we have pure number. Second, we have Pure continous intuition of space and time (perfect geometry/music). Don't forget that physics time is an imposition of digital pure number on these transcendentally continuous intuitions..... And as the utterly essential synthetic third: logos, which is a maker of unity like number but also analogical, and a describer of qualia. Hegel demonstrates that philosophy is impossible w/o dialectical logic or synthetic logos. Eternity is engendered within time. P,P,& P recognized that pure number was transcendental but didn't understand, as far as I can tell, it's relation to logos. However, if anyone can add to this, it's a subject I'm obsessed with. Do tell.
Jurg Biner
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:31 am
@Reconstructo,
the question is: can one be without the other? Can logos be without manifestation? Is therefore logos above manifestation, or just the other side, a part of the whole?
Mankind tended to see logos above. And pure questions of childrens mind "where did logos come from" or "who created logos" was answered with "it is beyond space and time" "it simpliy is".
But logos can only be above manifestation, if it can also be without it. From this point of view, logos "one day" said: now I create. This is a misconcept.
0 Replies
 
Jurg Biner
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jan, 2013 07:50 am
@Reconstructo,
"The more naked the truth is, the more beautiful".
There must be a law like this. Also for simplicity. Beautiful truth is simple.
A simple proof that infinity doesn't exist: ∞ + 1 =
We can easily imagine that existence has no end: we can imagine an infinite future. But how about the past? -∞ - 1 =
What was before the creation? The moment before creation doesn't exist.
Life simply is, always was, always will be, in time and space and beyond time and space.
Ther was no Logos first, and then manifestation. They both are together as a ball with the air inside. Logos is manifestation.
There is no question of "what did Logos do before it imagined a material world"
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Numinous
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 05:35:37