The Undefinable Defined (sort of)
Afternotes |II| I ⋅ The Numinous and the value of the Elusive
[afternotes is a post-letter discussion piece clarifying and extending the last feature article, but in more of a quick-hits fashion]
What the hell is the numinous? Of all the shortcomings of the last weeks letter, the insufficiency of my response to that question stands out most. So I'll re-attempt that before delving into why popular mentions of the numinous has all but disappeared, alongside the steady shrinkage of inner-directed experience as a whole.
“Numinous” was a term coined by German theologian and philosopher Rudolf Otto in his book “The Idea of the Holy” in 1917, in which he gave this description:
“[The numinous] is perfectly sui generis and irreducible to any other; and therefore, like every absolutely primary and elementary datum, while it admits of being discussed, it cannot be strictly defined. There is only one way to help another to an understanding of it. He must be guided and led on by consideration and discussion of the matter through the ways of his own mind, until he reach the point at which ‘the numinous’ in him perforce begins to stir, to start into life and into consciousness. We can co-operate in this process by bringing before his notice all that can be found in other regions of the mind, already known and familiar, to resemble, or again to afford, some special contrast to the particular experience we wish to elucidate. Then we must add: ‘This X of ours is not precisely this experience, but akin to this one and the opposite of that other. Cannot you now realize for yourself what this is?’”
The essential point here is similar to the Jung contention that those who do not remember their dreams soon will after starting analysis with him. It aligns with the common finding that Freudian clients have Freudian dreams and Jungian clients have Jungian dreams - context and focus strongly influence the content, shape and import of inner experiences. Most of us have poor inner lives because the modern world is constantly pushing our attention elsewhere.
Max Scheler, also a German theologian and philosopher (notably an influence on Heidegger) clarifies and contrasts Otto’s approach:
“The indefinability of the X under investigation (per genus at differentia specifica) is a sure sign that in this X we have a genuine elementary essence which underlies ultimate concepts but is itself ‘inconceivable’. For ‘to conceive’ means to reduce the object of a concept in terms of other concepts. It is not surprising the rationalistic philosopher decries this method as generally fruitless. Unaware of its character as a mind-awakening and guiding procedure (into which indirect thinking in judgments and inferences enters only as a means of leading the mind to the threshold of discovery), he sees only those judgments and inferences and overlooks the sense and nerve of the whole procedure.”
He then goes on to bash Wilhelm Wundt as vulgar rationalist-in-chief (I’m really here for squabbles between famous German intellectuals). But the essence of the disagreement here is the ends of philosophy - Scheler takes a fundamentally pragmatist approach, whereas Wundt takes the disinterested inquiry one. For Otto and Scheler, the point is not to understand - by definition understanding is not really possible - but to experience it. And then integrate it as best one can afterwards, using philosophic tools.
American Stuart Rosenbaum propounds this approach, explicitly under the pragmatist rubric, in his best-title-for-a-philosophy-paper-ever “How to be a Graceful Footnote to Plato” (it’s also notably the only philosophy paper to ever claim its approach will “improve your sex life”). For Rosenbaum, being a “graceful footnote” means embracing the goal of Platonism - the pursuit of the true, the good and the beautiful - but rejecting the means - dialectical inquiry. The problem with the 'means' of Plato and most of modern philosophy is that while we’re trying to dialect our way to those ends, our lives pass us by. And largely in practice the dialect leads to dead ends and practitioners who become so consumed with their narrow specializations that any thought of the true, the good and the beautiful as any kind of unitary whole gets lost.
His answer? Hit me if this sounds familiar: experience. He says that sometimes the world grants us the grace to experience these ends, and when this happens we need to pay attention and take it seriously. The true, the good, and the beautiful are not things that one intellectualizes one’s way to, they are things to be experienced.
That paper made me realize that I’ve long been a pragmatist without even knowing it. What I’ve struggled with since is what precise role philosophy and intellectual life have in this scheme. Because to me it’s easy to come to a simplistic view of: I’ve been graced with this experience and my goal is to pursue it and find out how to make it tenable long term, and share it if possible with those around me. But beyond working out the how, what continued role does thought have in this?
Indeed, there’s a point to be made here that thought is a barrier rather than an aid in the process. If a Jungian state of mind lends itself to experiences of the numinous, what does a rational and empirical state of mind lend itself to? Because we’re at a point in history where it seems there is an ever greater split in the population between a small (dull) minority devoted to the latter and everyone else who - while not Jungian - seem to be flailing about and grasping something (anything!) else.
History seems to have proven that there are needs humans have pertaining to, or at least involving, understanding and belief that rationalism and empiricism does not satisfy. Otto and Scheler would contend that this need is for the holy, of which the numinous is a part. “One either believes in God, or one believes in something else”. Reject the holy and you’re forced to accept some lesser substitute - politics, celebrity worship, conspiracy theories, astrology, ect. The scientific and rational frame is not, however, a tenable alternative for the vast majority. Perhaps, in some ideal world, it could be a compliment? Can the holy and the mature need to think and engage in reason-based discourse be integrated?
Of course one source of the particular untenability of the rational/empirical frame in the modern world is complexity. One could argue what appears to be a need for the holy is in fact the need for certainty and simplicity (i.e. to not be overwhelmed). That’s undoubtedly part of it, but it still doesn’t explain why people have always - even pre-modern flood of information - been so ready to embrace religion or its alternatives. Yes, sometimes they had few other options, but why this readiness? I think there is something to this idea of the need for the holy, which cannot be merely dismissed as a form of something else but which rather represents “a genuine elementary essence which underlies ultimate concepts but is itself ‘inconceivable’.”
Maybe indeed it deserves, as Scheler thought, a place as the pinnacle of human life.