Find more of my work at EFGumnick.com.

Subscribe

Receive notifications when this site is updated:

Subscribe by e‑mail.

Subscribe by RSS.

List of categories

What is an Incompleat Iconoclast, Anyway?

[Note: Sooner or later I figure that someone is going to ask me what “Incompleat Iconoclast” is supposed to mean, so I thought I should start working on an answer. This is a work in progress.]

I was brought up in two faith traditions: Roman Catholicism and the Scientific Method. My parents are devout—if liberal—Catholics who raised my siblings and me in the beliefs and rituals of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are also intelligent people—brilliant, I would even say—who taught me that reason is the most powerful tool I possess.

I tried to fit in as a Catholic for a lot of years. There was a lot I didn’t understand, but I tried to buy into the justification of “mystery.” I tried to accept that there were truths that couldn’t be apprehended by way of reason.

Somehow, my parents, like many people of faith, have been able to reconcile these two very distinct ways of thinking about the world. I have not.

And so I consider myself an iconoclast. I have smashed the icons of my childhood…most of them, anyway. But every once in a while, I catch one of them glaring at me from some dark corner of my consciousness.

What is this thing called “spirituality,” which has such a hold over so many people? Why don’t I experience it? Should I? Am I missing something? What’s the basis for my morality if it’s not a god (or God)? Why do I feel inclined to a belief in Karma?

I call my iconoclasm “incomplete” because these questions still bother me. I hope to explore some of them here (as well as other issues raised by life’s daunting learning curve).


© 2007 Edward F. Gumnick

8 comments to What is an Incompleat Iconoclast, Anyway?

  • Adam Johnson

    Why would you be “inclined to believe” in Karma? What is so important about the human race? So, we’re the most intelligent of all animal species,we’re also the most destructive, the only species of all animals on Earth with the vanity and the ability to destroy the earth and all life on it. Why should there be any special “laws” such as Karma unless it applies to all beings ? But wouldn’t that presuppose a code of morality which…again… is a human concept and has nothing to do with animal life on earth of which we are only one other species? Such vanity ! Such arrogance ! I’m not referring to you specifically, but to all human beings.
    I could go on and on but it only becomes a monologue instead of a dialogue and that’s not much fun. I was going to erase my profile this evening because I’ve really lost interest in meeting others. I’m 69 years old, have heart disease and hiv+ and with all the medications I have to ingest I’ve lost interest in sex and many other things, except my little family of pets, my computer and photography.

    You appear to be not only a handsome but an intelligent guy who is searching for some answers and I thought it was about time somebody left you a reply. I can’t solve any mysteries for you but perhaps I can start you thinking in a different way. Who knows ? I wish you well. Take care of yourself.
    Sincerely,
    adam in Victoria, B.C. Canada

  • efg

    Thanks, Adam! I appreciate your kind comments.

    Sorry I haven’t held up my end of the bargain by posting to this blog as frequently as I ought to. I’ve been writing a lot, but not much that I consider of sufficient quality or of interest to anyone other than me—so I haven’t put anything new here in a while.

    I only said I’m inclined to believe in karma, and I confess that it’s not a rational belief, just something that nags at the back of my mind occasionally. If there is such a thing, to fit the rest of my understanding of reality, it would have to be a universal law or force that applies to all of the physical universe.

    When I think about karma, I imagine it as a sort of First Law of Thermodynamics, but governing the conservation of intentionality instead of energy. (I suppose that limits its influence to beings that experience intentionality, doesn’t it?)

    My degree in political philosophy notwithstanding, I’m not much of a philosopher. Just trying to figure out how the world works before it’s gone…or I am.

    I hope you’ll keep in touch!

    Ed

  • efg

    Adam,

    Take a look at this very interesting article from the New York Times on “The Moral Instinct”.

    Ed

  • Judy

    Hey Ed, that was an interesting entry. I understand your quandry about “spirituality” as I have been struggling with the concept for years. I sometimes satisfy myself with the simple joy of (as Joseph Campbell put it) the “rapture of being alive”! I’m reading “The Seeker’s Guide” by Elizabeth Lesser, which seems to have opened my mind even more than I thought possible. More on that later.

  • efg

    Thanks, Judy, and welcome! It was very nice meeting you on Friday, and I’m delighted to know that you’re reading my wacky little blog.

    That “rapture of being alive” is something I’d love to be able to set down in words, and it keeps eluding me. “Simple joy” is a powerful governing principle (motivating force? aspiration?), and it’s a key point in my personal philosophy (or spirituality…though I’m too skeptical to feel that I can use that word responsibly).

    I read the synopsis of the Lesser book on Amazon—very intriguing! I’ll have to put it on my out-of-control reading list. 🙂

  • Jo Simpson

    To me, all spirituality boils down to one question: does it matter–at all, to anyone, even just to me–what kind of person I am and what kind of actions I am liable to take or not take? If you choose to think it does matter, then some ethical/moral system cannot be avoided to serve as a benchmark for one’s own behavior. If you think it doesn’t matter, only then is amorality feasible. Sometimes amorality seems the more practical choice; still, I choose integrity. It makes me sleep better.

  • RICHARD

    Lots of belly-button contemplating on your blog. I stumbled onto it, and will no doubt elicit a cheer (from the rest of you) when I stumble back out. Quick 2 cents worth: We probably begin to construct a “self” (spirit) in the womb and modify it slightly every day until we are dead, and then, that’s it. All that other (spirituality) stuff is our construct attempting to deal with the truth that makes all of us insane from about the age of 4: our mortality. But, hey, I could be wrong. Don’t go committing suicide and leave a note saying it’s my fault. P.S. to Jo: I liked your comments on the amorality/integrity thing…I’m not sure if I sleep better by having integrity, but I want to have friends, so I choose honesty and integrity because it is so easy to get caught in a lie, and then the word gets out that you’re not trustworthy, which leads to loneliness and unhappiness. (sorry that my comment removes the holier-than-thou implication from the word “integrity” but it fits with another of my observations: everybody does everything they do out of self-interest.)

  • efg

    Thanks for the comment, Richard. Your “two cents’ worth” rings true to me. I’m mostly curious about the “spirituality” thing because so many people seem to be driven to ridiculous beliefs (and actions) by it, not so much because I have any sense of it of my own.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*

Subscribe without commenting