SubscribeNovember 15th, 2010
putrefaction and change
In alchemy there is a stage of the process called (usually) either nigredo or putrefaction. The first term refers to the colour signifier of the process and the second term refers to the process itself. In the tarot this links to change cards such as the trump Death. Putrefaction refers to the dissolution of the corpus, the break down of the systems that were, to release or generate the new “fruit.” This is why the Death card is most often translated as “transformation.” So putrefaction is seen as a kind of material transformation that generates the new material body but doing so from the immaterial “fruit.” In other words, putrefaction is necessary to purification.
So why am I telling you this? Well I’ve been dreaming about it.
I am also reading Dōgen and Dainin Katagiri and the differences between the two systems struck me.
I understand Jung thought alchemy better suited to the Western mind. Well I expect so since the Western mind largely conceived and worked the alchemical system as it did the philosophy of the tarot. The idea that there is an “above” and a “below”, that there is an inner true essence, a spiritual reality separate from the material, that there is a pure and permanent reality are all hallmarks of this Western mind Jung wanted to understand and heal. My question is, despite the paradigmatic match, whether a philosophical system built on the idea of hierarchy, purity and permanence can really be of use to us now.
Not that I think Dōgen and Katagiri are “right.” I don’t think that’s even the way to think about it. Usually in the west the terms “right” and “wrong” imply some sort of permanent under base, an absolute foundation, that almost certainly doesn’t pertain.
So if things are inherently meaningless and impermanent as Dōgen and Katagiri suggest, how then to think of putrefaction? Can alchemy be rescued from its absolutism?
Good question. I’m going to re-read Jung and read von Franz (the books have been ordered but are not yet here) and track this little begger to its lair. I suspect this question is why the Death card and nigredo have been hovering in my sleep.
November 16th, 2010 at 6:31 am
Hi Mary,
You raise an interesting question. Putrifaction is indeed a form of transformation necessary to effect growth, even in evolution. I would like, however, to separate the notion of the philosophy of the tarot and the ‘permanent reality’ of which you speak.
Historically it can be argued whether tarot existed before Christian times; certainly the original cards were manufactured well into the Christian era but, as with many traditions of an esoteric nature it is possible that the ‘book of life’ could have been a verbal tradition linked with the much older Judaic ‘Tree Of Life’.
I wonder if this is so because the esoteric paradigm of evolution implies a state of existence far from a state of permancence. The Qabalah also teaches the necessity to hold the activities of ‘force and form’ in a dynamic balance in order to encourage progressive evolution.
Consequently, I believe that many esoteric paradigms, if they are to be used effectively, cannot subscribe to notions such as a permanent and perfect state of heaven.
I have not read Dogen or Katagiri but I can understand why they may think that many things in the world are meaningless, particularly as we seem to place extraordinary emphasis on things which ultimately have no meaning – like money, posessions and security; For many people, their whole lives revolve around them.
According to Tarot, however, there is no permanence. Nor is there any emphasis on that which has little meaning or does not encourage an individual to seek the evolution of their spirit (reincarnation, for example, suggests that the spirit is the only permanent factor in it’s belief system (It is also an Eastern concept)). Tarot, as a philosphy, is a dynamic system that encourages people to pursue that which has real meaning for them.
Consider your sojourn with the Death card. Is not your questioning representative of a dissatisfaction of understanding you had before? Therein lies the beginings of transformation but the old state of understanding must putrify and die in order for a new state of understanding to take its place. Exploring the process of death is a great way to understand some aspects of life. You have a great question here and I hope you pursue it further.
Shane Ward
‘The Philosophy Of The Tarot For The 21st Century’
November 16th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Shane,
What a wonderful comment! Dense with possibilities of reply.
Let me start by saying that I am not, by any means, a Dogen or Katagiri expert, but one thing I do know is that neither man had any negative connotation to the idea of meaninglessness. In fact, just based on my own experience, the realization of inherent meaninglessness is shatteringly joyful. This is not nihilism: meaninglessness does not necessitate an emo stance. Nihilism is a product of the West, of our shared philosophical/metaphysical reality which has always acknowledged (and sought to relieve the fear inherent in) the impermanence of the material by postulating an immanent immaterial. Depending on what form of the Western mind you travel in, you can call this God, Spirit, History, Truth, Reality, Beauty, or a host of other names. The point is that there is always something to reach for, some purpose to the changes. This teleological view point is deeply buried in our psyches.
So while I agree with you that tarot, like other Western philosophical systems, emphasizes the impermanence and change of material form, it always does so with the underpinning expectation that it/we is/are changing toward something. For example, the story told by the major arcana (I use the Thoth primarily, btw) shows a clear developmental path for the initiate that has to do with purification, or individuation (if you want to use Jung’s terminology.) The thing about evolution is that is has no goal, no end point, no point at all. It is just change to fit what is, based on what was. This kind of non-directional change is not the same thing as underlies any of the Western esoteric systems I know.
Could it though? Yes, I think so. But the mind wrench to get there will be horrendous.
Anyway, there is much to think about in your comment, so thank you again. I may be moved to post about it once I have some time with it.
December 6th, 2011 at 5:43 am
“Nihilism is a product of the West, of our shared philosophical/metaphysical reality which has always acknowledged (and sought to relieve the fear inherent in) the impermanence of the material by postulating an immanent immaterial.”
That sounds quite ass-backwards, though: the notion of ‘supernatural’ is essentially parastic on the notion of ‘natural’.
“…Jung thought alchemy better suited to the Western mind.”
I wonder what difference it would make if I have substituted ‘alchemy’ for something else…’chemistry’ saturates my mind as a substituted modern practice in the above quote. Must we choose to go the mystical route, as many people in Western cultures advocate? I prefer the less noble, but more down-to-earth vocation, than the high-flying spirituality that one gets to hear from the likes of the so-called New Age folk. I also support groups dedicated to the perservation of rare botantical and ecological sites, and am delighted to see the rise of chemists interested in reducing our dependence on petroleum oil as feedstocks for making a variety of chemicals.
I think there’s a latent guilt involved in the Western mindset for domination of the Earth that gives them a sense to repay their debt, however illegitmate. Hence the rush to traditional practices.
So much for rambling off-topic, it seems. It just stuck a chord with me at the moment.
December 8th, 2011 at 10:06 am
“That sounds quite ass-backwards, though: the notion of ‘supernatural’ is essentially parastic on the notion of ‘natural’.” Actually I’m not sure that’s the case. I know logically it makes sense that it would be but I suspect that the two categories come out of the ways in which our system perceives and analyzes received data. If for example, there is an apple on a table, the right brain (to be very simplistic) contextualizes that data and presents it to us as an apple on a table in the world. The left brain sees just the apple and ignores what it considers irrelevant data. So both context and no-context are natural human ways to examine the world. I suspect that this basic human system is applied to the world at large, and to our sense of self. I think the idea of the “supernatural” is a context-free analysis of left-brain origin that “understands” that there must be a “mind” or an “object” to which the feeling of self inheres. This is true of an apple and its taste, the left-brain goes, so therefore it must be true of the sense of self. That sense must adhere to an object in the same way. So when we feel as if there is a voice coming to us from the natural world we think it must be a hidden “self” and postulate the “natural” conclusion – that there must be a supernatural object to which the apparently disembodied voice belongs.
December 8th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Must we go the mystical route – a very, very good question. I’m not sure there is one answer to this. Partly though what answer or answers we find depend on how we see feelings and stories. In one of the posts I made today, I spoke about the fundamental place feelings have with respect to our capacity to extract meaning, and the fact that narrative is an “add-on” with respect to feeling. In other words, we can have numerous stories and all will access the same fundamental set of feelings. So the story of chemistry can be the alchemical answer since we can stir up a sense of hope, of awe, wonder etc at our own processes within the arms of chemistry just as we can within the arms of alchemy. The difference between them is what the point of things is seen to be. Alchemy makes human kind a central character in the “play”. Chemistry does that only in the sense that we can come to understand the wonders of our peripheral place in the chemical/material universe. In other words, Chemistry is a subtler story and therefore requires more work to get to the awe and majesty that is the big pay-off of our capacity for narrative. So will all people do the necessary work to get to the real heart of the universe? Of course not. No more than lovers will do the real work necessary to understand the people they share a life with. It is so much easier to just relate to that “other” as if they are some internal part of “self”.
December 18th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Come to think of it…I see that the notions of ‘nature’ and ‘supernatural’ come after personal experience. In a nutshell: they’re just labels for our experience, and are no substitute for the experience itself, as I noted some time ago on the blog. Why didn’t I notice this before?!
What do you think about the question “What is the meaning of life?”
December 18th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
Oh yes. “Notions” always come after experience. What seems really interesting to me is that our body in its experiencing of a set of an event receives that event as a whole set of strings of perceptual data. The body and its sensory technologies (the eye and visual centers; the ear and aural neural networks, etc) sort and categorize the spectrum of possible electro-magnetic or chemical “signals” and thus make the first “conceptual” framing of the world. This first “concept” is of course unconscious but it is nevertheless a limiting of data for the purpose of making the data understandable and navigable by the body/person. Language is another conceptual layer that is mostly conscious and it further refines the experience but is not divorced from the sensory “concepts” already in play.
As for “what is the meaning of life” – I’m afraid the only answer I can come up with is “42″. It’s just one of those questions that doesn’t actually have an answer because it is meaningless – in the Wittgensteinian sense – the world is all that is the case.