Fromm, Erich(1900-1980).
An excerpt from his biography,
by Douglas Kellner: Forced to flee from Nazi Germany in
1933, Fromm settled in the United States and lectured at the
New School of Social Research, Columbia, Yale, and
Bennington. In the late 1930s, Fromm broke with the
Institute of Social Research and with Escape from Freedom
began publishing a series of books which would win him a
large audience... Documenting some of the strains and crises
of individualism, Fromm attempted to explain how alienated
individuals would seek gratification and security from
social orders such as fascism... Fromm continued to be a
prolific writer up until his death in 1980, publishing a
series of books promoting and developing Marxian and
Freudian ideas. He was also politically active, helping
organize SANE and engaging in early "Ban the Bomb"
campaigns, as well participating in the anti-War movement of
the 1960s. Fromm continued to argue for a humanistic and
democratic socialist position, and claimed that such
elements were intrinsic in Marxism. His many books and
articles had some influence on the New Left and continue to
be widely read and discussed today...Fromm was a practicing
psychoanalyst who also received a University position as
lecturer in the Institute for Psychoanalysis at the
University of Frankfurt...
For the full understanding of Eckhart's mysticism, I ask
the reader to follow me in a detour which, inadequate as it
is by ist sketchiness, should help in the understanding
Eckhart.
Classic Judaism, and following its conceptualisations,
Christianity and Islam, are religions of monotheism. They
worship the One God, in contrast to the pagan worship of
many gods. This difference between the One and the many is
not a quantitative but a qualitative one. The ONE is the
supreme principle of knowledge and of ethics. It has not
only emerged in the Near East, but also in India and China,
and often in a purer form than in the concept of the One
God.
It seems to me a reasonable hypothesis to assume that at
a certain point of human development when man had cut most
of the primary ties that still made him a part of the soil
and of his tribe, and when individuation had reached its
first peak he had to become more aware of himself as an
individual being confronted with the manifoldness of
phenomena, which were 'not-I', i.e. stood in opposition to
him. As a consequence a logical need had to develop, namely
that to distinguish the phenomenal world, the world of the
many, from another principle which stood opposite the
phenomenal world, the principle of the ONE, or the No-thing,
in order not to be overwhelmed by the deceptive veil of the
manifoldness of things. Man must have had the same
experience with himself. At the same first peak of
individuation, the laws and norms of his primary group
became less effective and he was overwhelmed by the
manifoldness of his desires and wishes; the more objects he
created, the more desires were awakened; he would become a
helpless bundle of desires unless he could build the idea of
the ONE in himself, experience himself as the subject of
desires and actions, formulate a concept of self or of I.
Thus the search for the principle of the ONE as a regulating
principle of cognition and self experience became a
necessity, unless man was to become the helpless object of
things and of his senses.
In India the principle of the ONE was established in the
earliest parts of the Upanishads; it is called the Brahman
as the principle of the ONE in the universe, which is
identical with the Atman, the principle of the ONE in the
person. The ONE is not somebody or something; it transcends
all that exists, having no other name than that it is not
something. It is the supreme principle of the world, often
also defined as neti, neti, i.e. it is not this and is not
that. (But side by side we find also the Upanishads
conceptualisation of the Brahman as Supreme Father, hardly
distinguishable from Old Testament language.) In Mahajana
Buddhism the "highest" is absolute voidness (emptiness),
which can be hinted at only by what it is not.
In Chinese thinking we find the same idea expressed in
Taoism. The Tao-te-ching begins with this sentence: "The Tao
about which something can be said is not the absolute Tao.
The names which can be given are not the absolute names. The
Nameless is the origin of heaven and earth." (1)
In Zen Buddhism we find many formulations pointing out
the inexpressibility of the highest principle, and the whole
aim of the Zen effort is to shatter the attempt to
understand the ultimate by means of discursive intelligence.
(2) The same idea is expressed in Western Mysticism.
Plotinus gives the expression of the idea of the ONE (hen)
to be followed by Boethius and Pseudo Dionysius, Rumi, the
great Persian Mystic, rooted in the Moslem and Eastern
tradition, assumes an identical attitude. In the Near East
the concept of the ONE was expressed in the symbol of God
the supreme king. This was a historical necessity because in
small states ruled by oriental despots, who claimed for
themselves divine power, the concept of the highest
principle, of the ONE, had to be formulated in the symbol of
the supreme king, the 'King of Kings'. To be sure, this God
was different from all idols: he had no name (3) and no
image was permitted - or possible - to make of him. But
inspite of these precautions the symbol of God the king lent
itself to the danger of the anthropomorphisation and
idolization of the concept of God. This danger was all the
greater as the concept of God was cultivated by the Church
in the European Middle Ages whose social structure was also
dominated by the presence of emperors, Popes and feudal
lords who were supreme figures. Thus the symbol 'God'
standing for the ONE and the supreme value, deteriorated to
an imagined reality of a King of Kings who ruled the rulers
and their subjects from his supreme throne in heaven.
While this idolization of God dominated the concepts of
the masses and of those leaders who thought like the masses,
there were always thinkers and groups (usually revolutionary
ones) who wanted to cleanse the pure concept of the ONE from
the 'unclean', authoritarian and idolizing admixtures which
had covered and distorted it. The history of Judaism and
Christianity can be characterized as the continuing effort
of restoring the concept of God to its original meaning
against the process of the idolization.
This effort was made not only through mystical thinking,
as it was just described, but also through a very different
approach: the "negative theology" of Maimonides. The
negative theology teaches that no positive attitude about
God's being is permissible. One can say what God is not, but
not what God is (4). "It will be now clear to you", says
Maimonides, "that every time you establish by proof the
negation of a thing in reference to God, you become more
perfect, while with every additional positive assertion you
follow your imagination and recede from the true knowledge
of God." (5)
Negative theology has its roots in the biblical
tradition. The prohibition to represent God by a name or any
kind of picture or statue is in essence the prohibition to
make any positive statement about God.(6) The prophets have
continued the battle against the idolization of God by fiery
protests agamst the worship of images and statues portraying
God. Both trends, the Eastern and Western mystical idea of
the ONE and the Jewish concept of negative theology had the
same function: to defend the non-idolatric idea of God the
ONE against the idolization which occured in the development
of Christianity.
In Master Eckhart both traditions meet. He was strongly
influenced by Maimonides, the author he quoted most
frequently and never contradicted and also by the
mystical-tradition, especially (Pseudo) Dionysius. This
twofold influence not only fortified Eckhart's position, it
also made it possible that he sometimes followed more the
thinking of Maimonides, and sometimes more that of the
mystical tradition.
If one considers this liberating function of Eckhart's
mysticism and his uncompromising insistence on independence,
one may be well prepared to correct the other cliche of
mysticism as 'irrational', and 'opposed to reason.' "If God
had no goodness, my will would not want him ... I am not
blessed, because God is good. I also never want to desire
that God gives me blessedness by his goodness, because he
would not be able to. I am blessed only because God is
reason (vernünftig) and because I recognize this." Or:
"Reason is God's temple. Nowhere does God dwell more
essentially than in his temple, in reason." (7)
References:
1 Lin Yutang, Laotse, Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt 1955,
p.37. - My translation.
2 Cf. D. T. Suzuki's writings on Zen Buddhism, which are
by far the best source for understanding the fundamental
ideas of Zen Buddhism. Precisely because of their
authenticity Suzuki's books require more effort from the
reader than a number of less authentic and 'easier'
books.
3 As I pointed out in You Shall be as Gods (New York
1966) God makes a concession to Moses who says that unless
he mentions God's name they will not believe him, and
mentions his name; but the name itself expresses being in
the imperfect form (as a process and not a thing) and is
best translated as "my name is nameless".
4 Cf. on this subject D. Kaufmann, Geschichte der
Attributenlehre in der jüdischen Religionsphilosophie
des Mittelalters von Saadja bis Maimuni, Gotha 1877, who
also discusses the Arabic contributions to the concept of
negative theology; furthermore H. Cohen, Die Religion der
Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums, Kaufmann Verlag,
Frankfurt, 21928, pp.71-74; 109-114.
5 Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed,
translated from die Arabic by M. Friedländer, Pardez
Publ. House, London 1904, p.161.
6 I have discussed this point in much detail in E. Fromm,
You Shall Be as Gods, New York 1966, p. 33ff.
7 Sermon 10 (Quasi stella matutina) in: J. Quint,
Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, translated into German and
edited by J. Quint, Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1969, pp.
195-200. -(My translation E. F.; emphasis added).
The typoscript of this paper belongs to a collection of
unpublished papers Fromm wrote in connection with the book
To Have Or to Be? in 1975.
Parts of this paper on mysticism and religion were included
in E. Fromm, On Being Human, New York: Continuum 1994, pp.
160ff.
More about Erich Fromm, the home page of the International
Erich Fromm Society.
|