Schelling and Parallels to Fall From Grace Myths

[Sebomai]

On the recommendation of my dear Aspect Guide, Fra. Wyrmfang, I've been reading Schelling's Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom. I came across this interesting, and extremely lengthy, quote, and would like to see if anyone has any thoughts on it. It seems to indicate to me, what could be considered a philosophical insight into the Reality behind Creation and Fall From Grace myths. The quote is as follows:

Man is in the initial creation, as shown, an undecided being - (which may be portrayed mythically as a condition of innocence that precedes this life and as an initial blessedness) - only man himself can decide. But this decision cannot occur within time; it occurs outside of all time and, hence, together with the first creation (though as a deed distinct from creation.) Man, even if born in time, is indeed created into the beginning of the creation (the centrum.) The act, whereby his life is determined in time, does not itself belong to time but rather to eternity; it also does not temporally precede life but goes though time (unhampered by it) as an act which is eternal by nature. Through this act the life of man reaches to the beginning of creation; hence, through it man is outside the created, being free and eternal beginning itself.

Really, this quote touches on so so many things, that just limiting it to the fall from grace concept seems to be unfair to Schelling's thought, so any ideas or thoughts are something I, and hopefully others, would be interested in.

While he explicitly states the concept of the initial state of blessedness found in many myths and religions, he doesn't in this quote, at least, follow it up with the concept of eating from the Tree of Knowledge or any other story of an act, a choice, made against Divine Will that kicks us out of the proverbial Garden. However, it is most certainly implied, by stating the nature of a choice, a choice that can just as easily go for evil as for good, and hence the use of the words "initial blessedness," implying that this blessedness does not go on forever. Here, I believe he is primarily referring to one man or woman's soul choosing for Good or Evil, much as many theologians have suggested Satan and his angels did, in a time outside time, at the instant of being fashioned by God's Hand, in that place God resides, outside of all Time.

His aim, as far as I am able to tell, in this work, is to show how he feels that we can be truly free beings and reconcile that with the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, and all-present Divine. The concept of being "created into the beginning" is fascinating, suggesting that though bound by temporality in this life that we are all conscious of, we are also somehow co-eternal with the Divine. I'm particularly interested in how other folks here see this concept in relation to the concept we discuss here so much of Divine Emanations.

Anyway, I have, by no means, exhausted the possibilities in this quote. Above, I am sending out a specific request for responses from people who are more well-versed in the concept of Divine Emanations. I badly wish to see your thoughts on how this might bear on that. And any experts in comparative religion who want to discuss the original subject line of how this goes along with or contradicts any ideas present in other religions' tales of initial blessedness and a fall from grace, that would be much welcomed as well!

[Wyrmfang]

While he explicitly states the concept of the initial state of blessedness found in many myths and religions, he doesn't in this quote, at least, follow it up with the concept of eating from the Tree of Knowledge or any other story of an act, a choice, made against Divine Will that kicks us out of the proverbial Garden.

Schelling was probably familiar with most central occult and religious systems, but the scholarship on this theme (and on Schelling in general in the English-speaking world) is understandably quite scarce. At least Jakob Böhme and Franz Baader were important influences for Schelling, perhaps as important as Kant, Leibniz and Spinoza, whom contemporary average philosopher can identify much easier.

I´m regrettably properly familiar only with this particular work on human freedom, but there will surely be lots of thoughts on mythologies in Schelling´s later works Philosophy of Mythology and Philosophy of Revelation at least.

[Sebomai]

I´m regrettably properly familiar only with this particular work on human freedom, but there will surely be lots of thoughts on mythologies in Schelling´s later works Philosophy of Mythology and Philosophy of Revelation at least.

I plan on reading Philosophy of Mythology on my bus trip. I'd love to discuss it with you at some point, particularly if you get a chance to read it yourself. Also intend to finally get around to reading Fear and Trembling. That one has been far too long delayed!

[Wyrmfang]

I would love to read right away all the rest of Schelling´s works and some of Kierkegaard´s (including of course endless amount of others ), but unfortunately my academic responsibilities limit in severe way my time and energy I can use. I´m working about a year from now on with Kant, and I don´t want to read Schelling simultaneusly, because it would mess things up. But the year after this will be dedicated to Schelling scholarship (centered on the "Freedom Essay"). The Freedom Essay is already so familiar to me that I can share my thoughts on it any time, probably later also in this topic

[Sebomai]

I'm running a little far afield from the original topic, which, as a moderator, is particularly naughty of me. But I wanted to correct an earlier statement. I was under the impression that a book Fra. Wyrmfan recommended on the subject of evil was Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard. It was actually Sickness Unto Death. So, I'll certainly be reading that instead on my journey. And instead of Philosophy of Mythology, I may read the text of Jung's Red Book. No artwork in this edition but it's very cheap, a lot cheaper than the Schelling, so I will read that, as I've wanted to for some time, and then decide if I want to eventually spend the massive amount of money on the complete version!

As far as this quote by Schelling, to get back on topic, I like how man is described as "an undecided being." This takes so much of our existence as humans into account. Not only our teetering between Good and Evil, which is the main subject of the entire work, but so many polarities, the opposites Fra. Nefastos refers to in Fosforos so often and so eloquently, they all bespeak an undecided-ness about human existence. Even life and death... those very core aspects of our being, whether we choose life or death, what that means, how we live and how we die, it's all undecided, because unlike almost any conception of God, except for in divination and dreams, we have no idea how anything, including ourselves, is going to turn out. Schelling refers again and again to people not really being able, under ordinary circumstances, to act against their nature but, because of the choice made outside of time mentioned in the quote, we are still not deprived of our freedom. This ultimately seems to mean that we are undecided even to ourselves. Will we choose Good or Evil when presented with a choice? Because of the choice made in eternity, we are compelled unless diverted by other forces to choose according to our nature, but as undecided beings, we do not understand our own natures well enough to accurately and reliably predict those choices. Hence, to me, the difficulty of so many, "What would you do if...?" questions and how often what we predict would happen ends up being completely off base. Studies have been done on lottery winners and how many of them end up broke and often miserable within a relatively recent time after winner. Surely, that's not what these undecided beings would have predicted would happen if they won!

[Benemal]

Since so many, in SoA, seem to be in love with these philosophers, i've decided to get over my decade long distrust and scepticism, about philosophy and people who are into it. I'll read Schelling and Kant and Wittgenstein etc. Unfortunately, i'll have push something else interesting, in my reading list, to the unknown future.

[Wyrmfang]

I was under the impression that a book Fra. Wyrmfang recommended on the subject of evil was Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard. It was actually Sickness Unto Death.

I forgot to mention, but the book itself is a bit frustrating (as Kierkegaard usually is, for he is after all as much, or perhaps even more a Christian believer than a philosopher); David Roberts´s commentary Kierkegaard´s Analysis of Radical Evil instead is pure greatness.

Since so many, in SoA, seem to be in love with these philosophers, i've decided to get over my decade long distrust and scepticism, about philosophy and people who are into it. I'll read Schelling and Kant and Wittgenstein etc. Unfortunately, i'll have push something else interesting, in my reading list, to the unknown future.

Reading Kant or especially Wittgenstein after extensive antipathy to philosophy in general might be similar to taking a hard boiled atheist to church in hope that he would experience God... Wittgenstein has always been too formal for me; I have realized from second hand sources that he is a kind of contemporary Kant. Schelling instead is already more esotericism than philosophy; Pauli Pylkkö´s translation (with a good, although frustratingly "traditionalist" commentary) Ihmisen vapaudesta is very recommendable. Nietzsche might be the best critic of idealism in general. Although his language is poetic (or more likely precisely for this reason), his writings are like a bottomless well of arguments for atheism; once you think you have refuted some point at least on personal level, there is a new deeper one... A kind of eternal beloved enemy for me.

[Benemal]

I have read philosophy and my mistrust came from disappointment. I suppose i was looking for something, that wasn't there.
I tried reading Kant, when i was seventeen and it went completely over my head and then i read some others more accessible, like Schopenhauer. I was most interested in Nietzsche. Of course i was magnetically drawn to the Antichrist, in the library and after that, read the other more challenging ones. I don't think 'll revisit those.
After a long break from philosophy, i hope i will be more receptive.

[Jiva]

Coincidently I finished re-reading Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom the day this was posted.

Aside from Böhme and Baader, the only overtly occult reference I noticed is towards the end of the book when Schelling makes a throwaway mention of Kabbalistic philosophy. I actually wasn't surprised by this as, for example, the quote highlighted in the original post reminds me strongly of the concept of B'reshit or “continual becoming”, which is also anchored at the beginning of creation as the first word of Genesis.

Perhaps this is the result of not having read enough, but in my opinion, Schelling's solution of the fall – unity in the non-ground as a kind of neutral indifference – is similar to Nietzsche's beyond good and evil or beyond what he considered the pseudo-science of morality. In other words, I don't see them as necessarily opposed to each other, despite Nietzsche criticising idealism's "femininity".

[Wyrmfang]

I have read philosophy and my mistrust came from disappointment. I suppose i was looking for something, that wasn't there.
I tried reading Kant, when i was seventeen and it went completely over my head and then i read some others more accessible, like Schopenhauer. I was most interested in Nietzsche. Of course i was magnetically drawn to the Antichrist, in the library and after that, read the other more challenging ones. I don't think 'll revisit those.
After a long break from philosophy, i hope i will be more receptive.

Ok, no wonder if you didn´t get Kant´s points at 17 The only thinker I somewhat understood in that age was Schopenhauer. I read a lot of Nietzsche too, but like most people in that age, I got him totally wrong.

Coincidently I finished re-reading Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom the day this was posted.

Finally there seems to be an arising interest in Schelling both in SoA and academia also!

I believe anyone appreciating Nefastos´s main writings will get something from Schelling also. Even the style is quite similar. And that kind of non-rational yet systematic thinking is quite rare, at least in modern philosophy.

Perhaps this is the result of not having read enough, but in my opinion, Schelling's solution of the fall – unity in the non-ground as a kind of neutral indifference – is similar to Nietzsche's beyond good and evil or beyond what he considered the pseudo-science of morality. In other words, I don't see them as necessarily opposed to each other, despite Nietzsche criticising idealism's "femininity".

It truly has certain resemblances to Nietzsche. It was already Heidegger who thought Schelling as a kind of pre-Nietzsche. Also Nietzsche´s distinction of appolonic and dionysian has some connections to Schelling´s will of the ground and will of love. Yet Nietzsche is a strict atheist while Schelling´s main point is to save religious intellectual thinking. Nietzsche is also an extreme relativist, while Schelling, although a kind of perspectivist too, does believe in absolute truth. Unsystematically it could be said that Nietzsche aimed beyond good and evil but Schelling tried to conceive "good beyond good and evil".