Part 7 - SELF-REALIZATION


Tvergastein, Hardangervidda, Norway, June 1995
Interviewer: Jan van Boeckel, ReRun Producties
This interview was made for the documentary film The Call of the Mountain.

Arne, you made the word ecosophy or ecosopher. You regard yourself as an ecosopher. What is that?

Well, ecology, for me that word is the name of a science. We have thousands of volumes of very good scientific reports about the state of the planet. But we need wisdom. Not as much science, as wisdom. That is to say: that you do practical decision-making, make practical decisions from really good premises. And you act according to the premises. So we need sofia, that is wisdom, and ecosofia means, you must have ecosofia, that means you must behave according to your ultimate value priorities. Here, on this planet. And it is much more important now to teach eco... not so much eco-logy, as eco-sophy. So if you can get some million dollars less for ecology but for ecosophy, then you can change many more peoples' behaviour and many institutions would be also saturated with ecosophy, 'wisdom of household', 'wisdom of the world', 'wisdom of...' But ecosophy, then, in my term, is not only being wise in your relation to the planet, but as a total view which includes the relation towards the nature. It's a total view that's inspired in part by our situation of an ecological crisis. But it is only inspired in part with the ecological crisis. It is inspired also by a philosophy like Spinoza has, or another kind of philosophy, or religion. So ecosophies would then be personal point of view, that's general covering your life, covering political views you have, social views you have, et cetera. [clicks]

And you, yourself, have developed 'ecosophy T'.

I call it ecosophy T, and people think it's T is for Tvergastein. I don't think so. But for ecosophy T, I make a point that you should do, that you should work to some extent, you should use some of your time to find out about yourself. What are your... what are, what makes your life meaningful, what is the most important thing for you in your life? And, so I have ecosophy T, that means, at any moment, you could say: 'Arne, what's the meaning of what you do now? What's the meaning of being here now, what's...' So that I say: 'Alright, I will try to find out.' And then I get probably some stupid answer, and they say: 'No, no. That answer Arne is not good enough for you say you have ecosophy T, that's not a good answer. And I say: 'It may be not! Maybe not. I am glad you tell me about this.' And so, you learn a little more about yourself, through others, through friends, which should always criticize you, I think. Good friends is one that really criticize you. So it's no dogmatism, there. It's just that I again and again say: 'As a human being, you are much greater than you think, and you have a kind of life philosophy, approach to life, and that you must try to verbalize to some extent in our present civilization.' It's so important to stand up, stand up and tell things. And many people who should stand up, don't, and those who should be saying less and writing less, they write more than ever.

Spinoza wrote that reason demands, that everyone loves himself, that he strives to obtain all which really leads men to greater perfection. Is that what you would take to be Self-realization?

Many have taken notice that I am inspired so much by the old philosopher Spinoza, living in the seventeenth century and writing in Latin, and belonging to a very different period and civilization than we are. And they ask: 'What's so good about him?' And I say: 'Spinoza may say nothing to you, and the study of him is very difficult, so I don't find it strange that you do not even like him, or find him obnoxious in certain ways. But Spinoza means very much different things for me, because I discovered him when I was having a lot of Latin in school, and I then started a new reading Spinoza in Latin. And that made me not flunk, because I thought that was worthwhile, whereas Caesar's wars in France, in Gallia was completely uninteresting and, pfff! Cicero was very uninteresting, but Spinoza was something.
And if we ask about his relation to ecology, he has certain very abstract notions but important to me, namely, that every living being is not only in something else, but also in himself, or herself. That is to say: There is a core where you are full cause of your own action. There are situations where you are full cause of your decisions and your action.
And God is then a limiting kind of notion of a being that would be in any situation, in any time, anywhere, fully causing our action. But this God of him is contrary; it is called completely immanent, that is to say: If there were no finite beings like us, there would be no God. So it is not only that we are in God, but God is in us. And the God is defined through being completely in himself, in itself. So there you have all the grades of being in itself, and man is completely superior to other living beings, in having the possibility of being cause of own action. And this causality is for him freedom.
So he is called, so-called, determinist, and that makes people don't like him at all, but if you are not insane, you are cause, as a personality, of your actions and decisions. So you wouldn't like to feel that you are not causing your actions. So this kind of freedom is a good kind of combination of scientific point of view, and your total view, which is for freedom.

He speaks about God or Nature, Deus sive Natura.

Well, Spinoza talks as if he is a pantheism, that is to say that everything is God, but that's far out. He has a wonderful distinction between natura and naturata, and natura naturans. And this presence participe of a verb, naturare... He has a verb for nature naturing, naturing. And he says: 'There is a force of some kind of dynamics, creating nature. And that is natura naturans. And then he uses Nature with a capital 'N'.
And then you have the natura naturata, the 'natured nature'; nature as something that is made already, or are created, or status, static, and that is nature with an ordinary 'n'. And God and natura naturans, God as creative nature, is then for him synonyms.
But we are part of nature naturans. We humans are special favoured beings, so to say, in creating nature. So you have both in one.
And that's very good, and then he has this relation of positivity towards beings, he has. Because, for him, the highest kind of knowledge is what he calls an intuitive knowledge, which is knowledge of particular things, not generality, as in science. He has a verb intelligere, the Latin is intelligere, and people then think this has to do with intellect. But intelligere has to do with understanding. And the highest kind of understanding is the understanding love of particular beings.
So you also get rid of this scientific point of view, general like that, because the highest kind of understanding is always between, always towards particular things; from particular thing to a particular thing. That, he calls amor intellectualis Dei, and it's not intellectual love but it is an understanding love. So, for him, understanding and loving cannot be separated at all. That loving is a kind of understanding and understanding is a kind of loving. That kind of psychology is also very good. And he has also anticipated Freud to some extent, saying that 'You get better on the way to greater freedom, through knowing yourself, and through knowing your weaknesses. If you know your weaknesses, you are already on the step upwards towards greater freedom. So, with complete understanding of your weaknesses, you are on a higher level of freedom already.

Does that tie into the idea that you have ask deeper questions about yourself?

The particular thing about the deep ecology movement is that you go deeper in questions, towards ultimate questions. That's Spinoza hundred percent, I mean, he is typical of a philosopher who tries to have a tight connectedness between your opinions. That's the term. System doesn't mean another thing. Systema in Greek, is synthesis, you have things, putting together. And then he asks, typically asking about which would be the ultimate things you believe in? So, he is, he is there also. I like that, for that reason. And that is also why he is considered impossible by people who say: 'You must stop talking about foundations', as they do, many philosophers today. Stop talking about foundations. He is typical of foundations, but that does not imply dogmatism, and does not imply that you have closed mind! You may have a completely open mind, nevertheless, trying to get to the bottom of things. And there is bottom. Believing, that there is a bottom.

What is your bottom?

Well, I have the word Self-realization, which is not the realization of your ego, but the larger self, with a maximum... the ideal, the ideal maximum is a maximum of identification with every other being. So I have used, then, one norm, that is to say, to develop Self-realization. But that is for convenience. I'm a systematician. So I like to have as few as possible sentences which are the basic ones. Because if you have hundred sentences, their compatibility with each other takes a lot of time to develop. Whereas you can start with one norm, and then a lot of hypotheses, of course, about who you are. But one that makes this systematically much more easy to handle.

If you talk about Self-realization, is that not egoistic, that you are preoccupied with the ego, and not with the ecological crisis?

No. But it is a term most people have used or know about. And you find philosophers all through the centuries talking about something like Self-realization. So it is in the middle of great traditions, Western and Eastern, Gandhi talks about Self-realization, and so on. Marx talks about Self-realization, and so on. So, but then you can always say that 'By self, I mean so-and-so, and not so-and-so.' So the ego-trip, which is by some people thinking they are... that's the highest they can do in life is the ego-trip. The cult of your ego, your special kinds of wishes and desires. Then they say: 'Oh, you talk about ego, I talk about the self with the ordinary 's', and the self with the capital 'S'.' Corresponding to Nature with a capital 'N', you see, in Spinoza.
And in this way, I manipulate words, and you are permitted to manipulate words as a philosopher. Only that you say: 'No, this term can be used in ten different ways. I propose to use this so-and-so.' So I am much in favour of definitions, I try to define my words.

But how can you do something about the ecological crisis by Self-realization?

Specific of human beings is the capacity of identifying yourself with nature, to some extent. To see, a mountain even, as part of yourself, or a river, as part of yourself. 'This is part of myself': the Sami. So that this Self-realization means, this Self-realization, in my terminology, means realizing the possibilities; not to coerce, not to diminish the realization potentials of other beings. So the basic term is really: Self-realization potential.
And feminism gets in, because males cannot decide which are the Self-realization potentials of women! The women must themselves find out which are their Self-realization potentials. We cannot do that, that's stupid.
And the same we see in nature beings, insects, other, they have potentials of Self-realization. And it is depending on temperature. So if there is a butterfly here, outside the window, it's probably dying because of the coldness brought up by the wind. The self-potential of the butterflies depends on the high temperature. So, if it is possible, I would take it and somehow do something to get it into warmer weather.

But if you see the ecological crisis, the loss of diversity, biodiversity for instance, how does Self-realization fit in there?

That different beings have different Self-realization, and the cosmos, as we know it, get's realized through the Self-realizations of the living beings. So it all adds up to the Self-realizations of life on this planet, and I don't know how many other planets there are. But there, it is Self-realization of this totality which is augmented, the more you have of particular beings. Self-realization of their selves. And the whole may be said to be more than the individuals, but also individuals are more than the whole, because: without individuals, no whole.

And you talked about spontaneous experiences, is that one source for intuitive knowledge?

Exactly. Intuitive knowledge would be intuitive understanding of some particular other being, and in this intuitive understanding, it must be a component of spontaneity. Of course you can also analyze relations of a very more or less difficult kind, and abstract kinds, but it must, fundamentally, be a spontaneous understanding. Without any spontaneous understanding, it would be an abstraction. So, you realize, understanding is realized in a bang, spontaneously, bang like this.
So in many ways, you see, I can suit, I can use, use Spinoza in my kind of total views. But it doesn't mean that I must have the same opinion as a human being as Spinoza. Human being Spinoza didn't have much regard for animals. He said it was womanish, not to be willing to kill animals. And he said many things like that, as a man of his age. This is of no importance to me. I am inspired by the kind of thinking, the kind of thinking, which is so splendid. And also because, as a human being, nobody can say much against him, as a human being.

Why is that?

[sigh] His life, you see! He had terrible enemies, but no enemy was able to point out that he was immoral in his life. Such a humble fellow, with such behaviour of modesty and wisdom… So, those who saw in him a devil, as somebody devilish, ruining Christian faith, they also say: 'Well, as a human being, yes, yes, alright', they say, 'alright. But he is undermining Christianity, he is undermining everything.'

He was expelled from the church?

He was expelled, and that was, and is, was a terrible thing for a Jew to be expelled from the community. No Jew should ever... If you knocked on the door: no! They should isolate him completely. And so on and so on.
But he had a good time in Nederland! [smiles] And I think, having had, having helped Spinoza in his life and his many years, not all his life, he had so good time in Nederland. And to have an outstanding philosopher like Spinoza in your culture, then you need no more philosophers, next to a thousand years. You can say: 'Well we have, we have Spinoza!' 'Ah, yes, that's right, yes, yes, yes...'

We don't have mountains!

No, you have Spinoza. No mountains, but you have Spinoza. Ha-ha. With a mountain view, with this enormous view of Spinoza, so you have enough, for a long, long time.

Why did Spinoza argue that intuitive knowledge is the superior knowledge?

That has, probably, to do with his, how his feeling of intuition, with other people and his friendships he had. He had terrible enemies and he had very good friends. And his relations with friends, somehow there he realized this intuitive kind of understanding. And he felt that, however brilliant the sciences were, according to him he was very much impressed with mathematics and chemistry. He was very impressed with chemistry of his time. But it couldn't compare with the understanding of the intuitive kind. [clicks]

He is regarded as a rationalist, yet intuition is more like... 

Yes, they say: 'How can Naess be a Spinozist?' Whereas Spinoza was working, just like Descartes, more or less, and believed in rationality, rationality, rationality, rationality. But you see what he is saying: that in order to gain in freedom, you must use your rationality. That rationality is an instrument to gain in freedom and to gain... rational thinking is also necessary to gain such kind of freedom that makes place for understanding of the intuitive kind. So this rationality was completely pragmatic, in the sense that it's not a top thing in humans, it's an absolutely necessary instrument for gaining freedom and reaching understanding of the intuitive kind.
And that's good for me, you see. Fascism and National-Socialism, the... As Hitler says: 'We must give up this rationality of the Germans, this... if you don't give up that rationality, there is no hope that you can understand that you are the chosen race, and Germany is so-and-so-and-so.' Rationality, the more difficult a situation is politically and socially, the more important, in the conflicts, the more important you have people like Gandhi, who was very rational in his ways, dealing with other people, but always in the service, in the service of higher goals. Never, never equalizing, of making rationality a kind of top faculty of human beings, no, no!

Talking about rationality, I think it is important that we today call something rationalization of, especially in economic life, and that way we complete irrationalization, or pseudo-rationalization from the point of view of Spinoza. Because it is rational within a very limited context of economic life, and not in the context of total human life. And it's not going to the bottom, to the foundation of well-being, of social and political well-being. So, today, the term rationalization et cetera have nothing to do with Spinoza. It's just a blind alley!

If we get back to intuition, usually it is being associated with poets, and artists. Not with rationalists.

It's interesting that Spinoza, classified as a great rationalist, uses a term: intuition. But intuition there does only mean that you don't have still deeper level of argumentation. You have to start somewhere! It was Aristotle already saying: 'You cannot prove everything.' And we cannot prove everything. So you start somewhere, and, but to start with is what we call intuitive kind of understanding. [sigh] It is starting point, logically. Because it has to do with maturity of thinking, and maturity of behaving. But it is intuitive in the sense that it is not part of the argumentation, what you hold. You have an understanding that it is not founded on argumentation itself, on understanding itself. When you, in a situation, feel intuitive understanding of another living being, that moment it's a spontaneous experience. And it is an understanding, it's spontaneous experience and also an understanding, and what should we call it then? Intuition is a quite good word, but it doesn't mean that it is absolutely true or absolutely unfounded, but the foundation is not within an argumentation. You have to go beyond argumentation, beyond rationality. Beyond rationality, but not against rationality. Because you need rationality all the time. [clicks]

Can you give an example of coming to such a basic intuition?

Well, let's say you are outside your own country and you are trying to approach Indians, as they did hundred years ago, in Brazil or somewhere, a tremendously different culture. And they said that they kill you. They kill white people. And so, the first people trying to connect with them, white people, they don't know whether you should stretch out your arm, because that may mean hostility. You don't know anything what it means, you see. [laughs] And they then said: 'We'll have a child with us.' And so they approach the Indian with a child, the Indian community. And that helped. The connection of the child couldn't be... they couldn't be enemies, who took their child with them. And then, you see, they derived a kind of intuitive understanding of this person coming, approaching them. And they were able, somehow, to connect. Intuition was so important. Because you got no argumentation. You have nothing. You have no speech or actions that could be convey anything. And smiling, couldn't know what that could mean: coming smiling, huh!
So, you see, it's, it is easy to get examples of what, what we would call intuitive, and there it was between particular beings, not on the level of science at all. You have no science of that culture. And that culture didn't know anything.

Maybe you can tell a bit how people from intuitive understanding come to ultimate premises, which can be quite different like Christian or Buddhist, and still act in similar ways to face the ecological crisis.

Yes! According to deep ecology movement, there are so many different religions, so many different philosophers, on the basis of which, on the basis of which you can come to what I call the eight points, that is to say: certain principles that's in fairly general and in common in the deep ecology movement. And I am glad to say that so many different basic ultimate valuations are compatible with the deep ecology movement. So there is a movement in spite, one movement in spite of... some are from Islam, other are Jewish, and some are atheists, and so on. They get together and they could meet somewhere in free nature. And they would have the same attitude. They would bend down, not like a monk, but probably will bend down. They see the same. They see, they see it in the same way. So it is inter-cultural. But it's not a knowledge, because it's not a knowledge they have in common. There are attitudes, and these attitudes have intuitive, basic features, plus knowledge of ecology, of course. So in ecosophy you need knowledge. Today we need, of course, knowledge. And in Spinoza's term, knowledge of the second kind. The first kind is just superficial. But we need both. Training oneself is taking care of intuitions. It has to be with training also. To take care of your intuitions and to trust your intuitions.

You talked about maturity of behaving, what is that?

Well, in family life, you have, bringing up boys, you have teenagers, and we all know what we call immature behaviours and with the liberal kind of democracy, as we have, there is wide possibilities for acting out any kind of impulse. And as long as you are very immature, that will also be a lot of violence. Because, so much, when you are 13, 14, 15, 16 years old, violent impulses. So, in this way, you can define maturity, I think, seeing how they develop, taking care, but also seeing that you are not hurt yourself. I mean, there is an ethics of self, that you take care of yourself, but take care of others too. So, the term maturity, I think, can be given a quite good psychological and sociological meaning.

What is the opposite of Self-realization?

If we ask, what's the opposite of Self-realization, they will say: what would be the zero Self-realization? The zero Self-realization would be where you have, not been able to, at all, develop a self, as some people are unable. Autistic, for instance. The autistic children, they do not even have a self. So if they get burned, on a stove for instance, they may not take away their arm. And then, of course, we are practically helpless in helping them. But some have, and there are very touching histories of autistic children being lead into kind of connection with others. So the zero Self-realization would be exemplified by certain children development, of certain children.

Can you also say that alienation is the opposite?

Alienation is very good, because then you have kind of ego, what you are alienated from others, you are alienated from your culture. Alienation is very good as an opposite of what Spinoza called: being in itself, and in your self. If you are alien towards yourself, towards others. So: in alio, in Latin in alio, has to do with the term alienation. So you have a direct connection between the term alienation and Spinoza.
And in a great conference with people from all great cultures, they ask: 'Do all cultures have a lot of alienation, as we have in our industrial rich cultures?' And somebody said: 'No, no, we never had.’ I don't remember which culture. ‘No we never have that in our culture.' And, certainly, the possibilities of alienation in our civilization today, the possibilities are greater than in a more closed society. More closed society. So, we have a difficulty there, also.

© Jan van Boeckel, ReRun Producties

Go to Part 8