by Rolf A. F. Witzsche
|Mary Baker Eddy is presently the only person that I know
who addresses the problem of synarchism in the social domain.
The low level self-perception of humanity is very closely aligned to the 'material' perception of the universe, which is also the common self-perception of humanity today. At this level of perception mankind regards itself as existing in the form of a multitude of isolated individual 'spirits' and 'souls', all having their own individual lives, governed by their self-focused dreams and desires, wants and illusions, and countless axioms superimposed upon them that shape their actions, emotions, and reactions. The end result is, that we live in a world that is divided and isolated along countless demarcation lines, some of which go very deep, to the deepest level of our being. As a consequence, our social existence is governed by those divisions, which are not only religious, ideological, ethnic, and political divisions, but also surface in the form of sexual division and division my marriage.
Here again, in addressing the resulting synarchism, nothing can be accomplished without the process of shifting our approach in addressing the problem onto a higher platform than the one on which the problem is defined, onto to the platform of universal principles and universal truth.
To the best of my knowledge Mary Baker Eddy stands alone in her effort to uplift the social arena onto a higher platform of Truth which reflects the spiritual paradigm that man IS the image of God.
Mary Baker Eddy declares that the entire low level platform of a multiplicity of individual 'spirits' and 'souls' is invalid. Her approach is to step up to a higher plate, to a higher platform that reflects the divine reality that man IS the image of God and therefore is singular in nature. On this platform Mary Baker Eddy recognized but one divine Soul reflected in all mankind, which is made manifest in a common humanity that we all share and bring to light individually in our individual manifestations of the one universal Soul. There is no synarchism possible on this higher platform. The same can be said about divine Spirit, as a universal principle, being reflected in mankind; as is also the case with divine Love.
Did Mary Baker Eddy know what she was talking about? Obviously she did. The evidence is that this knowledge is reflected in her profound healing accomplishments and the basis on which that work was made possible. These accomplishments literally stand in parallel with the works of Christ Jesus and were duplicated to some degree by countless people around the world on the scientific platform that Mary Baker Eddy had discovered and established. In other words, one must assume that she knew precisely what she was talking about.
Mary Baker Eddy refers to God, in which our humanity is defined, in terms of divine Love, Life, Truth, Mind, Spirit, Soul and Principle. On this high level platform Love can only be manifest as universal love without division by 'sex' or isolation by 'marriage,' which are not elements of that higher platform. In fact, Mary Baker Eddy raises the human platform so radically into the realm of divine Truth that she states flatly in the Glossary of her textbook, in the definition for I or Ego:
She restates the singularity of our humanity in the Glossary definition for Mind:
She puts quite a challenge before us with these definitions, to recognize the all-embracing nature of Love and its necessary manifest as universal love. The synarchism that divides humanity into 'spirits' and 'souls', which is utilized by synarchist notions for defining man as corrupt and corruptible, and basically evil, is probably found in its most deeply rooted form in the sexual and marriage domains where the very concept of universal love is deemed to be, literally synonymous with treason.
Indeed, the challenges that we find there are severe, against establishing the principle of universal love in this emotional domain. Ironically, one of the challenges that one finds there is to draw a clear distinction between what is called free love, and universal love. "Free love" is almost regarded as a panacea today, a world of loving without barriers, but the concept that unfolds is a synarchist notion that opens the gate to unrestrained sexual exploitation of one another, like "free trade" is indented to do on the international economic scene. Free love comes to light as a free for all open door to ravishing one another in order to still impulses and desires that unfold at levels far below love, much less universal love.
Universal love can never be based on synarchism for the fulfillment of any unmet emptiness or loneliness, or whatever. To the contrary, in order to be love, it must unfold from a position of spiritual riches which we bring to one another to uplift one another's existence. It must unfold from a love that we find in ourselves and for ourselves in acknowledgement of the riches of our humanity that reflects the divine Principle, Love.
That is what reflects universal love, for the root of that love is already universally reflected. It exits. We don't have to create it. We only need to embrace it. In this sense, the higher level concept of marriage expands into a marriage that embraces the whole of humanity in the unity of God and the universe. This apparently simple goal has never been reached in human history, but it needs to be reached. If we can't acknowledge love as rooted in the universal do main, we are not governed by its Principle, divine Love, in which our humanity is rooted. Then, the love that we believe in, and embrace, is but a form of synarchism where the whole human scene is isolated and divided with countless conflicting interests and pursuits.
Naturally, Mary Baker Eddy did not expect that the demands of universal love would be easily met. To the contrary. She writes:
The above quote was written more than a hundred years ago. Instead of moving closer towards the realization of the principle of universal love, we find that society has moved ever deeper into the quagmire of synarchism in almost all areas of human existence. The principle of universal love has been abandoned even as a goal to strife towards.
In order to turn the clock back against this trend, and then forward in the right direction, I began to undertake an in-depth study of the horrendous challenge that universal love brings to the social scene. I conducted the study in the form of a novel, since a novel is a more ideally suited medium to carry forward this kind of theme. As it turned out, by the time the project was complete twenty years later, the end product had become a series of five novels. Its over-all title, The Lodging for the Rose, has been selected as an indicator as to where the seat of love, as well as that of beauty, is really located. The large extent of five novels was required in order to cover the vast range of human relationships that the subject pertains to, and to draw the principle of universal love into context with it in a reasonable manner. And even at this stage the project poses no small challenges that at times stretches the level of credibility to near the breaking point.
The only other example of any movement in that direction, that I know of, can be found in the political world, spearheaded by Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche's fundamental platform for humanity reflects that high level platform of universal love. He proposes to humanity that it create a world of perfectly sovereign nation-states, not ruled by any dictatorial imperial force, but bound together by their common respect for the Principle of our humanity. He proposes a community of Principle. He proposes a world of sovereign nations existing consciously as a formal Community of Principle reflecting such principles as will most ideally assure the universal welfare of humanity.
That's a tall order, and the challenges are as great as any that are associated with implementing the principle of universal love, socially. Although LaRouche does not use the phase, universal love, he talks and writes about it constantly, and has devoted his life to it. That spiritual force, ultimately, is the power behind his action. Nor is his love for humanity an emotional kind of love, but rather is a devotional kind of love that seeks to uplift humanity and civilization to a higher level of being so that the real dimension of our humanity can be more fully developed, and more extensively be brought to light.
When he was asked by a student during a conference, whether he expects to succeed, he answered that this was an easy question for him to answer. He said in essence that if one's love for humanity is such that one expects one's life to have a liberating impact on the future of humanity, rather than expecting little short term results, one is sure to win, for in this immortality the kind of love comes to light that illumines the world. He suggested that if this is the substance of one's life and love, the unfolding light will most likely, also bring short term results. If one, however, focuses only on short term results and not on the development of humanity as a whole including future generation, then there is something spiritually missing and one is likely to fail.
With this answer to the student LaRouche brings out the same kind of healing dimension of love that was so profoundly apparent in Mary Baker Eddy's healing work. Many people who have been healed by her remarked later that they also felt a profound, all-pervading love, unfolding together with the healing; the kind of love that some said they had never known before, or had never imagined could exist. These examples of love take us far beyond the synarchism of a multiply divided world.