The Double Refuge ❤️ Three Little Words
Suspensions
Suspension of Belief & Disbelief - Pyrrho of Elis - Deep Water
❤️
Suspension of Belief & Disbelief
In this section I look at various philosophic, psychological, and poetic techniques which encourage the mind to free itself from fixed ideas and stubborn dichotomies. One of the most helpful techniques — suspending judgment — has a long history, going back at least to the 4th-3rd C. BC Greek philosopher Pyrrho. I’ll begin my discussion of suspending judgment with Pyrrho, yet I’d first like to note that my use of the term suspension of belief doesn’t come from Pyrhho, but from Coleridge’s suspension of disbelief.
In literature, suspension of disbelief is routinely applied to the reading of fiction in general, yet the passage below, from Coleridge’s 1817 Biographia Literaria, gives a more specific context. Coleridge encourages a “poetic faith” or suspension of disbelief when encountering a supernatural or romantic character:
…my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic, yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith.
Just as Coleridge argues for a suspension of disbelief in order to read about the supernatural, agnostics and open theists argue for a suspension of atheistic disbelief in order to explore the supernatural or spiritual world investigated by religion. Double refugees also argue for a suspension of theistic belief in order to consider the natural world investigated by materialism, logic, and science. Coleridge suggests a temporary suspension, while double refugees suggest a double suspension that’s accessible at all times, in order to explore either side — the materialistic or the relgious, the physical or the metaphysical — at any moment. And, of course, to see if there isn’t some way of mixing the two, of blurring the line...
❤️
Pyrrho of Elis
The only means of strengthening one’s intellect is to make up one’s mind about nothing — to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts. Not a select party. (John Keats, 1819)
Agnosticism might be defined as 1. a philosophy of doubt, 2. a belief that we can’t be sure about the ultimate meaning of life, and 3, a belief system that lies between theism and atheism. Agnostics argue that we can’t arrive at the overall meaning of existence because 1. everything changes, including our notions of meaning, 2. we don't fully understand our brains, 3. we only understand a fraction of the universe, and 4. we can’t verify abstract ideas about theism, metaphysics, or the essence of things. In this sense, agnosticism shares a great deal with skepticism, which Chamber’s dictionary defines as “relating to the philosophical school of Pyrrho and his successors, who asserted nothing positively and doubted the possibility of knowledge.”
Whereas the skeptic (to quote Chambers again) is like the agnostic in that he is “a person who doubts prevailing doctrines, esp in religion,” the agnostic isn’t exactly “a person who tends to disbelieve,” at least not in the active sense of the atheist. Rather, the agnostic doubts and leaves it at that. He doesn’t go so far as to say he disbelieves, for that would be to conclude that belief is illusory, rather than doubtful. For the agnostic, doubt might lead to atheistic disbelief, yet it might also lead to theistic belief.
Skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, contains three sub-divisions: ephectic, aporetic, and zetetic. The first, ephectic, applies most closely to double refugees:
Pyrrhonists can be subdivided into those who are ephectic (engaged in suspension of judgment), aporetic (engaged in refutation) or zetetic (engaged in seeking). An ephectic merely suspends judgment on a matter, "balancing perceptions and thoughts against one another." It is a less aggressive form of skepticism, in that sometimes "suspension of judgment evidently just happens to the sceptic." (From “Pyrrhonism” in Wikipedia, Nov. 27, 2023)
For open theists, ephectic skepticism is a temporary state, whereas for open agnostics it’s the more habitual state. Ephectic skeptics are close to open theists to the degree that the latter are ecumenical and comparative: open theists believe most all the time, yet they are also open to questioning their belief. They are also open to different forms of belief. Ephectic skeptics are even closer to open agnostics, who remain more continually in the various suspensions of doubt.
The technical Greek terms also help us get at the distinction between open and hard agnostics: open agnostics enter suspension by nature and by chance, and tend to settle in doubt without the pre-arranged will or determination to do so. Hard agnostics on the other hand aim at doubt, and are hence closer to aporetic skeptics.
An aporetic skeptic, in contrast, works more actively towards their goal, engaging in the refutation of arguments in favor of various possible beliefs in order to reach aporia, an impasse, or state of perplexity, which leads to suspension of judgement. (From “Pyrrhonism”)
Double refugees may tentatively disbelieve something, yet they aren’t aporetic or searching for refutation. They don’t specifically try to refute or to confirm, although their reasonings and their testing of situations may lead them to refute, confirm, or remain in doubt. The reason they don’t try to refute is that they’re aiming for truth, not for confirmation that a higher truth doesn’t exist. As a result, they don’t see suspension of belief or ataraxia (release from polarities and endless debate) as an aim in itself. However, they may, like ephectic skeptics, end up in suspension by chance or by necessity. They may even find it pleasant “to float / Like Pyrrho on a sea of speculation,” as Byron puts it in Don Juan 9.18.
Finally, the zetetic claims to be continually searching for the truth but to have thus far been unable to find it, and thus continues to suspend belief while also searching for reason to cease the suspension of belief. (From “Pyrrhonism”)
Double refugees are also similar to and different from zetetic skeptics who search for truth in order to end the suspension of belief. Open agnostics entertain the notion that there might be a higher truth which would end their search, and they’re willing to find such a truth. Yet they also entertain the idea that there’s no such truth. Likewise, open theists entertain the notion that their truth is illusory, or that there might be a higher truth. Zetetic skeptics search “for reason to cease the suspension of belief,” yet double refugees aren’t searching in that way. Double refugees don’t aim to start or end the suspension, nor do they aim to continue it. It just happens as a natural result of living openly and thinking critically — that is, in a way that aims for truth and insight rather than doctrine or foregone conclusion.
Double refugees don’t hold on to aims, be they to suspend judgment (ephectic), to refute belief (aporetic), or to cease suspension of judgment (zetetic). They consider suspension of judgment crucial in exploring what’s true, yet this suspension doesn’t hinder them from engaging in new experiences, reasons, or results. If these experiences lead them to refutation, confirmation, or continued suspension, so be it. If open theists explore doubt and then come back to belief, they remain open theists. If they end up in doubt they become open agnostics. If open agnostics explore belief and then come back to doubt, they remain open theists. If they end up in doubt, they become open agnostics. Double refugees are free to go back to their original position any time they please.
Freedom of exploration is characteristic of the double refugee. This freedom is especially helpful when we’re in times of stress or crisis — when we feel the angst and alienation of doubt, or the illogic and prejudice of doctrine. In such times it’s helpful to have a way to go back and forth, to leave one’s habitual beliefs and test them with other beliefs, without the sense that we’re betraying our beliefs, becoming an apostate, or otherwise caving in to coercion.
Perhaps an analogy explains this more clearly: when one lives in a border town, it’s helpful if the customs officials are a relaxed bunch.
❤️
Deep Water
The Paranà and Iguazú rivers at first seemed so charming, when I saw them from the stern of a tourist riverboat, and when I saw the white sheets falling into the lush jungle at the famous Iguazú Falls.
Yet the water didn’t look quite so charming when I looked down into it, and imagined myself down there swimming. I wondered about the relation between paranà and piranha, about how dark it would be down there, and about what would happen when it flowed into the sea.
Since the beginning of recorded history the river has symbolized change in our lives — including the change from life to death. From Gilgamesh and Heraclitus to Charon, Conrad, Eliot, and the bodies burning on the ghats of the Ganges, the symbolic power of rivers is dwarfed only by the power of the ocean — which is dwarfed only by the power of the Earth as it spins amid the flow of the hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way — which is dwarfed only by …
In the two photos below (the first I took from a plane just north of Buenos Aires), the water that flowed over the rocks in the Iguazú River flowed into the Paranà River, which flowed into the Río de la Plata, where the Paranà meets the Uruguay, and both lose their names in the 354 million cubic kilometres of the Atlantic Ocean.
