Rudolf Otto's term of "numinous" which he coined from the term "numen," can be defined as an experience of tremendous and mysterious awe (mysterium tremendum) when in the presence of an object of extreme holiness which is separate from the self.
A "numen" is often used to refer to the presence of God (or gods) dwelling within a person or an object. "Numinous" is the emotive (or psychological) response to such an encounter.
This powerful experience of emotion in the face of the "holy" can take many forms, but for Otto, the experience is certainly one of being overwhelmed before God, in which humans are capable of responding only with a spontaneous affirmation and worship of the supreme being. The question before us today is how the concept of "numinous" might fit into the life of an Ethical Culturists.
The basic problem with the concept is that it speaks of a dualistic view of the universe, and it presupposes that the presence of God (the Holy Spirit or Shechina) is actively felt in that universe. Like most Ethical Culturists, I find such concepts to be problematic, and feel couching human spirituality in such terms actually limits our true spiritual potential. If we redefine the concept of "numen" slightly, however, to suggest only a conceptualization of "holy" without the attending belief in a supra-natural being, the emotive term "numinous" might be a useful concept.
Felix Adler, the founder of Ethical Culture, was quite fond of using the word "numen." For Ethical Culturists, the process of affirming the worth of other individuals is the central principle of our belief system. We do this for many reasons, namely so that we may participate in the process of expanding what it means to be ethical, and thus affording us a better possibility to discovering what it means to be human. In addition, to affirm the worth of another, is to, in effect, affirm my worth as a human as well. (The central axiom in Ethical religion is "Act so as to elicit the best [i.e. moral uniqueness] in another and thereby in yourself.") Adler felt that without the process of affirming worth, there was no possibility of "salvation" for humankind, and certainly no basis for ethics which must be grounded in human worth.
The problem of grounding human worth in a universe without transcendentalism continues to this day to be of tremendous concern for Ethical humanists. Unless we participate fully in the process of affirming the worth (the moral uniqueness) in another, there is no possibility of entering into the deepest levels of relationships with others. Thus, we have no other avenue by which to bring meaning to our world.
Since the process of affirming the worth in the other is of such importance to us, our encounter with each human takes on profound significance. Arthur Dobrin (current Leader of the Long Island Ethical Society) as quoted in Edward Ericson's "The Humanist Way," might be helpful to illuminate this further.
"Dobrin argues that the sense of "the holy" - which the German theologian Rudolph Otto contended is the common denominator of religious experience - is to be found within the world of everyday relationships made transcendent by human dedication. 'Holiness is not found elsewhere,' Dobrin declares, 'but right here [emphasis added]. It is available as we seek it in the spirit of love and respect....For secularists,' he writes, 'nothing is sacred; for mystics, everything. Ethical Humanists, by contrast, hold that holiness is created by the manner in which a person meets the world [ read "others"].'"
The term "numinous" might be the emotional response which follows an intense encounter with another by which our worth and theirs has been elevated. Let me give an example which is based on a recent personal experience. A few nights ago, my Society played host to a Philosophy debate between two of Ethical Culture's best thinkers and writers. The audience was filled with Leaders (fellow colleagues) and influential members from across the Movement. Naturally, as the hosting Society's Leader, I was extremely busy attending to the details of my guests, and trying to deal with the petty concerns which crop up during such events. At the end of the stimulating evening, several of my guests and fellow colleagues approached me as we congratulated ourselves on a successful meeting. One of my members, a frail woman in her 70's told me that she was going to walk two other women home because she did not want them walking home alone in the dark. When I pointed out to her that she too will be walking back to the Society in the dark after taking our guests home, she smiled at me and said, "Oh I'm not worried about myself, I just don't want them to be afraid."
My heart skipped a beat with her sincere reply and this sudden encounter with moral courage. Of all the things I took away that night, of all the ideas which we debated, the one thing which I will remember the most was this compelling act of the affirmation of worth. I had a sudden insight into the holiness of this one frail human's relationship with another, and because of that, all of us were elevated. My joy could certainly be described as "numinous."
Posted by on October 15, 2000 | TrackBack