What if I am Lady Anne Conway? What would I be doing with her ways of knowing in these current times? Am I wasting my capacity to learn, grow, make significant change in the world?
In a holographic universe there are no boxes for us to think inside of, and the potential expansion of what we are capable of is infinite. Look at the great scientific / philosophical thinkers of the past, and those with the courage to think big and share their findings even with the potential risk to their lives and livelihood as they knew it. What is common to all the revolutionary influences in history is a willingness to think differently To have courage and be bold in our thinking and take a stand for different thinking that challenges modern science and philosophical perspectives.
Some worldview may seem obvious, however the turning of a collective cultural perceptions and values is no small task when much of society can be resistant to change.
From the shoulders of great thinkers of the past I am willing to open my mind to contemplate to research new ideas and think differently. This may be in the face of great challenge, ridicule and risk however this is my investigation. I am contemplating the stepping out to discover and share discoveries, some may be confronting to established ways of knowing, some confronting to myself. I take my leap from the shoulders of such people as Lady Anne.
Who was Lady Anne I hear you ask.
Well, let me introduce her to you.
Lady Anne Conway (née Finch) (1631-1679) is known to be the author of a single treatise of philosophy. This was published anonymously in Amsterdam in 1690 in Latin and translated back into English and printed in London in 1692 as The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy. The other source for her philosophical activities is her correspondence with Henry More.
Anne Conway's treatise is a work of Platonist metaphysics in which she derives her system of philosophy from the existence and attributes of God. The framework of Conway's system is a tripartite ontological hierarchy of ‘species’, the highest of which is God, the source of all being. Christ, or ‘middle nature’, links God and the third species, called ‘Creature’. God as the most perfect being is infinitely good, wise and just. A principle of likeness links God and creation. Since God is good and just, his creation too is good and just. Created substance, like God, consists of spirit, but, unlike God, is constituted of particles called monads.
All created substance is living, capable of motion and perception Anne Conway denies the existence of material body as such, arguing that inert corporeal substance would contradict the nature of God, who is life itself. Incorporeal created substance is, however, differentiated from the divine, principally on account of its mutability and multiplicity even so, the infinite number and constant mutability of created monads constitute an obverse reflection of the unity, infinity, eternity and unchangeableness of God. The continuum between God and creatures is made possible through ‘middle nature’, an intermediary being, through which God communicates life, action, goodness and justice. ‘Middle nature’, partakes of the nature of both God and creation, and is therefore both a bridge and a buffer between God and created things. Thus, although she conceives of created substance as a continuum, and understands mutability as capacity for increased perfection, she sought to avoid the charge of pantheism.
The spiritual perfectionism of Anne Conway's system has dual aspect: metaphysical and moral. On the one hand all things are capable of becoming more spirit-like, that is, more refined qua spiritual substance. At the same time, all things are capable of increased goodness. She explains evil as a falling away from the perfection of God, and understands suffering as part of a longer term process of spiritual recovery. She denies the eternity of hell, since for God to punish finite wrong-doing with infinite and eternal hell punishment would be manifestly unjust and therefore a contradiction of the divine nature. Instead she explains pain and suffering as purgative, with the ultimate aim of restoring creatures to moral and metaphysical perfection. Anne Conway's system is thus not just an ontology and but a theodicy.
Anne Conway presents her system as an answer to the dominant philosophies of her time. Several chapters of her treatise are devoted to a refutation of the dualism of Henry More, and Descartes. (She does, however, express her admiration for Descartes' physics). She also takes issue with Hobbes and Spinoza, whom she charges with material pantheism, which confounds God and created substance.
Anne Conway's concept of substance probably owes much to Platonism and Kabbalism (which, in the version she encountered was heavily Platonised). Her thinking also shows the impact of the teachings of the heterodox Christian theologian, Origen, who was much admired by her teacher, Henry More. As a theodicy and monadology, her system anticipates the philosophy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who owned a copy of her treatise (probably a gift to him by their mutual friend, Van Helmont), and who received her work favourably. However, although she was unusual as a female philosopher of the seventeenth century, by virtue of the fact that her philosophy achieved publication, the anonymity of her work has ensured that she has suffered the same neglect that has been the lot of most pre-modern female philosophers.
AM I Lady Anne Conway?
Yes I AM, and from a connected worldview so are you.
Stay tuned for the next great and different thinker!
Hutton, Sarah, "Lady Anne Conway", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/conway/>.
RSS Feed