2. THE ZENSORY LIGHTNESS OF BEING
| The Sovereignty of Detachment over other Concepts - A Contemplation of the Good |
‘I think there is a place both inside and outside religion for a sort of contemplation of the Good, not just
by dedicated experts but by ordinary people: an attention which is not just the planning of particular
good actions, but an attempt to look right away from Self towards a distant transcendent perfection, a
source of uncontaminated energy, a source of new and quite undreamt-of virtue. This is the true
2
3. 1
mysticism, which is morality’ […]’
Referring to Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ dealing with the main thought
‘’each man has only one life to live’, a life in which that what occurs, occurs only once and
so forth never again hence imposing a certain unbearable lightness on being, this essay
2
explores its ‘bearable’ potential; a Modeless Mode of Being in which particular being, self-
3
being, has been transcended. A Modeless Mode of Being, a ‘Zensory’ Being in which The
Good can be grasped according to Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. Opposed to
Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence - associated with the thought the universe and its
events have already occurred and will recur ad infinitum, imposing a certain ‘heaviness’ on
one’s being - Kundera’s concept of lightness underlines the rather insignificance of one’s
being - for decisions do not matter and are therefore perceived light not causing personal
suffering. On the other hand this insignificance of one’s being is causing suffering in the
awareness of the transience of life occurring once and never again: an existential lightness
becoming unbearable for Man generally wishing his being to have transcendent meaning.
The unbearableness lies in the attachment to the value of one’s individual life lived by
‘self’ and it is the letting-go of this attachment, a detachment, which generates the
transcendent meaning or significance Man would search for; his mystical nature,
generating a ‘bearable’ lightness of his being. Functioning as a metaphor to pave the path
1
From: Iris Murdoch, ‘The Sovereignty of Good’ (1985) in: (Crisp and Slote, 1997: 116).
2
‘A Modeless Mode of Being’; a concept of Meister Eckhart to refer to that ‘mode’ – although being ‘modeless’
in which all particular modes of being are transcended and Unity is experienced. Beginning with capitals this
Modeless Mode corresponds with the Divine, Unity in which All is One. ‘Good’ is therefore written as well with
a capital to refer to a Modeless Mode of Goodness in which all its particular modes are transcended.
3
‘Zensory’: a term conceptualized to describe what Eckart calls a Modeless Mode of Being. More explanation
will be given further in this essay.
3
4. towards what could be perceived as the ‘Holy Grail’ of morality, grasping it’s true mystical
4
nature, Kundera’s idea of lightness will be perceived from its other side. A contemplation
of the Good by looking away from self towards a distant transcendent perfection, towards
a new source of virtue, a viewpoint expressed by moral philosopher Iris Murlock – in favor
of the use of metaphors herself - and quoted above.
It is the mystical nature of morality, a contemplation of Good following Murdoch, this
essay attempts to explore in larger depths by traveling through the mindscape of Christian
5
mystic Meister Echkart and his doctrine of redemption, wherein the human being
6
becomes a Homo Divinus, an incarnation of the Divine or God , the Godhead. Since
Murdoch has stated a contemplation of the Good would be possible for her both inside
and outside religion, the choice for Eckharts’s mystical doctrine rooted in Christianity
could be considered an extra validation regarding its use. The question why an
exploration of the mystical nature of morality would matter should be understand in the
context of Murdoch’s stating moral philosophers should attempt to answer the question:
4
Contemplation is a concept of utter importance as well in both the thoughts of ancient philosophers Plato and
Plotinus. Former states it is through contemplation the Divine Form of Good can be grasped, the highest object
of knowledge only accessible for philosopher-kings. Latter constitutes contemplation as the way to reach
Henosis, a state of Oneness.
5
– Or ‘living realization’ for the mystic approach emphasizes direct experience over doctrine. To speak about
living realization in light of discussing mystical thought seems however not suitable: the purpose of this essay is
to explore mystical ideas by means of analyzing them, grasping them to theoretical extent. To realize their
content and transcent their theoretical dimension, agreement is there, words should be realized in living
deeds.
6
In his Sermons Eckhart mostly uses the ‘concept’ of God to name the Divine, he mentions though that ‘God
has no name’. It is herefore this essay uses Divine as a concept instead of God to refer to itself for former is a
concept less loaded than latter. Secondly awareness is there, the word is not capable to grasp the true essence of
the Divine, that is by experience only as the mystical approach implies. Thirdly the Divine is ‘the solitary One’,
being both transcendent and immanent (Shah-Kazemi, 2006:136).
4
5. 7
how can one make oneself better ? If life would occur once and never again, as Kundera
presupposes, there would be no higher improvement of one’s being than by perfecting it
and it is the perfection of virtue, a contemplation of the Good, grasping it’s mystical
nature, which could be considered it’s glorious finish. According to Murdoch it is one’s
task to come to see the world as it is and in order to do so, Man has to sacrifice all to come
to this essence. This is what the mystic attempts, to dis-cover the Essence of Being.
A contemplation of the Good implies according to Murdock a looking towards a
transcendent perfection of virtue, what seems to be a pleonasm when aligning it with the
thoughts of Meister Eckhart. About the relation between transcendence and virtue
Eckhart argues the ability to transcend limitative conceptions, so too in relation to a
conception of virtue, presupposes their existence as a foundation for this transcendence
potential. Perfection of virtue as such could be considered in so far a transcendence of any
8
kind of particular virtue, a-going-beyond for which all virtues have to be realized .
‘[A]ll virtues should be enclosed in you and flow out of you in their true being. You should traverse and
9
transcend all virtues, drawing virtue solely from its source in that ground where it is One with Divine ’.
The essence of all virtues should be assimilated to such extent they all emanate, ‘flow’
from man supernaturally, beyond his self-being. A looking towards a perfection of virtue
should therefore be detached of any particularizing conception of virtue realized
beforehand in order to make transcendence, hence perfection possible. The limitation is in
7
From: The Sovereignity of Good over other concepts of Virtue (1985) in: (Crisp and Slote, 2007:100).
8
From: (Shah-Kazemi, 2006:143).
9
From: (O’Connell Walshe, 1979, I:128).
5
6. the attachment of the particular, to detach is to transcend this particular, hence to grasp
essence hence to perfect. Transcendence is therefore perfection by which the pleonastic
nature of Murdock’s expression of ‘transcendent perfection’ becomes clearly visible.
Eckhart agrees on the essentialism of detachment, he argues transcendence of virtue can
be realized only indeed by looking away from the particular he associates with a looking
away from self connected to the ‘created world’ by conforming one’s will to the Divine
Will. He states the Divine Will is necessarily Good and so man must necessarily accept and
be ready for everything that is the Divine Will in order to improve one’s being to the
highest extent possible.
‘I find no other virtue better than a pure detachment from all things, because all other virtues have some
regard for created things, but detachment is free from all created things [..] He who would be serene and
pure needs but one thing, detachment."
10
Pure detachment he associates with an immovable stand of spirit in all assaults of feeling
of joy, sorrow, shame like a stand of a solid tree rooted in the earth not blown away by a
raging storm. Here immovability rather should be understood as a firm-being-rooted able
to go with the flow of feeling as it appears being not overwhelmed by it, not attached to it,
letting be whatever is, without judgment, preference or meaning. This immovable stand
would bring man in the greatest similarity with the Divine. Initially detachment for
Eckhart signifies a notion of will constituted as a ‘not-willing’ a certain cessation of will,
where particular will fades away in order to become receptive to the Divine will, where
10
Spirit: not guided by self/thinking from subject, but rather a just-being, a letting-flow equal to the stand of
spirit the Buddhist tradition of Vipassana meditation describes.
6
7. possessing and having are eradicated and where one’s own needs and interests are
11
renounced in the interest of another’s: the Divine . Receptivity, for Eckhart strongly
emphasizes the importance of complete disappearance of individual will to become as
‘fully empty’ needed to receive the Divine, for that will enter a detached, hence, ‘free’
12
soul :
"To be empty of all created things is to be full of ‘God’, and to be full of created things is to be empty of
‘God" […]
According to Eckhart, the Divine is ‘No-thing’ – rather the Being that undergrids all
reality. Man must become no-thing to be one with Divine. It is the concept of Kenosis,
rooted in Christian theology, which also refers to this process of self-emptying': releasing
13
one's own will and becoming entirely receptive to the Divine . This process of self-
emptying is what could be understood as an increase of sensitivity to its full potential, a
potential hidden in man, though regularly covered by a veil of self-interested will. It is the
moral philosopher Malcolm McDowell, who also introduces the concept of sensitivity to
the field of virtue relating it to a sort of single complex perceptual capacity, an ability to
14
recognize requirements which situations impose on one’s behavior . Virtue he puts on a
11
From: Selected Writings. Trans. Oliver Davies. New York: Penguin Books USA, Inc., 1994, p. 244
12
From: sermon 24 - ‘Free’ or ‘pure’ as mentioned in the first quotation. What Eckhart exactly means by Soul
remains unclear for he does not give an elaboration on it and/or uses other concepts to describe it.
13
With reference to Kenosis: here it stands for becoming receptive to the Divine as in: ‘Christ emptied Himself’
(Philippians 2:7) The common view to Kenosis is derived from German theologist Gottfried Thomasius (1800)
stating Christ gave up voluntarily some of His divine attributes - omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence -
so he could function as a man on earth to fulfill the work of redemption. Note that here the emptying factor is
in the letting-go of divine attributes, whilst concerning Man, the emptiness is in the letting-go of one’s own –
human – will to receive the Divine. The question raises if this Divine would be similar to the Divine attributes
Thomasius mentions.
14
From: ‘Virtue and Reason’ (1979) in: (Crisp and Slote, 2007:142,144,161 and 162).
7
8. secondary place in moral philosophy when attempting to answer the question ‘how should
one live’ in universal conceptions. Although differently formulated than Murdock’s
question ‘how can one make oneself better’, both questions are connected for ‘how to live’
in view of moral philosophy implicitly deals with ‘to live good’ as does ‘to make oneself
better’ for ‘better’ is an improvement of good. Secondly to live good automatically could
imply to aspire to make oneself better for to live is to be in motion, to develop, which
opens dimensions for learning hence improvement. Turning back to the secondary place
McDowell puts virtue on in light of these questions, it is the ‘being a kind of person’ –
perceiving life and events in a certain way – he puts on the first place. This ‘kind of being’
seems to overlap strongly with Eckhart’s notion of a ‘mode of being’ when he introduces a
‘Modeless Mode of Being’, a negation of a negation of a ‘mode of being’ in attempt to
constitute a transcendent mode of being – for even the concept of mode is in this modeless
15
mode transcended - that being in which detachment is fulfilled and a ‘Breaking Through ’
manifests itself.
‘’Therefore, I say, if a man turns away from self and from created things, then - to the extent that one
16
will do this - one will attain Oneness and blessedness in one’s Soul's spark, which time and place never
touched’’ […]
According to Eckhart all perfection, all blessedness depends upon the Breaking Through,
which is beyond the created world of temporality entering the ground that is without
15
Breaking-Through: When the self is fully detached and the veil of the created world has vanished entering
the Modeless Mode of Divine Being.
16
To the extent – to the fullest extent means total detachment of individual will.
8
9. 17
ground . In this Breaking Through every mode of being hence every conception is
18
transcended and a Modeless Mode of ‘Oneness ’ Being manifests beyond the limits of
ordinary sensory experience though being possible to grasp by direct experience for this is
the mystical approach. The kind of direct experience in this Modeless Mode is difficult to
conceptualize for it impoverishes its nature – as do all signifiers in relation to their
signifieds - nevertheless in order to be communicated, one needs a signifier signifying the
signified. In this case the nature of the signified it is even more problematic for here the
signified is something which in fact cannot be signified by a signifier, for it is beyond being
and it is within being this potential lies. Eckhart attempts to overcome this by his
expression of ‘Modeless Mode,’ and another suitable term approaching it to a large extent
seems to be ‘Zensory’ experience, the Modeless Mode wherein the ‘Now’ is experienced,
‘Presence’: ‘never touched by time and place’ for Eckart insist one must flee one’s senses
19
and turn inwards to break through . This fleeing one’s senses could be understood as a
‘Stateless State’ of the senses, in which they are transcended – a- going-beyond the
ordinary senses, generating hence a ‘Zensory’ experience.
Concepts as ‘Zensory’ and ‘Modeless Mode’ serve merely as metaphors in the attempt to
grasp and communicate about the existence of Oneness, for it has to be underlined again
they represent a mode of Being which actually cannot be catched in words for to speak or
17
From: (‘O Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon 80).
18
Oneness: and not unity, which is also associated with this Modeless Mode, Eckhart strongly insists on
Oneness as opposed to united-ness of which latter corresponds with a coming together of things, which still
remain rather get unified. Oneness merely is where two are become one and wherefore one has to loose its
identity. In de Modeless Mode of Being, the soul gives up her being and life to become One with Divine, which
stays. The soul does not perish for Divine, for it is Divine which brought soul out of itself, therefore soul must
be truly its (‘O Connel Walshe, 1979: I-184).
19
From: (Shah-Kazemi, 2006:158).
9
10. to write is to particularize. However, a particular mode of being is the prerequisite for
understanding of its limitations nourishing the need to become One and thus Good and
transcend particularity. As was mentioned in the beginning of this essay, it is the existence
of concept which makes its transcendence/perfection possible leading to Breaking
Through and to experience Divine: Oneness. Oneness is therefore immanent in concept as
such. This could be extended to the thought, it is the existence of man, which makes his
transcendence/perfection possible, making this Oneness/ the Divine also immanent in
him. This becomes even more clear when Eckhart argues it is Divine revealing itself in
man after he becomes detached from self-being and transcends this beingness in the
Breaking Through, this he calls, the Godhead in man. Here Eckhart’s mysticism shows
both elements of transcendence and immanence. The Divine made the soul not merely
like the image in Himself, but like His own Self, in fact like All He is. Man, as in particular
‘self’, only has to step out of the way, which is the only thing man in fact ought to do in life,
however still turns out to be the greatest challenge he is confronted with:
‘God is always ready, but we are unready. God is near to us, but we are far from Him. God is in, we
20
are out. God is at home in us, we are abroad ’.
Turning back to the doubtful nature of the ‘Modeless Mode of Being’ concept, this is the
21
great challenge all schools of mysticism are facing and are criticized for by the scientific
20
From: (‘O Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon 69).
21
‘All schools of mysticism’: respectively all groups of agents representing a tradition of mystical philosophy in
which certain concepts, structures and systems of meaning are created to signify to the Mystery of being, the
Divine.
10
11. 22
field , it shows again why emphasis is put on direct experience over written doctrine by
the mystical approach. On the one hand, one might wonder how to live according to the
mystical approach of being if no doctrine of this approach would be available to orient
one’s being to, on the other hand, one might become alienated by living up to other’s
doctrine potentially blinded for one’s own experience. Eckhart adds to this man must
have assimilated a certain degree of doctrine and live according to the virtues derived
from this doctrine in order to make transcendence, perfection, possible. To what extent
what doctrine should be assimilated en which virtues are following from that is however
not clear. Dealing with Eckhartian mysticism, it seems the teachings of Christ are
23
preferred since Eckhart’s mystical thought itself is rooted in Christianity . On the other
hand, it is considered the mystic’s being not to be attached to any kind of doctrine,
conception or preference, which again shows the rather complicated nature of what path to
walk to reach transcendence. The only certainty is that at least one or another path has to
be walked, for as to Rome, it is a multitude of paths leading to the Breaking Through,
chosen paths, which one has to let go eventually when completely internalized. And this is
exactly the challenge man has to face: to become conscious of one’s internalized path,
doctrine completely mastered and to detach from it again to every extent possible without
escaping to another one. Speaking about ways to embed to one’s being the how-to question
concerning detachment, ingredient to reception of the Divine will, hence transcendence of
the limitative created world, hence perfection and the experience of Breaking Through,
Eckhart indeed mentions the potential danger of escapism, here conceived as a search of
22
Field – as in the Bourdieuan concept of field: a setting in which actors and their positions are located by
processes of interaction among the specific rules of the field, the ‘Habitus’ an actor reflects and his possession of
‘Capital’; cultural, economical and social. A social arena in which actors maneuver in pursuit of desirable
resources (Bourdieu, 1984).
23
Thereafter Eckhart speaks about assimilation of the ‘lofty teachings of Christ’ (Shah-Kazemi, 2006: 134).
11
12. peace in external things:
“Make a start with yourself, and abandon yourself. Truly, if you do not begin by getting away from
yourself, wherever you run to, you will find obstacles and trouble wherever it may be. People who seek
peace in external things - be it in places or ways of life or people or activities or solitude or poverty or
degradation - however great such a thing may be or whatever it may be, still it is all nothing and gives
no peace”.
Eckhart underlines the importance of the detachment of all external things opening the
way for what he perceives as the key leading to Breaking Through, an opening of the doors
of the created world. This opening, or more precisely stated ‘re-opening’ or ‘dis-covering’
of the world is exactly the core of French phenomenology as represented by Merleau-
Ponty although he disagrees with the possibility to transcend the I and enter what Eckhart
constitutes as the Modeless Mode of Being, the Now, receiving Divine. He states there can
be no self-enclosed Now experience of time, because time always has a reflexive aspect
being aware of itself, opening man up to experience beyond particular horizons of
significance. This temporal alterity causes man can never say ‘I’ absolutely (PP 208) for:
“I know myself only insofar as I am inherent in time and in the world, that is, I know myself only in
24
my ambiguity ” […] ‘Subject is time and time is subject’ [...]
Despite this difference in perception of Now, Merleau-Ponty ascribes man’s inherent
‘mode’ of being in the world and time as dependant on intentionality, directed by the
24
From: (Merleau-Ponty, 2009: 345, 431 and 432).
12
13. stretch of one’s intentional arch. It is by being as such the world opens itself: a particular
mode of being generates a particular opening of the world: being is to be in the world. The
tighter one’s intentional arc is stretched, the more open the world will be. Because
Merleau-Ponty states ‘subject is time and time is subject’ – in abstracter terms translated in
a = b and b = a, following the rules of logic from it can be derived, that -a = -b and –b = -a
– transformed to concrete terms again: no-subject is no-time and no-time is no-subject. And
although Merleau-Ponty discloses an existence of a Now state as explained earlier, the
negation of his assumption makes this Now state possible, in which there is no time and no
subject according to Eckhart. It is precise the detachment of self (subject) letting it fade
away resulting in an absence, an emptiness ‘Breaking Through’ its subject-existence and
with it all its creations such as time, entering this Modeless Mode of Being in which hence
no subject and no time exist. One could say in this Modeless Mode of Being one’s
intentional arc is stretched that far it snaps and everything simple is for even a particular
mode of openness is transcended in the Modeless Mode. Merleau Ponty’s statement ‘The
25
world is wholly inside and I am wholly outside myself ’ is thus valid in so far I and the
world are distinctive, which is the case in this particular mode of ‘being in the world’,
however when mode is transcended to a Modeless Mode, concepts as world, I, inside and
outside do not matter anymore.
Using Merleau-Ponty’s metaphor, it is detachment from I – subject – bringing one’s
intentional arch to snap. Eckhart underlines this should be a purity of intention cut off
from individual will with no falling back on admixtures for – ‘however their greatness’ –
25
From: (Merleau Ponty, 2009: 407).
13
14. 26
they are limitative and therefore cause alienation from essence . Again difficulty raises
regarding an understanding of what this essence exactly might be since Eckhart
presupposes it is nature to be without nature from which follows that, to think of goodness
or any other concept dissembles Good (essence), it is putting an impermanent veil over the
immutable nature of the Universal Good. It dims it in thought for the mere thought
27
obscures essence for a particular good adds nothing to goodness, it rather would hide and
cover the goodness in man. So mental thinking of goodness veils the Good, for Good, its
true nature, is incompatible with human thought limiting and distorting it. It is Thomas
Kuhn’s concept of ‘incommensurability’, which seems to be in place here, explaining this
gap between concept and reality as a rely on different contexts – that of mental thinking
and of direct experience, two contexts, which are incomparable.
With ‘no falling back on admixtures’ (external things), Eckhart means all things outside of
the inner life, a falling back on any other doctrine, belief, conception dealing with the
outer life. In fact this then also includes doctrines stating how to enter one’s inner life for it
is the statement, the belief of the how-to, which would seem to lead one away from one’s
own experience. In this view even Eckhart’s focus on detachment becomes doubtful for it
is still a how-to means, a way, to become empty in order to receive the Divine. Aware of
this, he arguments detachment is the ‘key’ virtue standing above all doctrines with
forthcoming particularized conceptions of virtue related to self, for it is not associated with
self, in contrast, detachment presupposes the leaving of self in order to transcend it. It is
about pure intention, as seeking Divine for its own sake, what ‘true’ detachment implies,
26
From: (O’Connell Walshe, Vol.II: 39).
27
From: (O’Connell Walshe, Vol.II: 32).
14
15. only man, who abandons all for Divine’s sake, who does not consider anymore this or that
good, that man will have Divine, Good and all things with Divine and because of that
detachment in its true nature is the best of all virtues. For to have Divine is the highest
man can achieve in soul. About this seeking Divine for its own sake he adds, one should
want nothing, also not an experience of Divine in one’s soul and be free of all knowing so
one will not know that Divine is in one’s soul. The only thing one should ask is to become
28
a place only for Divine, ‘in which It can work ’. Man should therefore not worry about
29
what one does, rather what one is .
Although Eckhart takes it for granted man attempts to live a moral and regular life, he
considers it not enough for he sums up a few reasons preventing man from attainment of
‘true’ detachment. The first reason is the soul being too scattered being too much
distracted by the external created world. The second reason is the soul’s involvement with
transient things, which in fact could be considered a distraction as well. The third reason is
an excessive focus by the soul on bodily needs, preventing the soul from its growth towards
30
union with Divine and to become One . Except these three reasons Eckharts recommends
‘absolute stillness for as long as possible’ as a necessary means on one’s way to become
receptive to Divine. On the other hand, he warns man walking the path of stillness hence
contemplation, not to abandon one’s inner life, rather flow with it in such a way that
inward life spontaneously breaks out into outward life, activity, which will lead back into
inward life again. Here the metaphor of the labyrinth, the ancient mystical symbol for
28
From: (O’Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon, 87).
29 From: (O’Connell Walshe, 2008: Talks of Instruction 4).
30
From: (O’Connell Walshe, 2008: sermon 85).
15
16. tending of the soul seems to be of value. The labyrinth is unicursal having one way into the
center and one way out symbolizing the ‘decensus ad inferos’: the descent into the bowels
of ‘symbolic’ death and return to life reborn. Thereafter it is associated with the symbolic
‘conjunctio oppositorum’: the place in which duality comes together as in a spiral being
31
transcended and becoming One . Eckhart’s idea of going inwards (descending) leading to
going outerwards (returning) leading back to going inwards and so on in itself could be
considered an example of both explanations of the symbol of the labyrint, descending and
returning as also in its totality as a process of coming together of duality (inner and outer)
in the flow, the movement.
Following this logic of the labyrinth, it seems it is in this movement, immersion of soul can
take place, the true detachment from self, emptying one’s being to become this place
where ‘It’, hence Divine, can work. For to be completely in the movement, in the flow, is
where the self will take its rest, where Man becomes detached from it’s self-being opening
up to receive Divine and man will not seek it for it happens to him being in this flow, this
is truly the Modeless Mode of Oneness Being, the Zensory lightness of Being for here man
(self) is completely merged into Divine, ‘Now’ and therefore does not even know God is in
him. It is thus in the movement All becomes One hence the Good will be known, the true
mystical nature of morality, its Essence as also all other mystical natures of concepts for in
this Modeless Mode Oneness reigns, Perfection. True Creation lies in the movement.
Turning back to Murdock, this essay started with, it is also her, who refers to detachment
from self as the way most likely to become Good.
31
From: (Eliade, 1969).
16
17. ‘It is the humble man, that man, who sees himself as nothing, will see other things as they are - for he is
detached from self - and although he is not by definition ‘Good’, he is the most likely of all to become
32
Good’ .
And from this viewpoint it can be concluded, detachment indeed seems to be sovereign
over other concepts of virtue nevertheless man should stay indeed ‘humble’ in one’s belief
about morality still being able to detach from it in order to make transcendence hence
perfection possible, Breaking Through to become Good rooted in that Zensory Lightness
of Being, in which All is One…
...‘letting go they went comfortably to sleep. It was All Right’…
32
Murdoch in: (Crisp & Slote, 2007: 117).
17
18. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bourdieu, P. (1984), ‘La Distinction; a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste’, Sage
Publications, London.
Eliade, M. (1969), ‘Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism’, Sheed and
Ward; Search Book Edition, New York.
McDowell J. (1979), ‘Virtue and Reason’, The Monist, 62, pp. 331-350 in: Crisp, R. and
Slote, M. (2007), ‘Virtue Ethics’, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Meister Eckhart (1994), ‘Selected Writings’. Translated by Oliver Davies, Penguin Books
USA Inc., New York.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2009), ‘De Fenomenologie van de Waarneming’, Boom Uitgevers,
18
19. Amsterdam.
Murdoch, I. (1985), ‘The Sovereignty of Good’, Ark, London in: Crisp, R. and Slote, M.
(2007), ‘Virtue Ethics’, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
‘O Connell Walshe, M. (1979), ‘Meister Eckhart: Sermons and Treatises (Vols. I-III),
Element Books, Dorset.
‘O Connell Walshe, M. (2008), ‘The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart’,
Crossroads Herder, New York.
Shah-Kazemi, R. (2006), ‘Paths to Transcendence according to Shankara, Ibn Arabi and
Meister Eckhart’, World Wisdom Inc, Bloomington, Indiana.
19
