A challenge that is vital to the development of humanity
The Christian Science
CSB vs CSD
honesty to the truth
by Rolf A. F. Witzsche - Feb.23/2002
Ye shall know the truth,
Oh! Thou hast heard my prayer;
"The time for thinkers has come. Truth, independent of
doctrines and time-honored systems, knocks at the portal of humanity.
Contentment with the past and the cold conventionality of materialism are
crumbling away." - Mary Baker Eddy
CSD: is it a symbol of the past,
In the context of relating to the past, the symbol CSB represents in its simplest form a certification for an advanced educational achievement in the domain of Christian Science healing. The same symbol can also be understood in a much larger context, in its relationship to the development of science and discoveries of universal truth. In the latter context, where it relates directly to the scientific and spiritual development of an individual, an institution, or the development of science itself at its leading edge, even in the context of the self-development of humanity, another symbol, the symbol CSD comes to light as representing one of the most profound qualities of man that defines us as cognizant beings.
In this higher context the symbol CSC has been chosen as a focal point for web page, especially since it has been specifically indented by its author to pertain to this higher context in a way that empowers the freedom of individual self-development as no other symbol known to me does.
Its background relating to the past.
As said before, in its simplest form it represents a certification for formal education in Christian Science. This is obtained in the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, established in 1881 by Mary Baker Eddy as its President. Mary Baker Eddy had personally taught in this college until 1889, at which date the college was closed. It remained closed until 1899 when she reopened it as an auxiliary to her church. Students taught in this college, receive the certification C.S.B., which corresponds to a Bachelor decree. A second degree, C.S.D., is awarded to those who practice Christian Science for three years after receiving the first degree. This designation corresponds to a Doctor's degree. (See. My p.244) In practice, Mary Baker Eddy bestowed the degree C.S.D. to her own students, while the college today bestows the degree C.S.B. upon its students.
The recipients of such degrees are authorized to attach the awarded certification symbols as a professional initial to their name.
Relating to the future.
Here the symbols take on a new meaning. Mary Baker Eddy stipulated in the Manual of her church that if the President of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College should resign over her own signature, or vacate her office, a successor should be appointed to fill that vacancy. None of that has happened. She never resigned, nor vacated her office throughout her lifetime. Thus she remains in perpetuity the President of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College (see Manual p.89).
From a purely administrative standpoint this makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, Mary Baker Eddy was not likely thinking in such simple terms, because she links that development to a much deeper challenge to which her continued presidency of college, which she symbolically retained in perpetuity, is of vital significance.
This deeper challenge is presented by her in the appendix to the Church Manual where she stipulates that a person's application for membership may be countersigned by someone who has "taken a degree at the Massachusetts Metaphysical College." She didn't say, "received a degree." (see Manual p.114, 116, and 118)
One might argue that this phrasing of, having "taken a degree," is but a figure of speech. One might argue that it means the same as having received a degree. That argument could be accepted, were it not for the well known fact that Mary Baker Eddy was consistently, extremely careful in choosing her wording, sometimes pondering over a specific phrasing for weeks. In other words, the phrasing that she has chosen didn't likely represent just a figure of speech, but was a carefully chosen phrasing designed for a specific purpose to uplift the future of humanity. This was her stated goal in everything she did, therefore the purpose behind her unique phasing deserves to be explored. So, let's begin with what we have presented to us.
We have two anomalies here. We have a President who no longer exists in person, but exists symbolically in perpetuity, which gives the institution itself a symbolic significance. And we have a revolutionary concept of authorization presented, namely a person's self-authorization.
It has been taken for granted, for far too long, that a person's accomplishments must always be authorized by another person before they can be accepted as valid. But what does this say about ones honesty with oneself and with the world? And what does this say about Mary Baker Eddy's perception of man? Indeed, what does this say about one's individual responsibility to oneself, in terms of what is being accepted?
In Christian Science man is understood as the reflected image of God. Who would presume to authorize God? It appears that the whole concept of 'giving' authorization is something that pertains only to the lower levels of perception, but belongs not into the scientific domain where one deals with universal truth and fundamental principles at the edge of infinite self-development. The concept of self-authorization clearly fall into this higher domain. Indeed, this concept is absolutely required for one's correct self-identification in divine Science as the "son of God."
This consideration brings into focus the second anomaly, the President who no longer exists in person. It is a symbolic presidency that she has established thereby, which makes the College, in this higher sense, likewise a symbolic institution. In this context the College stands as a symbol for the human quest in discovering fundamental principles, including the principles of divine Science. It has to be that way, because the quest for scientific understanding and discoveries of principle, that her own efforts symbolized, is boundless without perceivable limits. A finite structure that embraces the authorization of one person by another, is invalid in the infinite realm of evermore advanced discovery and self-development. Indeed it comes to light as a hindrance at those higher levels.
Do I hear and protests yet?
Be honest! You want to protest here, and say to me: you can't say these things. That's against the rules, our rules! Let me assure you, your are not alone in this. People are tempted to argue that Mary Baker Eddy clearly stated that the certification C.S.B. is given to those who complete a course of instruction in the Massachusetts Metaphysical College. Period!
Indeed, she did state that. But she did not state that this is the only avenue to obtain the said degree. She hinted at the existence of al least one other avenue, that is to 'take' it, to actively claim it on the strength of one's own self-authorization in an honest acknowledgement of the appropriate achievement. Indeed, such a provision has never been made before Mary Baker Eddy's time. It was a pioneering breakthrough that poses to the world a unique Christian Science challenge.
Some people might say that Mary Baker Eddy was stupid in making that suggestion, that such a process would create chaos. I would answer them, NO! I would suggest that the opposite is true.
What Mary Baker Eddy is suggesting is of enormous social significance. The greatest significance of what she is suggesting lies actually beyond the open door of self-authorization, beyond ones honesty with oneself and the world. The greatest significance of her breakthrough suggestion lies in its demand upon society, that it take decisive steps to raise its democratic platform to a higher level of self-awareness and awareness of the truth. It is clearly society's own task to uplift its perception of all the fundamental principles relating to its existence, and the value of them, so that society becomes self-authorized on the authority of those principles and the acknowledged value of them.
It is society's task to raise itself to such a level of awareness of the universal truth that its actions, institutions, and governments, will be forever subservient to those principles, even to society's highest perception of them. No one can authorize society in this process of unfolding at the leading edge, which is a process of self-development and self-ennoblement. Without authorization, society will strife to reach as high as it can, without imposing limits.
Unfortunately, instead of fulfilling that responsibility towards itself, society is inclined to transfer its responsibility to an elite who then authorizes the legitimacy of society's ideals and precepts, which, in this case, become cleverly imposed upon it by the elite authorities. In this kind of process society's freedom becomes lost, and with it its impetus for self-development.
There is a great danger inherent in the process of seeking authorization from others, or accepting imposed authorization. This danger is best illustrated by the 1998 case of the collapse of the LTCM (Long Time Capital Management) hedge fund. The LTCM company and its apparatus were the creation of two of the most leading experts with the highest possible authorization and certification. They were authorized by the elite of the world that bestowed upon both of them the Nobel Price in economics. One can't get a more authoritative authorization than that.
A short time later LTCM went down in a spectacular bankruptcy collapse that nearly took the entire world-financial system down with it. Countless investors lost everything they had on the basis of their misplaced trust, who had blindly trusted the certification that had authorized the financial experts as geniuses.
In real terms the loosing investors lost out because of their own lack of self-development towards a competent knowledge of the process they invested in. This natural demand for self-competence always falls by the wayside in the comforts of relying on authorization.
When Mary Baker Eddy suggested to a membership applicant that the application form could be countersigned by a person who has 'taken' a degree in the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, did Mary Baker Eddy not thereby put the onus directly on the applicant with the demand to judge whether the prospective counter signer really has taken that step? That's an important responsibility she has thereby established.
In the scientific sense it shouldn't matter to the applicant at all what the prospective counter signer claims about himself. The only question that should be considered, is that pertaining to the person's accomplishments. This is the all important question. The question must be asked, and be answered, by the applicant alone. The question must be answered on the strength of the subservience of the person in question, to the fundamental principles that are symbolically represented by the degree of C.S.D..
For this reason, I will not stand up publicly to state whether I have, or have not, taken a degree. What I perceive about myself is my own business, and no one else's. Nor would I benefit society by announcing any such thing. In fact I would take away the responsibility of another to make that determination about myself. On top of that, I would anger a lot of people if I said such a thing about myself that goes against their self-perceived rules. I would then force upon them something that they have not grown up sufficiently, to accept. A friend of mine actually did precisely that, unwisely. He stood up and said: look at me I have taken the degree. As a consequence he was promptly excommunicated. As for myself, I recognize that one has no right to impose a recognition on society that it is not developed enough to understand its basis and accept it on the strength of that.
I am certain, however, that in future ages, what appears to be an impossible recognition today, will be recognized as possible, even in the field of Christian Scientists, provided that the Christian Science church organization continues to exist that long. The organization appears to be in a process of collapsing which ensues a tragic loss to society. The collapse a natural consequence for any structure in which no genuine advanced development is taking place, nor has been taken place for many decades.
This brings me to another point, why a person's acceptance of an external authority can be detrimental. Let's take the case of the certification C.S.B. itself. The certification C.S.B. can be obtained by submitting oneself to a course of instruction in said college. One therefore trusts that the course of instruction lives up to its billing. But what happens if it doesn't? What happens if there are a lot of big holes in what the teacher knows about the subject that is being taught? What then?
Indeed, most of the present time Christian Science teachers in the field, if not all of them, know relatively little about their subject for the simple fact that one of Mary Baker Eddy's major achievements has been rendered unauthorized knowledge, so much so so that many people go out of their way not to know any more abut it. Most people tend to restrict themselves to only that which they have been taught by their teacher, which is a little less than what their teacher had been taught, and so forth, through the generations. Without an active ongoing scientific and spiritual development that would be uplifting the field of Christian Science, there is less being taught today than had been taught a hundred years ago, and that which is still remaining will tend to trail out to zero as time goes on. By this build in entropy the most precious becomes lost.
Evidently, it was to prevent this entropy, that Mary Baker Eddy took those pioneering steps in opening the door to self-authorized scientific and spiritual development. The small minded process that degenerates into ignorance looses its build in entropy only when the background is fresh with the vigorous, self-authorized, continuously advancing, self-development of society.
Unfortunately, this prevailing mental entropy exists not only in the area where one's submission to an external authority is detrimental. In fact this is the least dangerous effect of it. The great danger to society as a whole lies in its habit to allow its precepts and perceptions to be shaped by 'authorized' agencies that intentionally cause regression. This effect results from the way society views its news media. People accept what they read as a kind of 'authorized' fact. They say, if it is printed in the papers it must be true. They say I have heard this and that on the internet, or on TV, or on whatever; therefore it must be factual, since the authorities said it to be so. People who treat themselves in this manner accept an implicit authorization for whatever, by this process, is imposed on them, which then shapes their lives accordingly.
The actual reality, in contrast, is often more to the point that the 'authorized' facts are all too often blatantly concocted lies created for the manipulation of public consciousness, a kind of Roman circus designed to hide the rotten state of the empire's affairs, or as the case may be, to whip up hatred against a chosen enemy, or whoever person or state lends himself to best fit that role.
The outcome of all that, for society, is extremely dangerous. That's how society's self-closed-off demand for authorization must be regarded.
The September 11, 2001, tragedy, for example, is an interesting case of that kind. The American economist, statesman, and many times candidate for the U.S. Presidency has stated immediately as the tragedy happened that the attack on the USA was a coup d'etat against the U.S. government, and that it could only be orchestrated from within high level areas of the intelligence, security, and or military services. He even predicted, right there and then, that Bin Laden would be blamed for the attack. Indeed, this happened eight hours later, just as he had forecast. Soon thereafter the war against Afghanistan was launched. The public evidently needed something to sink its teeth in. Still, LaRouche warned against this approach, as a reaction that is not founded on the truth.
Suppose that Lyndon LaRouche was right, as knowledgeable people tend to agree, what effect will the truth have on society, even though it may take years for the truth to come out? Does the rushing into violent reaction, which occurred, mean that society didn't want to hear the truth, that it wanted something simple, that it wanted an authorized enemy figure, whether there was any truth behind it or not? That is often the way the public is treated when it makes itself dependent on external authorization, instead of on its own cognition, and the fruit of its self-development with a growing appreciation of principles, and an elevating perception of them.
The tragedies in history tend to be repeated whenever society allows itself to be governed by closed minded reactions and authorized perceptions. These trends invariably generate a closed minded ignorance that is hard for a person to break out of. The war drums may sound again and again before an unaided transition occurs. The long promoted "clash of civilizations war" that is presently being prepared for may well be under way long before an effective opposition will be launched. This puts society into a highly dangerous situation. Mary Baker Eddy's revolutionary open door policy to self-authorized perception may be society's only way out of this world destroying trap.
Society has no hope for long term survival in an atmosphere of imposed authorization, especially not in a nuclear armed world. Society simply cannot afford to allow every instance of its existence to be outlined and authorized by external agencies who follow their own agenda. Society's security literally depends on its becoming its own leader. There is a need to increase the quality of its living in a spiritual and scientific sense.
Giving or seeking authorization is a qualitatively low level pursuit that takes place at the lowest levels. Real security, however, can only be found at the highest levels of perception and self-awareness, which reflects ones self-government by the principles one discovers at that higher level, principles that one understands at this level, that one can gladly acknowledge, uphold, and apply.
Has the pursuit of elevating our perception of principles any real and essential practical value?
I would say that it has. Let me pose a question. How does one unite two opposite forces in society, as for instance the Abortionists, and the Anti-abortionists? How does one do that?
Some say it can't be done. I say, this is possible. It is possible to do that by going into ones basement of long forgotten ideals and search for the fundamental principles by which humanity is defined - principles of the type that we all represent as human beings. We can dig them up, bring them out of the basement into our living rooms and elevate them in our consciousness to something of great value - as being of a greater value than even ourselves. Then we engage in a dialog with one another to explore which of these specific principles we can all rally behind. This first step brings us together. We can use this as a foundation to build on. After that we challenge each other to raise the bar of our perceptions of the principles that we cannot see eye to eye on, and to thereby raise each other up to a higher level of humanity in term of what it means to live as a human being. On this platform the differences can be resolved.
We are all human beings. Our humanity is what unites us. A natural unity can be found in the fundamental principles of human existence, human development, human needs and human strengths. Our differences can be bridged on this platform and on no other. A fight between authoritative impositions of stereotyped viewpoints will never achieve anything. We have to step away from what is defined as authorized thinking, and authorize ourselves to search for the truth and to dig deep to find it. This is the ecumenical principle by which the clash of civilizations can be avoided that is about to be unleashed. It is totally possible to turn the situation around, to turn the proposed clash of civilizations into a cooperative unity of civilizations.
Of course, there has to be a willingness to give up the wielding of authority that would cause us to impose our petty perceptions onto others. Every form of authority oriented thinking is a trap. One is easily caught in it, as I personally experienced.
A friend of mine in North Vancouver had made a number of discoveries based on certain discoveries made by an earlier pioneer. These new discoveries brought to light a vast organized structure for scientific and spiritual development that Mary Baker Eddy evidently had build all of her works on, which she had outlined in numerous significant details. The discoveries brought to light many of these details. Fundamentally the details were centered on the fact that every one of Mary Baker Eddy's major works were divided into 16 parts, or multiples of 16 parts. This feature allows them to be brought into context with the Biblical city four square that is correlative to a four-square matrix structure containing sixteen elements. Altogether, Mary Baker Eddy presented nine major structures made up of 16 parts, or multiples thereof, such as the glossary of the textbook that contains 144 definitions, or 9 times 16 of them. The vast range of interrelationship presented a certain challenge to us, to research what significance Mary Baker Eddy may have found in these interrelated arrangements, and to discover how they were interrelated.
In the course of that work, which spanned a number of years, certain differences of opinions resulted about the nature of three of the 144 glossary definitions. My friend's position was that he had the authority to dictate his opinion as an authoritative scientific fact on the strength of his having made some of the major discoveries along that line. Contrary discoveries, even advanced discoveries, were therefore deemed invalid.
This somewhat personal tragedy illustrates how an enthroned authority operates. My friend's self-assumed authoritative position allowed him to authorize nothing but his own opinion. The resulting impasse eventually closed the door on any further constructive dialog.
The demand for imposed authorization invariably has this effect. While it didn't hinder the continued development work, it caused my friend to shut himself off from it and from the advanced discoveries that came to light. (The completed research work is now documented in a nine volume series of books with the title: Discovering Infinity) I am bringing this incidence up as an example, because this phenomenon can be rather widely observed. The question poses itself here, whether one should push the issue to the breaking point, or whether one should push it at all once dialog has failed? If one's life were limited to only authorized types of thinking, then the imperative would be to fight. Indeed the world is full of such battles. But Mary Baker Eddy gently opened the door to self-authorized thinking. Now, with the door open for one to move ahead, what remains that one would be fighting about? There remains nothing.
Advancing development involves a higher quality of perception. If it raises the standard of truth, the resulting quality environment makes its own demands on the consciousness of others to uplift the whole scene. No one is benefited by just going along to get along, as Lyndon LaRouche often points out. Such a subjection is synonymous to sacrificing valid principles at the altar of authorization, or refused authorization. Incalculable damage to society has resulted from this "going along to get along," by which people surrender invaluable principles. Often, the issues are small, but they can also be enormously huge.
For instance, consider the case of humanity as a whole, which has become divided into an imperial camp that openly aims for world-domination, and a republican camp with ideals for humanist development and a world made up of perfectly sovereign nation states in a community of shared principles. The imperial camp imposes and defends its position by the authority of its power, and by the authority of its utopian philosophers which it vigorously promotes. The camp of the republican ideals defends its position on the strength of humanity's history and the value of fundamental principles, natural principles, principles which support and develop a nation and civilization, but all too often, for the sake of money, power, prestige, or sometimes even sheer convenience, the ideals fall be the wayside.
One could say that such a reaction could be deemed a form of self-authorization, too. This would be tragic, indeed. Mary Baker Eddy solves this problem by linking ones self-authorization with the platform of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, symbolically. In other words, only qualitative improvements in thinking are valid for self-authorization. With this linkage she has set up a constitutional platform for self-authorization, a constitution for ones motives and acts. The world would be a dramatically saver and richer place if this platform were understood.
It may turn out that Mary Baker Eddy's greatest breakthrough for humanity may not have been her discovery of a scientific method for Christ healing in our age, nor the revolutionary church organization that she founded, and maybe not even be her remarkably revolutionary structure for discovery and scientific and spiritual development that all her works were evidently founded on. It may turn out to be that Mary Baker Eddy's greatest breakthrough for humanity comes to light in that insignificant seeming, daring concept that shift humanity away from subjecting itself to authorized thinking and authorized reactions, towards the self-authorization of an individual on the strength of understood and acknowledged fundamental principles. That is what is means to be the son of God, as Christ Jesus identified man. Humanity's freedom lies in that court, if not its entire existence in a nuclear armed world. And, of course, that includes all of us.
The role of the Christian Science Monitor is revolutionary.
The Christian Science Monitor is by design one of the unique newspaper in the world. It was created by the most scientifically advanced religious leader of the 19th and 20th Century, Mary Baker Eddy. Surprisingly, the newspaper was not set up by her as a religious newspaper or to serve as an organ of her church. This is to say, it was not designed to wrap itself around narrowly confined single-focus issues pertaining to an institutional religion and its belief structure. It may well be the only newspaper created by a religious organization that was not created to be religious by intent, even though it is by its very name Christian in nature.
The paradox becomes resolved if one realizes that this newspaper's purpose, function, and effect was by design located in the domain of universal truth, universal fundamental principles, universal scientific development, and even universal spiritual development. It wasn't indented to preach divine Science, much less Christian Science, but to uplift the thinking of humanity to such levels of self-awareness, and an awareness of universal principles, that society becomes thereby equipped to live divine Science, to embody the understood and acknowledged principles of it in its daily living.
The goal of the Christian Science Monitor was not on such a low level as to raise specific single-issue Christian Science questions, but to uplift humanity to embrace the simultaneity of eternity, as Lyndon LaRouche expressed this idea in many of his writings - that is, to cause people to leave their sensual, mortal life in the closet, so to speak, and step out of that closet as an immortal being by virtue of having been endowed with the capacity to enrich and uplift the whole of humanity in an enduring fashion for the benefit of the world, and the world of their children and of future generations. In this enduring, elevating impact of their actions on humanity, is the immortality of the human being expressed on this earth.
Within the design parameters of the Christian Science Monitor, Mary Baker Eddy has put on the table a demand on society to understand and acknowledge what the real dimension of Christianity is, which is not sectarian in nature, but is spiritual in nature, located in the universal role of the human being as the expressed image of God. Here man comes to light as a cognizant being with the capacity to create, to discover, to understand, and to act on a scientific spiritual platform in such a manner as to ennoble and enrich itself, its environment, it's world, even its universe.
Such a sweeping demand is rarely heard, but we have heard it implicitly from Mary Baker Eddy, "to bless all mankind and to injure no one," which is the official motto of the Christian Science Monitor. It should be realized that the Christian Science Monitor is not "authorized" by the church, but is self-authorized in every important detail.
Universal development and self-authorization go hand in hand. The Monitor could not fulfill its mission on any other platform, or should I say on any lesser platform? A thorough understanding of the significance of Mary Baker Eddy's structure for discovery and scientific and spiritual development, as well as a working knowledge of it by its staff, appears to be essential for the Monitor to fulfill its assigned leadership role. One doesn't see this happening. The consequence is that the Monitor has taken on the role of being just another inconsequential newspaper on the block, a better one perhaps, than most, but it doesn't fulfill its unique scientific and spiritual leadership role, its purpose for being, a role that educates people, that turns society into leaders themselves, that urges them on scientifically and spiritually to live at the leading edge of perception, a role that most other newspaper don't fulfill.
The creeping qualitative recession that we see happening in society has been unavoidable as a consequence of the entropy that takes hold when the development thrust isn't there. So, who is left, pushing the leading edge forward? The entropy that has gripped the Monitor, as society as a whole, will necessarily continue until the Monitor begins to fulfill its full mission according to what is evidently its design platform: to represent the value and the power of universal truth, fundamental truth, truth that alters the world, truth that heals the nations, truth that unites us all on a higher platform than any petty single issue focus allows, truth that ends wars, truth that elevates civilization and ennobles the image of man. That's a tall order, but the Monitor was correspondingly designed to stand tall.
Only, why then did Mary Baker Eddy call her newspaper, to which she assigned such a universal mission, the name, Christian Science Monitor, as if it were an authorized organ of the Christian Science church? The reason, obviously, lies in the nature of what the Monitor represents. The name Science is essential, because the operation of science is inherently a spiritual process, and that makes it fundamentally a Christian process as well. Christianity is the very expression of the historically highest form of scientific, spiritual self-development, exemplified by the Christ, the highest idea of God. Thus, the phrase Christian Science, being attached to the Monitor, represents not so much a trademark, in this context, but a very truthful functional descriptor of its mission.
The development of science is a spiritual process of discovery by the cognizant qualities of the human mind, discoveries of eternal principles, universal principles, laws of truth, verifiable, understandable complex phenomena that can be reduced to a fundamental level of understanding to be applied to uplift humanity and the world. That's a spiritual process, a process that produces recognitions, and also physical elements by manifestation, that never existed before prior to their inception by a human being.
The opposite is the Gnostic belief system. It is a system that is not focused on truth but is focused on sensual impulses, mystic notions, violent entertainment, fantasies of magic, miracle theologies, rather than verifiable discoveries based on the resolution of paradoxes, rigorous investigation, and practical proof in term of real power, the power of an idea to transform the universe and uplift and heal human lives.
Gnosticism puts people to sleep as human beings, and then rears itself up as an "authorized" ideology. It has to promote itself that way, because there exists no possibility that its fancy delusions can be supported by intelligent, scientific discoveries, reasoned deduction, or the resolution of paradoxes.
The Gnostic features are strongly predominant in today's age. Our corrupted mass media is by design a sensual entertainment enterprise. It has nothing to do with developing an innate understanding of universal truth in its context to local or global issues. It actually fulfills two functions. It offers sensual entertainment that puts people spiritually to sleep so that its its impositions are recognized as "authorized" truth. The worst garbage is put out that way, and people believe it and make it their opinion, simply because they read it in a newspaper or in a widely promoted book, or hear about it on a respected TV program. Trash is always promoted that way, as "authorized" material, because it cannot be accepted as truth by its own merits based on fundamental principles. Gnosticism will not allow self-authorized perceptions of truth to stand, based on scientific and spiritual development. That would destroy its foundation.
It is the distinction between the Gnostic, authorized processes of thinking, and cognizant thought processes based on self-authorized discoveries of universal principles by scientific and spiritual development, that sets apart the mission of the Christian Science Monitor in respect to other papers, according to its design. This is also the distinction that Mary Baker Eddy created by setting up the C.S.D. degree as obtainable on a self-authorized basis.
Still, there is one more important element involved. Mary Baker Eddy put the responsibility on the applicant for membership to determine if the potential counter signer has made the grade, has indeed 'taken' the degree. Christian Science, as indeed any other since, is put forth in countless different forms with a vast array of claims attached to these various forms. Thus it becomes the 'applicant's' responsibility to determine whether or not the claimant have truly made the grade, so that their products are true scientific achievements and are not injurious. This evaluation, looking for a foundation in truth becomes evermore paramount in our modern days of proliferating opinions and so-called scientific claims; and is the only protection an individual ultimately has.
The key to civilization
The universal history of civilization forms a long chain that connects us with the forces that have shaped our cultures beginning in those distant ages dating back to several millennia B.C.. Those are the cultures that developed in Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and later in Greece in cooperation with Egyptian culture. The numerous religions and supposedly separate cultures that are presently paraded before minds of humanity in the "clash of civilization" war drive are in fact rooted in a common heritage that is variously located in these cultures. Divisions are artificially created by focusing on the differences in individuality, as though these differences were fundamental and absolute, and were qualitative differences, the kind that Adolf Hitler authorized ideologically for the purpose of destroying the Jewish population.
In an absolute sense, the different religions of the world do not represent absolutely divergent ideologies, as for instance the world's imperial ideologies are, like those of the present time financial oligarchy, in contrast to the republican ideology of sovereign nation states devoted to the general welfare of its population. Here, the differences are indeed fundamental and absolute, and there has been an clash in progress between these two ideologies for as long as they existed by virtue of their fundamentally opposite natures and ideals. The imperial and the republican systems can no more coexist than can light and darkness coexist. But it is certainly possible for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, for instance, to coexist in a mutually enriching fashion as we find this happening in countless examples all over the world, as for example in Canada. The overriding factor under which we unite in our diversity is the standard of universal truth that unites us all as human beings with common hopes, fears, desires, and aspirations.
The unfolding unity that has resulted all over the world wherever cross-cultural unity developed, did not result from any specific form of institutional authorization. To the contrary, it resulted often contrary to authorized beliefs. It resulted from the self-authorization of courageous individuals who simply began to deal with one another as human beings.
A similar process took place in the 17th Century that led to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, when after 80 years of war the nations of Europe began to look at one another as human beings with human qualities, hopes, fears, desires, and aspirations. No one authorized that change in perception that uplifted the whole scene. In fact it was contrary to every ideology that had ruled in those days. The process simply started with the work of a few self-authorized pioneers who dared to take a stand for universal truth and fundamental principles. That changed all of Europe. The wars ended. The imperial ideologies were banished. And it all happened by the self-authorized fight of a few pioneers taking a stand for truth and for principle in a daring honesty with themselves according to their cognition. Self-authorization and cognition go hand in hand.
The Peace of Westphalia was maintained until the imperial ideology reasserted itself in Europe.
The pioneering spirit of the early 17th Century that powered the self-development of European society, was also brought to the American shores where it took root and eventually led to the American Declaration of Independence. The U.S.A. would never have been formed without the self-authorized actions of the early pioneers.
In an absolute sense, true self-authorization does not exist exactly in the form stated above, because those pioneer's actions were authorized by something, namely their human cognition, their growing awareness of universal truth and principles, to which they responded. The responded to God, which Mary Baker Eddy defined as Truth, the root of one's self-identification. Man's self-identification, and self-authorization, are therefore interlinked in this fashion, and human survival is to a large degree interlinked with it.
The key to human survival.
The processes that led to the Peace of Westphalia are very much needed today. The world is in the end phase of being set up for a world-engulfing "clash of civilizations" war. The process is driven by a powerful imperial apparatus of the financial oligarchy that owns and controls most governments and institutions, including elected officials, their advisors, and of course the high level echelons of the military, intelligence, and security services. The "clash of civilizations" policy, therefore, must not be seen as a self-authorized creation of some deranged individual, but should be seen as an authorized construct created within the organized context of an oligarchy committed to the building of a politically utopian world-empire on a foundation of fascist brutality and military might. The September 11 tragedy, and the ongoing tragedy in the Middle East, is seen in this context by leading political figures in the world, such as Lyndon LaRouche, and van Buelow in Germany.
If the "clash of civilizations" war drive remains unopposed, it will likely succeed. Indeed, there exists a great danger that it will succeed since the scientific and spiritual self-development of humanity has been ground to a halt in the shadow of sensual entertainment and the efficient control of public perception via the news and entertainment media where the truth is, whatever it is authorized to be.
The distinction that Mary Baker Eddy has so clearly set up between an authorized identity, and a self-authorized identity, has become of critical importance in today's world. It literally has become a life and death issue for society. This issue is especially critical since the oligarchy's goal, for its war drive, evidently reflects its long standing commitment to reduce the world population to below the one billion mark from its present level, which is easily accomplished in a nuclear armed world.
The key to survival is evidently located within the distinction that Mary Baker Eddy has established between authorized existence or self-authorized existence as related to the designation CSD. Herein lies the key for establishing and safeguarding the multicultural universe of a world of sovereign nations and people bound in community of common principles and universal truth. Towards this realization Mary Baker Eddy's breakthrough concepts are of great value, especially her outlined structure for discovery and scientific and spiritual development. If society's very existence rests squarely on an advanced awareness of universal truths and universal principles, Mary Baker Eddy's provision for the advance of scientific and spiritual development must be regarded as of incomparable value.
Evidence suggests that Mary Baker Eddy was thinking along this line, because her outlined structure has a broad and universal focus. The structure is fundamentally a 16 element matrix that is identified by four horizontal domains, or cardinal points, related to: the Word, Christ, Christianity, and Christian Science, which she identified as:
Vertically, the structure is identified by four ascending domains of development, or rivers of development, which are related similarly to the Word, Christ, Christianity, and divine Science. These development domains are well described by Mary Baker Eddy's Glossary definition of the four rivers from Genesis:
Pison (river). The love of the good and beautiful,
and their immortality.
These are all universal concepts that are of fundamental significance for human development when their scientific signification becomes realized in the context of the vast array of other structures and definitions that all relate to this basic structure.
My point is that none of these concepts and their development pertain to anything that can be authorized by another. The exploration of their meaning, their interrelationships, and their application to human existence is too vast to be authorized by anyone. Working with this structure becomes a self-authorized scientific exploration of elements of truth and fundamental principle. The structure provides nothing more than a framework for rigorous scientific discipline in exploration.
Since Mary Baker Eddy's concept of self-authorization is currently not recognized to be valid, it is not surprising that her structure for scientific and spiritual development is not recognized (or authorized) to exist. Of course, none of these irritants are a real hindrance, for who can logically claim the right to authorize what must be the shape of an infinite development at the leading edge. Only ones own honesty with the leading realizations of ones own cognition can do that. In full acknowledgement of this essential process Mary Baker Eddy was able to write in the preface of her greatest work, at the height of a momentous achievement: "To-day, though rejoicing in some progress, she still finds herself a willing disciple at the heavenly gate, waiting for the Mind of Christ."
What I hear her say to us, is that she did not set herself up as the supreme authority, but as a pioneer. I hear her say to us all: I am not looking for followers whom I have to pull up behind me. I want to educate society to become leaders unto themselves, who will surpass me...
She said up a standard that may be hard to reach, much less to surpass, but in opening the door to individual self-authorization on the basis of the universal truth and universal principles that she has established, she demands society go forward. She demands society to go forward just as she herself had surged ahead on the platform that the leading pioneers of humanity have established before her as a part of the larger cultural heritage of humanity. In this context she is giving an applicant for membership with her church a choice.
One option of this choice is to be a follower. One can seek out an authorized, certified authority as ones mentor and follow that leadership and get that mentor to sign ones application form.
The other option of this choice is to become a leader oneself. In other words, one can seek out a mentor who embodies the highest qualities of leadership and follow that example, and get that mentor to sign ones application form.
The question is, how do you choose? There is a huge difference between the two options which affects the welfare of society as a whole. Currently society does not seek to be in a leadership role, even unto itself. Few people realize what this means.
During elections, for instance, people look for candidates who think as they think. If you don't want to pay taxes, you look for a candidate who promises that you won't have to pay taxes. Eventually that man get elected, who then fulfills his promise and thereby, promptly destroys the economy that your existence depends on.
In such a case, you have not been looking for a leader at all. You have been looking for a follower that matches your own low level standard of economic theory. Instead, you should have been looking for a leader who inspires you to uplift yourself by proposing to you, as a nation, a platform for action that represents a qualitative improvement over everything that has been done before, and to do it on a platform of principles that have been established by the most able pioneers and the principles that are established in the nation's constitution. Abraham Lincoln was such a leader, and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, and J. F. Kennedy. Didn't Kennedy say the following about the space program to land a man on the moon? "We do it not because it easy, but because it is hard." In other words, he roused society to improve itself to the point that this challenge can be met. And it was met. In addition, society was greatly enriched by the process of meeting this challenge.
Except, Mary Baker Eddy expects a lot more from us than that. It expects society to become a society of leaders itself, onto itself. She expects us to learn the qualities of leadership that enables us to bring a qualitative improvement into every situation that we face in our private living, when we meet friends, when we are at work, wherever we are. The end result will be, that we will lead richer lives. And, of course, we will recognize the true qualities of leadership when it comes to local or national elections. We will then recognize what leadership is and seek it out, having embodied that quality of scientific and spiritual cognition that uplifts human existence, in our own lives. The same quality has also been the backbone of America's industry, its entrepreneurship. We see it reflected in the leading edge companies who saw a need in society for a product, and saw a solution, and then lifted themselves up to meet the challenge to make that solution available in the form of a new product. This was the platform on which the once greatest nation on the planet was build.
The path to the future.
In the above context the certification C.S.D. can be looked upon with new eyes as something that exists at, and pertains uniquely, to the higher levels of awareness and self-awareness. It represents those advanced concepts in scientific understanding and beyond by which we begin to recognize and embrace our own fundamental nature in the image of God.
Against this higher background in terms of boundless scientific advancement and self-authorization, the symbol CSD represent the leading edge in humanity's fight for democratic freedom, scientific freedom, and spiritual freedom. This is what the symbol is intended to symbolize in respect to my website presentations.
The symbol CSD must therefore not be seen in terms of personal initials, but in terms of the challenge that Mary Baker Eddy has put before humanity as a whole, to step above the lower levels of institutionally oriented existence, authorization, etc., to the scientific and spiritual domain of an infinite existence that reflects the illimitable self-manifestation of God expressed in man as a cognizant being. The symbol can summarily be described to represent divine Science understood and acknowledged in its broadest possible context.
Rolf. A. F. Witzsche