What do you think?
Rate this book
Rediscovery of Awe: Splendor, Mystery and the Fluid Center of Life
At a time when two dominant worldviews--nihilistic relativism and dogmatic fundamentalism--threaten to tear our world asunder, Rediscovery of Awe offers a timely and restorative alternative. It weds faith to doubt, and the depth and pathos of religiousity to the openness and discernment of science. As Schneider says in his "The starting point of consciousness is awe. We humans first experience the world (cosmos) as overwhelming. From the moment we are aware, we are aware of our meagerness. From the moment we reflect on the world, we sense how hopeless, helpless, and vulnerable we are. And yet, close on the heels of this shuddering despair is a riveting sense of possibility. "We are thrilled, enthralled, and exalted by our condition as much as it overpowers us. There are many problems with conventional maxims of balance. The conventional 'center' is a rather dull and static one and not at all what I have in mind with my notion of a 'fluid center'. What, then, do I have in mind, and how are we to cultivate it in this atrophied world? We will explore these questions over a broad range of psychological domains-from personality to psychotherapy and from society to religion and spirituality.">
- GenresPsychologySpirituality
320 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2004
4 people are currently reading
85 people want to read
About the author
Kirk J. Schneider
18 books45 followersKIRK J. SCHNEIDER, PH.D. is a leading spokesperson for contemporary existential-humanistic and existential-integrative psychology. Dr. Schneider was a 2022 Candidate for President of the American Psychological Association (APA), a cofounder and current president of the Existential-Humanistic Institute (an award-winning psychotherapy training center), and a two-term Member of the Council of Representatives of the APA. He is also past president (2015-2016) of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32) of the APA, recent past editor of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology (2005-2012), a founder and frequent presenter/facilitator of the bridge-building dialogue approach the Experiential Democracy Dialogue and a trained moderator for the conflict mediation group Braver Angels. Dr. Schneider is also an adjunct faculty member at Saybrook University and Teachers College, Columbia University and an Honorary Member of the Society for Existential Analysis of the UK and the East European Association for Existential Therapy. He received the Rollo May Award for “outstanding and independent contributions” to the field of humanistic psychology from the Society for Humanistic Psychology, APA and is a Fellow of seven Divisions of the APA (5, 9, 32, 42, 12, 29, and 24). His work on existential-integrative psychotherapy has been featured in a special issue of the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration (March, 2016), as well as The Wiley World Handbook of Existential Therapy and the APA’s forthcoming Handbook of Psychotherapy. Dr. Schneider has published over 200 articles, interviews and chapters and has authored or edited 14 books including The Paradoxical Self, Horror and the Holy, Rediscovery of Awe, Awakening to Awe, The Spirituality of Awe, The Polarized Mind, The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology, Existential-Humanistic therapy, Existential-Integrative Psychotherapy, The Wiley World Handbook of Existential Therapy, The Depolarizing of America: A Guidebook for Social Healing and his latest volume (February, 2023) Life-Enhancing Anxiety: Key to a Sane World. Dr. Schneider’s work has been featured in Scientific American, the New York Times, USA Today, The Guardian, Vanity Fair, Forbes Health, Psychology Today, BBC World News and many other health and psychology outlets. For more information on Dr. Schneider's work visit https://kirkjschneider.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 12, 2019
I really wanted to like this book, and my decision to give it 2 stars was a reluctant one. This book was lent to my by someone I respect very much (and still respect) but I'm afraid we will not see eye to eye on it. This review is somewhat disorderly, but I think I have made my point by the end.
The basic premise is this: that the best outlook on life is an awe-based/awe-informed worldview. A worldview that prioritizes wonder and mystery above all else. Schneider has my sympathy here, as I think a lack of awe, wonder, and openness to mystery lie at the root of a great many problems. My other point of agreement with him is his diagnosis of the problems of modern culture, and the dangers that the advancement of technology and medication and science might pose to us. But ultimately I don't think his formulation of this idea of awe is at all useful, and his formulation of potential solutions to the problems of the modern world are equally useless.
His main idea is that of the "fluid center," which he defines as: "...Any sphere of human consciousness which has as its concern the widest possible range of relationships to existence, it is structured inclusiveness- the richest possible range of experiences within the most suitable parameters of support." (pg 1o) This fluid center is his ideal for the human person and for society at large. It is in his thinking a pivot point between constraint and expanse. It is a sort of paradox, a recognition of our finitude, alongside our recognition of our possibility, all grounded in wonder, humility, and awe. This is the beginning of his "awe-based psychology."
Get used to the prefixes "awe-based" and "awe-informed." And get used to the unclear definition of exactly what he means by this prefix. Schneider repeats over and over that an awe-informed worldview must "grapple, wrestle, contend, face up to, acknowledge, struggle," with the realities of our finite existence. These physical metaphors, however, strike me as a sort of evasion. It reminded me of G. K. Chesterton's description of Nietzsche:
"Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor... When he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man...' Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce"
- G. K. Chesterton, "Orthodoxy"
I have the same sense of Schneider. We are to struggle, to face up, to contend. But with what? It is vague, but he does offer a sort of answer. We will 'contend' with this answer later, when we reach his notions of Faith.
His approach to a "fluid social center" is where the book began to really lose me. His solution is an "awe based education" and an "awe-informed work policy." He spends pages spinning a fantasy of a society that was "awe-informed." This society would have a 4 day work week, it would care for it's employees, and it would value quality of life over monetary gain. How to accomplish this? Committees. Committees of clergy, philosophers, psychologists, traditional and holistic doctors, with representatives of 'lay people.' Everyone in these committees would listen carefully (because awe cultivates humility) and respectfully hear each other out, then act on the best course of action. What keeps those committees in line? Higher committees, and above them more committees, and so on and so on until it is committees of experts all the way up. These committees would offer suggestions for work efficiency, and also see to it that the employees physical, psychological, and spiritual needs were being met.
I believe that Schneider is describing his utopia; but he has described my particular hell. An endless bureaucracy of busybody experts, who are constantly attempting to assess and maintain my efficiency and happiness. An endless series of meetings where everyone hums and haws over the problem, and everyone is asked "how do you FEEL about that?" His hypothetical examples of such meetings are optimistic to the point of naivety. The whole thing comes across as silly rather than inspiring.
His awe-based education could be summed up as this: "Every problem will be looked at from as many angles as possible, and we should feel moved by this process." I think the results of this sort of education can be summed up by reviewing how he uses literature in his own book. This will also reveal an underlying problem of his entire project.
He uses the examples of how an awe-based society might read Frankenstein or Dracula. But rather than being moved by the story, he psychoanalyzes the monsters. He examines the life of Dr. Frankenstein, and conclude that he would not have ended up in his tragic circumstances if he had simply processed his loss and trauma of his young life in a healthy manner. As for Dracula, he goes well outside the text, constructing an educated guess about the trauma that Dracula would have experienced that formed him into the monster he became. Again, he concludes, if only he had processed his tragedy in a healthy manner.
If this is the result of his awe-informed education, then he may have it. There is no mention of the creeping dread of Dracula, and the brave heroism of the characters in the face of it, which are the two main appeals of the novel. As for Frankenstein, he misses the point entirely. Frankenstein is not a subtle work; its subtitle is "The Modern Prometheus" and the Monster spends most of his pages quoting Milton's Paradise Lost at length. It is a story about an abandoned creation, and whether we are formed by our surroundings or our interior nature. If the awe-informed education cannot grasp the plain message of Frankenstein, then what use is it?
You will note that Awe has almost nothing to do with the way he interprets literature. This is a sign of the books main underlying flaw, a flaw that will become clear as we look at the final section of the book.
The last part is dedicated to the idea of faith. Faith in the Inscrutable. This means a faith in the Grand working of the universe (which you may call God, or Energy, or Spirit, or Process, or anything you like.) This Schneider opposes between Anarchy on one end, and Dogma on the other. Mainly, however, he is opposed to Dogma or "the conventionally religious." The conventionally religious are small minded. They do not wrestle, or grapple, or contend. They simply accept authority, and often become radicalized to their dogma. (He frequently mentions the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a recent event at the time of this books publication that clearly impacted the author deeply.) The one who has Faith in the Inscrutable, however, challenges his faith, wrestles with it, and only submits when every other alternative has been exhausted.
The great fear is "Polarization, stagnation, identification or specification." In short, anything sure or definite is to be contrasted with its opposite, and we must return to the fluid center. Life cannot be known in this view, it must be 'lived in, reveled in." We must not be satisfied with God, but "With the God beyond God," (Here quoting Paul Tillich, who informs all of the 'theology' of this chapter. I am not familiar with Tillich, but I am not impressed with the handful of quotations Schneider draws from him. I withhold my judgement on Tillich, I only judge how he is utilized here.)
When asked what sort of world this Faith in the Inscrutable will create, he answers with one the most absurd (and frankly, ignorant) passages in the book. He proposes what he calls "Enchanted Agnosticism," (an agnosticism that revels in the mystery, rather than simply settling for mystery.) This is the form he sees it taking:
"I envision a time when enchanted agnosticism is echoed in schools and in temples, in boardrooms and in embassies, and in bedrooms and alleyways- in every human sphere. This would be a time when churches throw open their doors to mosques, and mosques to synagogues, when Buddhist priests can perform sacred chanting rites before Hindu congregants, and when Jewish temples sanction protestant services. It would be a time, perhaps, when every major denomination will regularly and on a rotating basis host every other major denomination, and yet maintain their respective identities. It would be a time when families of all faiths and backgrounds will pray together, break bread together, and behold the mysteries and marvels of each others heritages." (pg 176)
I must be blunt: This is the silliest passage on religion that I have ever read. It has all the weight, power, and profundity of a "Coexist" bumper sticker. It shows a complete lack of understanding of religion, and what inspires, defines, and makes it meaningful.
For a Jewish temple to perform protestant services, or for a protestant church to host and participate in an Islamic service, is impossible. Not because the service could not be held in that temple or space, but because as soon as the Jew welcomed the protestant to sing his hymn, or the Christian bowed down before Allah (meaning the monotheistic Islamic conception of God, not the Trinitarian Christian conception) the Jew would cease being Jewish, and the Christian cease being Christian. For to be Christian is to refuse worship to any other God, as the Jew also refuses. To be a Muslim is to believe there is only your one God, and no other. It is not that it would be difficult for each denomination to "maintain their respective identities," it is, by definition, impossible.
This passage, above all other, betrays the underlying problem that I have hinted at earlier. Schneider is not making any sort of breakthrough here, he has no new ideas. "awe-informed" is a cover for old fashioned liberalism. He repeats again and again that "awe" inspires humility, reverence, kindness and tolerance. But this simply allows him to re-frame his own liberal sense of tolerance and openness as if it were the natural result of being in tune with the universe. But he never quite proves his case, he just asserts it. What Schneider seems to mean by awe, is this:
"If everyone thought like Schneider, then the world would be perfect."
And what is it, to think like Schneider? It seems to me that one must believe in nothing, except the values you already had, now coated in the cover of 'awe.' It means a sense of elitism over those with 'conventional faith,' an inability to understand or enjoy classical texts because you are too busy psychoanalyzing them, and to hold up your ignorance of religion as a profound insight.
There is much I left out, but I have gone on too long as it is, and my point has been made. This book offers nothing new or insightful, and the real insights it could have achieved are never found. The author accurately diagnoses our current problems and future dangers, but the solution he offers will not suffice.
Postscript:
If you want to read another take on mystery, paradox, awe and wonder, I recommend G. K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." Chesterton elucidates the power of paradox and mystery, but he grounds this paradox in something solid. He would have us stand on a solid rock from which to set out into life, whereas Schneider would have us "revel' (read: wallow) in the chaotic waves, and think we were swimming. For a counterpoint to his conception of "dogma," I suggest Dorothy Sayers essay "The Dogma is the Drama." In fact, her book, "Letters to a Diminished Church," as a whole is a decisive counter to Schneider's whole notion of "conventional religion."
The basic premise is this: that the best outlook on life is an awe-based/awe-informed worldview. A worldview that prioritizes wonder and mystery above all else. Schneider has my sympathy here, as I think a lack of awe, wonder, and openness to mystery lie at the root of a great many problems. My other point of agreement with him is his diagnosis of the problems of modern culture, and the dangers that the advancement of technology and medication and science might pose to us. But ultimately I don't think his formulation of this idea of awe is at all useful, and his formulation of potential solutions to the problems of the modern world are equally useless.
His main idea is that of the "fluid center," which he defines as: "...Any sphere of human consciousness which has as its concern the widest possible range of relationships to existence, it is structured inclusiveness- the richest possible range of experiences within the most suitable parameters of support." (pg 1o) This fluid center is his ideal for the human person and for society at large. It is in his thinking a pivot point between constraint and expanse. It is a sort of paradox, a recognition of our finitude, alongside our recognition of our possibility, all grounded in wonder, humility, and awe. This is the beginning of his "awe-based psychology."
Get used to the prefixes "awe-based" and "awe-informed." And get used to the unclear definition of exactly what he means by this prefix. Schneider repeats over and over that an awe-informed worldview must "grapple, wrestle, contend, face up to, acknowledge, struggle," with the realities of our finite existence. These physical metaphors, however, strike me as a sort of evasion. It reminded me of G. K. Chesterton's description of Nietzsche:
"Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor... When he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man...' Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce"
- G. K. Chesterton, "Orthodoxy"
I have the same sense of Schneider. We are to struggle, to face up, to contend. But with what? It is vague, but he does offer a sort of answer. We will 'contend' with this answer later, when we reach his notions of Faith.
His approach to a "fluid social center" is where the book began to really lose me. His solution is an "awe based education" and an "awe-informed work policy." He spends pages spinning a fantasy of a society that was "awe-informed." This society would have a 4 day work week, it would care for it's employees, and it would value quality of life over monetary gain. How to accomplish this? Committees. Committees of clergy, philosophers, psychologists, traditional and holistic doctors, with representatives of 'lay people.' Everyone in these committees would listen carefully (because awe cultivates humility) and respectfully hear each other out, then act on the best course of action. What keeps those committees in line? Higher committees, and above them more committees, and so on and so on until it is committees of experts all the way up. These committees would offer suggestions for work efficiency, and also see to it that the employees physical, psychological, and spiritual needs were being met.
I believe that Schneider is describing his utopia; but he has described my particular hell. An endless bureaucracy of busybody experts, who are constantly attempting to assess and maintain my efficiency and happiness. An endless series of meetings where everyone hums and haws over the problem, and everyone is asked "how do you FEEL about that?" His hypothetical examples of such meetings are optimistic to the point of naivety. The whole thing comes across as silly rather than inspiring.
His awe-based education could be summed up as this: "Every problem will be looked at from as many angles as possible, and we should feel moved by this process." I think the results of this sort of education can be summed up by reviewing how he uses literature in his own book. This will also reveal an underlying problem of his entire project.
He uses the examples of how an awe-based society might read Frankenstein or Dracula. But rather than being moved by the story, he psychoanalyzes the monsters. He examines the life of Dr. Frankenstein, and conclude that he would not have ended up in his tragic circumstances if he had simply processed his loss and trauma of his young life in a healthy manner. As for Dracula, he goes well outside the text, constructing an educated guess about the trauma that Dracula would have experienced that formed him into the monster he became. Again, he concludes, if only he had processed his tragedy in a healthy manner.
If this is the result of his awe-informed education, then he may have it. There is no mention of the creeping dread of Dracula, and the brave heroism of the characters in the face of it, which are the two main appeals of the novel. As for Frankenstein, he misses the point entirely. Frankenstein is not a subtle work; its subtitle is "The Modern Prometheus" and the Monster spends most of his pages quoting Milton's Paradise Lost at length. It is a story about an abandoned creation, and whether we are formed by our surroundings or our interior nature. If the awe-informed education cannot grasp the plain message of Frankenstein, then what use is it?
You will note that Awe has almost nothing to do with the way he interprets literature. This is a sign of the books main underlying flaw, a flaw that will become clear as we look at the final section of the book.
The last part is dedicated to the idea of faith. Faith in the Inscrutable. This means a faith in the Grand working of the universe (which you may call God, or Energy, or Spirit, or Process, or anything you like.) This Schneider opposes between Anarchy on one end, and Dogma on the other. Mainly, however, he is opposed to Dogma or "the conventionally religious." The conventionally religious are small minded. They do not wrestle, or grapple, or contend. They simply accept authority, and often become radicalized to their dogma. (He frequently mentions the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a recent event at the time of this books publication that clearly impacted the author deeply.) The one who has Faith in the Inscrutable, however, challenges his faith, wrestles with it, and only submits when every other alternative has been exhausted.
The great fear is "Polarization, stagnation, identification or specification." In short, anything sure or definite is to be contrasted with its opposite, and we must return to the fluid center. Life cannot be known in this view, it must be 'lived in, reveled in." We must not be satisfied with God, but "With the God beyond God," (Here quoting Paul Tillich, who informs all of the 'theology' of this chapter. I am not familiar with Tillich, but I am not impressed with the handful of quotations Schneider draws from him. I withhold my judgement on Tillich, I only judge how he is utilized here.)
When asked what sort of world this Faith in the Inscrutable will create, he answers with one the most absurd (and frankly, ignorant) passages in the book. He proposes what he calls "Enchanted Agnosticism," (an agnosticism that revels in the mystery, rather than simply settling for mystery.) This is the form he sees it taking:
"I envision a time when enchanted agnosticism is echoed in schools and in temples, in boardrooms and in embassies, and in bedrooms and alleyways- in every human sphere. This would be a time when churches throw open their doors to mosques, and mosques to synagogues, when Buddhist priests can perform sacred chanting rites before Hindu congregants, and when Jewish temples sanction protestant services. It would be a time, perhaps, when every major denomination will regularly and on a rotating basis host every other major denomination, and yet maintain their respective identities. It would be a time when families of all faiths and backgrounds will pray together, break bread together, and behold the mysteries and marvels of each others heritages." (pg 176)
I must be blunt: This is the silliest passage on religion that I have ever read. It has all the weight, power, and profundity of a "Coexist" bumper sticker. It shows a complete lack of understanding of religion, and what inspires, defines, and makes it meaningful.
For a Jewish temple to perform protestant services, or for a protestant church to host and participate in an Islamic service, is impossible. Not because the service could not be held in that temple or space, but because as soon as the Jew welcomed the protestant to sing his hymn, or the Christian bowed down before Allah (meaning the monotheistic Islamic conception of God, not the Trinitarian Christian conception) the Jew would cease being Jewish, and the Christian cease being Christian. For to be Christian is to refuse worship to any other God, as the Jew also refuses. To be a Muslim is to believe there is only your one God, and no other. It is not that it would be difficult for each denomination to "maintain their respective identities," it is, by definition, impossible.
This passage, above all other, betrays the underlying problem that I have hinted at earlier. Schneider is not making any sort of breakthrough here, he has no new ideas. "awe-informed" is a cover for old fashioned liberalism. He repeats again and again that "awe" inspires humility, reverence, kindness and tolerance. But this simply allows him to re-frame his own liberal sense of tolerance and openness as if it were the natural result of being in tune with the universe. But he never quite proves his case, he just asserts it. What Schneider seems to mean by awe, is this:
"If everyone thought like Schneider, then the world would be perfect."
And what is it, to think like Schneider? It seems to me that one must believe in nothing, except the values you already had, now coated in the cover of 'awe.' It means a sense of elitism over those with 'conventional faith,' an inability to understand or enjoy classical texts because you are too busy psychoanalyzing them, and to hold up your ignorance of religion as a profound insight.
There is much I left out, but I have gone on too long as it is, and my point has been made. This book offers nothing new or insightful, and the real insights it could have achieved are never found. The author accurately diagnoses our current problems and future dangers, but the solution he offers will not suffice.
Postscript:
If you want to read another take on mystery, paradox, awe and wonder, I recommend G. K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." Chesterton elucidates the power of paradox and mystery, but he grounds this paradox in something solid. He would have us stand on a solid rock from which to set out into life, whereas Schneider would have us "revel' (read: wallow) in the chaotic waves, and think we were swimming. For a counterpoint to his conception of "dogma," I suggest Dorothy Sayers essay "The Dogma is the Drama." In fact, her book, "Letters to a Diminished Church," as a whole is a decisive counter to Schneider's whole notion of "conventional religion."
October 3, 2015
Rediscovery of Awe: Splendor, Mystery and the Fluid Center of Life (Paperback)
by Kirk J. Schneider
ILL
TOC from Worldcat:
Contents:
The quest for a comprehensive psychology --
The fluid center in personality and development --
Toward a social fluid center --
Toward an awe-based work policy --
A return to basics : awe-based education --
Tragedy and its ambiguities : awe and its paradoxes --
Struggle : the forgotten teacher --
Between anarchy and dogma : toward a faith in the inscrutable --
From spirit to society --
Glimmerings : enchanted agnosticism and the future.
by Kirk J. Schneider
ILL
TOC from Worldcat:
Contents:
The quest for a comprehensive psychology --
The fluid center in personality and development --
Toward a social fluid center --
Toward an awe-based work policy --
A return to basics : awe-based education --
Tragedy and its ambiguities : awe and its paradoxes --
Struggle : the forgotten teacher --
Between anarchy and dogma : toward a faith in the inscrutable --
From spirit to society --
Glimmerings : enchanted agnosticism and the future.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 11, 2010
Inspiring!
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews