Review of Summa Metaphysica I (God and Evil / The Religious Man)

Summa Metaphysica I is a very impressive book in terms of structure, plethora of references and praises at its front and back matter. It is the first of a three-part series, Summa Metaphysica I, II, and III. Summa Metaphysica I [hereinafter SM I] claims to offer a satisfactory (if not a terminal) solution to the 'perennial' problem of Theodicy (vindication of God in the face of evil) and does so by revising the classic idea of God from static to dynamic, hence for SM I (presumably for II and III as well) God becomes a 'quest', the Quest for Potential ad infinitum (author's notation Q4P¥), alternatively: infinite quest for potential or quest for infinite potential. Birnbaum's theory, referred to as Potentialism, is rather obscure and, despite its declared spiritual orientation, I feel that it could be interpreted to justify current and future crimes in various parts of the world, especially in the Middle East. The reader cannot help but draw a parallel between Potentialism and Nietzsche’s “Will to Power”. Nietzsche’s key theory was ‘appropriated’ by the Nazis and misinterpreted to form the ideological basis for all kinds of atrocities. Does Potentialism run the same risk? I believe it depends on the level of interpretation and acceptance this new theory receives, and indeed there is great latitude for interpretation especially for key terms of theology, epistemology and the philosophy of mind.

The unified formulation of Potentialism and the gist of Birnbaum’s theory is the following: There is a force in man, as well as at the core of the cosmos and the Divine which expresses itself as the quest for potential. For man to attain his potential, freedom (incl. privacy and selfhood) and knowledge are necessary. God, in appreciation of man’s choice for freedom, contracts His here-and-now consciousness (Providence) to the extent that man has increased in knowledge. However, the contraction of God’s real-time consciousness brings man face to face with evil. The term evil Mr. Burnbaum seems to be using in two different ways.

The incidence of evil in the theory is a very delicate point: the reader understands God’s contraction of His consciousness/Providence in the way a father, for example, decides to allow his young children a certain leeway to experiment with their environment at the risk of a) hurting themselves, and b) hurting others (inadvertently or not). According to Birnbaum, evil manifests itself in both cases, and this is the price for freedom people pay to quest for the fulfillment of their potential. To elucidate his point, the author writes: “But he [man] will also rape, pillage, and murder on the way to the Holy Land in the name of the Holy Crusade in 1096, and will send tens of thousands of his young to die in the marshes of Iraq in the 1980s, so that his Ayatollah’s commands are obeyed. All in the name of God. All in the name of a great spiritual quest. Man can be implacable in his resolution to serve his God. Nothing, but nothing, will get in his way.” (SM I, PART III: Summation and Reprise, p. 167). Compare the above with Nietzsche’s “Here we must think things through thoroughly, and ward off any sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially a process of appropriating, injuring, overpowering the alien and the weaker, oppressing, being harsh, imposing your own form, incorporating, and at least, the very least, exploiting, …” (Beyond Good and Evil, §259). It may not be obvious in his works, but Nietzsche neither sanctions nor encourages such attitude to life, but his philosophy can be interpreted otherwise.

Apparently, SM I is not simply Birnbaum’s intellectual knee-jerk reaction to the Holocaust events. Rather, it represents a new attitude to life which, on first glance, is bleak. It poses as an overarching theory with the implicit intention to unite physics and metaphysics, and also to provide ease of mind for the religious man. Most importantly, however, it offers an ideological foundation for action outside all moral constraints, especially to those who have power in their hands. In the beginning of the book Birnbaum surveys current and past explanations given for the Holocaust. He says that Jewish and other theologians and scholars failed to provide palatable explanations of the Nazi atrocities. Such explanations either compromised the idea of an omni-benevolent/powerful-etc. God, or succumbed to the attribute of inscrutability of the Divine. But the author’s ambition stretches far beyond the known theological and philosophical real estates. Birnbaum shifted the focus of the question to man and the cosmos where he saw the operation of an inexorable force which drives evolution/growth/ development to ever higher realms. This is his Quest for Potential, a relentless force inherent in man, the cosmos and the essence of the Divine. In an effort to provide a terminal solution to theodicy, the author fashioned a new metaphysics.

But compare the above with Nietzsche’s “I consider life itself to be an instinct for growth, for endurance, for the accumulation of force, for power: when there is no will to power, there is decline.” (Antichrist, §6). Nietzsche’s ideas represent the loosening up of moral and intellectual certainties. Indeed, the German philosopher was against all such certainties and dogmas. But before he died Nietzsche questioned even his own ideas. On the other hand, Potentialism draws its legitimacy from the Jewish theological tradition and the Kabbalah, and at the same time the author aspires that his theory will have universal applicability.

SM I is ‘loud’ and presumptuous. It is loud on account of its style and the profusion of praises its matter has incorporated, and it is presumptuous for numerous statements concerning the purpose of man/life, the cosmos and the nature of the Divine. In addition, it can not resist sensationalism (reference to the plights of Jews in the past), especially in the closing quotation (p. 170). What is more, Potentialism seems to be this instinctual (and amoral) force which exerts intractable pressure on man and the cosmos for the attainment of their ultimate potential at any cost. This was highlighted in the third paragraph above.

But what is man’s potential? let alone that of the cosmos and of the Divine? It is Extraordinariation. The term was coined by the author to mean “the idealized end-goal of the cosmic process; an ideal to be approached, but not quite realized.” (SM I, Potentialism Lexicon Key Terms) Assuming that this term makes sense, that it is other than a Sisyphean task, it seems to describe a relentless force in man’s psyche (or where have you). But surely this does not apply universally, i.e. in every man (or woman), tribe, and culture. We know that there are tribes in the Amazon, Africa and elsewhere whose members have not changed their ways for thousands of years. Their ways of life, their survival, depends on cooperation, not on competition which is the breeding ground for aggression and bloodshed. My intuition says that Extraordinariation is the end result of such a breeding ground.

Potentialism comes at a time when quantum physics has acquired relatively strong purchase in popular imagination and intelligent discussions, especially with respect to the apparently dual nature of light and the concept of entanglement. What is more, those who are familiar with the idea of probability in Physics, a concept which describes the state and the location of a 'particle' before it is observed, also feel a certain sense of rapport with Potentialism, regardless of how obscure and incomplete this new theory might be. Birnbaum does not analyze key concepts of his theory, for example freedom (of the will), knowledge, evil, and good. The author believes that evil is the ‘flip side’ of good and that by destroying evil one also destroys good. In addition, the reader cannot help but wonder whether the author is using the “Garden of Eden” description of events metaphorically or literally. But does it really matter? On the one hand the author wrote the book in alignment with the Jewish theological tradition and, on the other hand, the sensitive reader understands that the author is challenging the classic idea of God to offer a new worldview. And this is very interesting: a path to a paradigm shift or to obscurity to say the least.

What is disconcerting about this theory is that it could be interpreted to justify murder, if man is thought to pursue his potential relentlessly and amorally. Should this be the case then we are very close to justifying Hitler’s atrocities during WWII. Still, there is a feeling which I cannot suppress or ignore, a feeling which says that Summa Metaphysica I is nothing more that a folk tale, a bedside story, albeit one we can do without, as I believe we can with all “wise” texts. I am also disturbed by the author’s elevation of evil to the status of good in terms of significance and role in the preservation of the cosmos and of the Divine. In short Summa Metaphysica I has not really solved the problem of Theodicy by revising the classic idea of God. Indeed, the human mind cannot put evil on a par with good. Perhaps, the quest for a ‘palatable’ explanation of the Holocaust was merely the pretext for the promotion of a new kind of morality, one which serves the interests of those who enjoy power in arms and money.