The ancient literature of the Mediterranean world is rather divided whether you go ‘up’ to find wisdom/enlightenment, or ‘down’. Interestingly, John’s gospel (John 1:51) talks about angels both ascending and descending on the Son of Humanity. (BTW, the Greek word for ‘Man’ in the phrase commonly translated “Son of Man” is actually gender neutral. “Son of Humanity” is more accurate.)
So, ruminating about the ideas of ‘ascent’ vs. ‘descent’ to Knowledge, it occurs to me that there are certain folks whose life arc is largely one of Ascent: they’re born into good families, go to the right schools, and work their way up the ladder to make their contribution to Society. Which is all good, and probably how most of the improvements to Society come about.
But it seems to me there are some who make their contribution to Humanity through a life arc largely of Descent. Van Gogh comes to mind — whose initial inner calling was to be a pastor to desperately poor coal miners, living among them and sharing their poverty. He gave away his possessions and slept on the floor, living and serving among them. Nevertheless, his funding organization found him wanting and didn’t renew his contract. So almost out of desperation he turned to painting — and didn’t sell a painting in his lifetime.
Or Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865): in his day physicians would routinely go from performing an autopsy, to assisting with a child birth without washing their hands — with a horrendous incidence of ‘childbed fever’ that killed the mothers. With detailed and systematic observation Semmelweis was able to demonstrate beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that if physicians simply washed their hands before delivering a child (or attending living patients more generally), that deadly ‘childbed fever’ could be reduced to less than 1%. But this didn’t fit with the existing Medical Science of the day, so Semmelweis’ ideas were vehemently rejected by the medical establishment. (For example, one argument against Semmelweis’ assertions was that “a gentleman’s hands couldn’t possibly transmit disease.”) Finally, in 1865, the increasingly shrill Semmelweis suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was put in solitary confinement, beaten by the guards, and died shortly thereafter. Although the rules of the Hungarian Association of Physicians and Natural Scientists specified that a commemorative address be delivered in honor of a member who had died, there was no address for Semmelweis — indeed, his passing wasn’t even mentioned.
And many credit the depth of the influence of Socrates on Western thinking to the fact that he chose to drink poison rather than renounce his principles.
I note that those in my list above didn’t seem to have had much choice about ‘choosing’ the Path of Ascent vs. Descent as their life arc. (Their man choice being whether to stay true to their path or not.)
It seems to me that the Path of Ascent is good for advancing and improving the existing way of thinking. Which is well and good when the existing way of thinking is well and good. But the Path of Descent may be necessary when the existing way of thinking needs major revision. That is, it would seem that sometimes ‘crucifixion’ — going all the way DOWN — is the only way UP and forward.