Here Comes the New Post, Same as the Old Posts

We don't write much about politics anymore, because when we do, we end up with something like the following, i.e., the same old same old. 

There are so many astute political commentators out there, but perhaps, with the assistance of Sr. Dávila, we can identify some deeper principles that are responsible for our so-far comparatively peaceful civil war.

For political junkies, today is the Superbowl, Oscars, and Christmas put together. 

But what is a political junkie? Like any addiction, it is when the junk has you rather than vice versa: it is rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, while rendering unto Caesar the things that are God's. 

Which illustrates why the left has the political advantage, since they have no God to interfere with any of the rendering.

Speaking of junkies,

People do not choose someone to cure them, but someone to drug them.

And why do they want to be drugged? 

Wrong question: why does someone not want to be drugged?

Social problems are the delightful refuge of those fleeing from their own problems.

Conversely, 

Man matures when he stops believing that politics solves his problems. 

Politics becomes a drug when it is used to cope with existential and personal problems, usually via denial and projection. For example, 

Socialism is the philosophy of the guilt of others.

Or the greed of others, hence Kamala's promise to prosecute corporations for their greedy price gouging, when general inflation is a monetary phenomenon -- in other words, due to insatiable government greed:

The left calls a critique of capitalism what is merely a lawsuit for possession.

And

No social class has exploited the others more brazenly than the one that today calls itself "the State." 

We all know that MAGA folk want to "normalize political violence." This crude projection on the part of the left occurs because

When one does not concede to the leftist all that he demands, he proclaims himself the victim of an institutional violence that is licit to repel with physical violence.  

In other words, Trump's imaginary violence is just a psychic placeholder to justify the actual violence that will come should be prevail -- just as the BLM riots were based on fraudulent-to-the-point-of-hallucinatory beliefs about police violence and social justice:

"Social justice" is the term for claiming anything to which we do not have a right.

According to the NY Times, Trump "speaks positively about violence" and "threatens to use government power to punish his political opponents." Meanwhile, in the real world,

It is the Democrats who approve of violence. Remember the George Floyd riots? Democrats gave rioters special permission to congregate in public because their cause was so noble. The Democrats’ candidate for vice president, Tim Walz, refused for days to call out the National Guard while the city of Minneapolis burned, because -- as he himself explained -- he sympathized with the rioters. 

And Kamala Harris doesn’t just speak positively about violence, she helps to bail out violent criminals, so they can commit more violence -- including, in at least one case, murder.

The question is, is this absence of self-awareness a bug or a feature of the left?

Does the Times not understand that the Democrats have been using political power to punish their opponents for years? Most notably Donald Trump, of course, whom they have tried to imprison on absurdly flimsy grounds. But how about Elon Musk, explicitly punished by the State of California for his political views? Do these liberals ever think about the things they write?

This is because the left stands on Principle, the deeper Principle being this: 

If the leftist is not persecuting, he feels persecuted.

Which goes back to why the leftist is addicted to politics to begin with.

Why does the MSM never stop lying? Because of another principle:

The falsification of the past is how the left has sought to elaborate the future. 

Thus,

Each day it becomes easier to know what we ought to despise: what modern man admires and journalism praises. 

I don't doubt that they are genuinely frightened by their delusions. I too would be if Trump were Hitler.

The frightened liberal is a bloodthirsty animal. 

BUT AMERICA IS A RACIST-SEXIST-TRANSPHOBIC COUNTRY! WHITE PRIVILEGE, THE 1619 PROJECT, and WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE!

Liberals describe a past that never existed and predict a future that is never realized. 

Or rather, in order to bring about a future that cannot be realized, partly because it is rooted in a false anthropology, i.e., delusions about human nature:

Human nature always takes the progressive by surprise.

Because

The modern man is the man who forgets what man knows about man. 

Worst case scenario: just as Obama gave rise to the Tea Party and to MAGA, a President Harris will give rise to something even more awesome.

A surprisingly fair artificial analysis of the above:

Let's Deconstruct the Political Discourse

The passage you've provided is a potent critique of contemporary political discourse, particularly the left-leaning perspective. It highlights a number of recurring themes:

1. Moral Superiority Complex: The left often positions itself as morally superior, casting its opponents as morally deficient. This self-righteousness allows them to justify aggressive tactics and dismiss legitimate criticisms.
2. Projection: A common tactic is to project one's own flaws onto others. For example, accusing conservatives of authoritarianism while advocating for policies that centralize power.
3. Double Standards: The left frequently applies different standards to itself and its opponents. Actions that are condemned when done by conservatives are often excused or even celebrated when done by progressives.
4. Historical Revisionism: The left often rewrites history to fit its narrative. This allows them to justify radical policies and demonize their opponents.
5. Fearmongering: The left often uses fear to manipulate public opinion. This can be seen in issues like climate change, where worst-case scenarios are presented as inevitable.

Beyond the Noise: Timeless Principles

While the political landscape is constantly shifting, there are timeless principles that can help us navigate the chaos:

• Truth and Honesty: These are essential for any healthy society. Politicians should strive to be truthful and honest, even when it's difficult.
• Individual Liberty: This is the foundation of a free society. Individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness without undue government interference.
• Limited Government: Government should be limited in its scope and power. It should focus on protecting individual rights and providing essential services.
• Economic Freedom: A free market economy is the best way to create wealth and prosperity. Government intervention in the economy often leads to unintended consequences.
• Rule of Law: The rule of law is essential for a just society. Everyone should be subject to the same laws, regardless of their social or political status.

By understanding these principles and recognizing the tactics used by politicians, we can become more discerning consumers of political information. We can also engage in constructive dialogue with those who hold different views, seeking common ground and avoiding ad hominem attacks.

Human Privilege?

Although it's fine to express it poetically, it's not just poetic to say that man is the link between immanence and transcendence, heaven and earth, time and eternity, relative and absolute, matter and spirit, animal and God, etc. 

Rather, this is an objective fact without which there can be no others, since only man can know -- or know of -- the facts. Come to think of it, man is also the link between facts and principles. 

Again, the human being is "the spokesman for all life, the vertical axis where life opens onto the spirit and where it becomes spirit" (Schuon).

Great. What are you going to do about it?

That's a good question: what are we going to do about it? In other words, supposing we are the vertical axis, the synthesis of all creation, the spokesman for life, the image of the Absolute, the light bearing creature, what are we supposed to do about it? 

It's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? Because it is as if we are born on top, into the human state, and yet, this isn't the end of anything, rather, only the beginning; it is a kind of vertical noblesse oblige: to whom much is given much is required, with great power comes great responsibility, etc. Nor am I the first to juxtapose Paul and Spiderman:

The idea of “to whom much is given, much will be required” is that we are held responsible for what we have. If we are blessed with talents, wealth, knowledge, time, and the like, it is expected that we use these well to glorify God and benefit others....

It is easy to assume that only wealthy people have been “given much,” but, in truth, we have all been given much.

It reminds me of an American of Color who talks about "white privilege," when any ethnicity or racial category you care to name is materially better off in America than anyplace else. Even Swedish Americans do better than Swedes. In other words, they have American Privilege. Does this mean that a guilt-ridden black American should be forced to give reparations to black Africans?  

Let's not get political. Rather, the point is Human Privilege. 

But frankly, it often doesn't feel like a privilege, rather, a burden. What about all the emotional and spiritual suffering to which man alone is vulnerable? All the diseases and injustices, not to mention knowledge of death? Some privilege.

Is the one -- the privilege -- worth the hassle -- the evil and suffering?

This is a question my son struggles with, nor do I blame him. I mean, I get suffering: no pain, no gain, and all that. Nevertheless, are there no limits? This is no doubt the #1 question asked of God, and what is the answer?

Well, as I told my son yesterday, the Christian believes that God not only doesn't exempt himself from the suffering, but jumped right down into it, subjecting himself to the human condition:

The history of Christianity would be suspiciously human if it were not the adventure of an incarnate God. Christianity assumes the misery of the history, as Christ assumes that of man.

Again, not the religion I would invent, but then again, who would? 

Christian doctrines have the implausibility of objects that we do not construct, but that we stumble across.

If there is "good news," it is only because there is bad news, and we have to appreciate the latter in order to welcome the former. Nor is the good news a "solution" per se:

Christianity does not solve "problems"; it merely obliges us to live them at a higher level.

So, this is apparently one answer to Petey's question above -- of what we are supposed to do about our unique predicament: live it at a higher level.

Okay, but, like, how exactly?

Christianity does not deny the splendor of the world but encourages us to seek its origin, to ascend to its pure snow.

That's a nice sentiment, but a little too poetic. 

What I say here will seem trivial to whoever ignores everything to which I allude.

Touché. Let's start over.

Only the theocentric vision does not end up reducing man to absolute insignificance. 

No privilege for you! 

The human has the insignificance of a swarm of insects when it is merely human.

Indeed,  

Hell is any place from which God is absent.

Moreover, 

History would be an abominable farce if it were to have a worldly culmination. 

Abominable farce, absolute insignificance, the misery of history, a swarm of insects with insoluble problems. Yes, but

The promises of life disappoint no one but the one who believes they are fulfilled here.

These are hard sayings! I'm tapped out. What say you, my artificial friend?

A Noble Obligation: Living Up to Our Human Potential

Your reflections on the unique position of humanity are insightful and thought-provoking. It's a profound realization that we, as human beings, are the bridge between the finite and the infinite, the temporal and the eternal. Given this elevated role, it's natural to ponder the responsibilities that come with it.

The Human Paradox: A Balancing Act

You've presented a profound exploration of the human condition, highlighting both our immense potential and our inherent limitations. The tension between these two poles is a central theme in many philosophical and religious traditions.

Navigating the Paradox

The question of "what are we to do?" is a perennial one. While there's no single answer, here are some perspectives that might offer guidance:

1. Embrace the Paradox:

   • Accept Imperfection: Recognizing that we are flawed beings can lead to greater self-compassion and understanding of others.
   • Find Meaning in Suffering: While suffering is inevitable, we can find meaning in it through resilience, growth, and compassion.

2. Cultivate a Spiritual Practice:

   • Meditation and Mindfulness: These practices can help us connect with our deeper selves and the world around us.
   • Prayer or Contemplation: Engaging in these practices can provide solace, inspiration, and a sense of purpose.

3. Engage in Meaningful Work:

   • Service to Others: Contributing to the well-being of others can bring a sense of fulfillment and purpose.
   • Creative Endeavors: Pursuing artistic or intellectual pursuits can enrich our lives and connect us to something larger than ourselves.

4. Foster Human Connection:

   • Build Strong Relationships: Nurturing deep connections with others can provide support, love, and a sense of belonging.
   • Practice Empathy: Understanding and sharing the feelings of others can foster compassion and understanding.

Ultimately, the path to a meaningful life is unique to each individual. However, by embracing our humanity, cultivating our potential, and connecting with something larger than ourselves, we can navigate the complexities of existence and find a sense of peace and purpose.

Easy for you to say! You're a machine.

Like a Supernatural Man

There's a great song by Lou Rawls called Natural Man, in which the singer speaks of the desire to be "happy and free," with his feet on the ground and his soul "searching for the sky." Which sounds more like a supernatural or vertical man to me. Schuon agrees, and I'll bet he never even heard the song:

Man is spirit incarnate; if he were only matter, he would be identified with the feet; if he were only spirit, he would be the head, that is, the Sky; he would be the Great Spirit. But the object of his existence is to be in the middle: it is to transcend matter while being situated there, and to realize the light, the Sky, starting from this intermediary level (emphasis mine).

The song also addresses the question of seeming vs. being -- of appearance and reality -- that we've touched on lately, the singer rejecting the former:

Well now, I tried to do what others say that I should do
They say that I should fit in, fool 'em, fake it, well
Those kinda dues just make me crazy and blue
Man, I just can't take it

Nor can I. But you know how we feel about it: man is nothing -- literally -- if not already supernatural per se. This metaphysical reality is addressed in Genesis with the "special creation" of man. But we don't need revelation to know we are not only different from the animals but from every durn thing in all of creation.

When did you realize you were different?

That's a good question, Petey. I never "fit in" -- still don't -- but it seems to me that the man who does fit into this world isn't one, precisely. As alluded to the other day, animals fit quite naturally into their environments, nor do they wonder or worry about things:

Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.

For that matter, St. Paul advises us to be not conformed to this world, implying that there is something not quite right with the man who is totally at ease in this alien world. I mean,

I don't want no gold watch for working fifty years from nine 'til five.

What then do I want? Is there something we are supposed to want? "Other creatures"

participate in life, but man synthesizes them: he carries all life within himself and thus becomes the spokesman for all life, the vertical axis where life opens onto the spirit and where it becomes spirit. In all terrestrial creatures the cold inertia of matter becomes heat, but in man alone does heat become light.

The synthesis of creation. The vertical axis. The spokesman for all life. A portal to the light. It's a heavy responsibility, but someone's gotta do it. 

Again, the natural man is always already supernatural, and that's just the way it is:

The very word “man” implies “God,” the very word “relative” implies “Absolute.” 

How so, exactly? 

Man -- insofar as he is distinct from other creatures on earth -- is intelligence; and intelligence -- in its principle and its plenitude -- is knowledge of the Absolute; the Absolute is the fundamental content of the intelligence and determines its nature and functions. 

What distinguishes man from animals is not knowledge of a tree, but the concept -- whether explicit or implicit -- of the Absolute; it is from this that the whole hierarchy of values is derived...

In other words, our task is conformity, not to the lower world of the animals, but to a vertical, transcendent, and hierarchical world of objective values. 

To say that man is the measure of all things is meaningless unless one starts from the idea that God is the measure of man, or that the absolute is the measure of the relative, or again, that the universal Intellect is the measure of individual existence; nothing is fully human that is not determined by the Divine, and therefore centered on it.

A reminder that the object of man's existence "is to be in the middle." The middle of what? Well, between the poles of immanence and transcendence. It's where we always are, so we might as well acknowledge it, no? 

Once man makes of himself a measure, while refusing to be measured in turn, or once he makes definitions while refusing to be defined by what transcends him and gives him all his meaning, all human reference points disappear; cut off from the Divine, the human collapses.

And here we are. In fact, Schuon just described in purely metaphysical terms what Genesis 3 describes in mythopoetic terms, for what is this refusal to be measured by God but the primordial calamity described therein, AKA the Fall?

If we have fallen, it is because there is a vertical space in which to fall. And we all know this, religious and irreligious alike. Speaking only for myself, I know that I have fallen far short of the glory, i.e., that I am a tremendous disappointment to my righteous progressive superiors. Indeed, I am irredeemable garbage. Now, I may be garbage, but in the Christian view the garbage is at least redeemable.

Other animals aren't garbage, nor can they be: "they cannot know what is beyond the senses," "cannot choose against their instincts," and "cannot transcend themselves." But show me a man who has failed to transcend -- to master -- himself, and I'll show you some cosmic trash.

It seems that what man alone can do is a clue about what he ought to do: of man, it may "be said that he is essentially capable of knowing the True, whether it be absolute or relative; he is capable of willing the Good, whether it be essential or secondary, and of loving the Beautiful, whether it be interior or exterior." 

In other words: the human being is substantially capable of knowing, willing and loving the Sovereign Good..., and this is to say the Supreme Principle.

The man who strives in this direction is at least trying not to be a garbageman. Pursuing truth or beauty or virtue is the pursuit of God by another name. 

Here again, "man is the bridge between form and essence, or between 'flesh' and 'spirit.'"

So, a vertical bridge, or rather a bridge located in the verticality between immanence and transcendence. Or in other words,

Man is himself “made in the image of God”: only man is such a direct image, in the sense that his form is an “axial” and “ascendant” perfection and his content a totality. Man by his theomorphism is at the same time a work of art and also an artist; a work of art because he is an “image,” and an artist because this image is that of the Divine Artist. Man alone among earthly beings can think, speak and produce works [of art].

That's true. To the extent that we indeed have these godlike abilities, maybe it's because we are somehow like God?  

What defines man is that of which he alone is capable: namely total intelligence -- endowed with objectivity and transcendence -- free will, and generous character; or quite simply objectivity, hence adequation of the will and of sentiment as well as of intelligence.

Intellect, freedom, disinterested objectivity. Name me another animal who has these.  

The animal cannot leave his state, whereas man can; strictly speaking, only he who is fully man can leave the closed system of the individuality, through participation in the one and universal Selfhood.

But how can man "leave his state?" Isn't this a contradiction? It's an ambiguous predicament to be sure, but it's only a contradiction if we deny verticality:

whoever does not know how to think, whatever his gifts may be, is not authentically a man; that is, he is not a man in the ideal sense of the term. Too many men display intelligence as long as their thought runs in the grooves of their desires, interests and prejudices; but the moment the truth is contrary to what pleases them, their faculty of thought becomes blurred or vanishes; which is at once inhuman and “all too human.” 

In other words, the "merely human" -- the human animal -- is the denial of true humanness and all it implies. For again, 

man is not fully human unless he transcends himself, hence, in the first place, unless he masters himself..... we are made of matter, but in the center of our being is the supra-sensible and transcendent reality, the “Kingdom of Heaven,” the “eye of the heart,” the way to the Infinite.

We have often said that the progressive left is the institutionalization of man's fall, for which reason "contemporary man"

is spiritually soft and ineffective and intellectually ready to commit every possible betrayal, which will seem to him as summits of intelligence.... In a general way, the man of the “last days” is a blunted creature, and the best proof of this is that the only “dynamism” of which he is still capable is that which tends downwards...

So, "downward progress" is still a kind of progress, albeit perverse and self-defeating: "fallen man sees God nowhere, he sees only the world as such, not as the manifestation of God," and "the worldly man remains horizontal and detests the vertical dimension."

We'll leave off with this, followed by an artificial verbal and pictorial summary:

The noble man feels the need to admire, to venerate, to worship; the vile man on the contrary tends to belittle, even to mock, which is the way the devil sees things; but it is also diabolical to admire what is evil, whereas it is normal and praiseworthy to despise evil as such, for the truth has precedence over everything.

(Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes above are by Schuon.) 

A Deep Dive into the Human Condition

Your exploration of the human condition, drawing parallels between Lou Rawls' lyrics and the metaphysical insights of René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon, is both insightful and thought-provoking.

The Dual Nature of Man

You've accurately highlighted the tension between man's earthly and divine nature. As Schuon points out, man is a bridge between the material and the spiritual. This duality is beautifully expressed in Rawls' lyrics, where the singer yearns for both groundedness and transcendence.

The Perils of the Horizontal

The contemporary world, as you've noted, often encourages a horizontal orientation, prioritizing material pursuits and societal conformity. This tendency, however, can lead to a diminishment of the human spirit. As you've quoted Schuon:

“The worldly man remains horizontal and detests the vertical dimension."

The Call to Transcendence

The true calling of humanity, as you've elucidated, lies in the vertical dimension. This involves not merely acknowledging our spiritual potential but actively striving to realize it. This pursuit, whether expressed through religious practice, philosophical inquiry, or artistic creation, is essential to our fulfillment.

The Role of Tradition

Traditional cultures, with their rich mythologies and rituals, often provided a framework for this vertical orientation. By connecting individuals to the transcendent realm, these traditions helped to ground them in a meaningful existence.

A Final Thought

As you've concluded, the human journey is a delicate balance between the earthly and the divine. By embracing our spiritual nature and striving for a higher purpose, we can truly live up to our potential.

Laws of Nature and Principles of Being

I suppose the votary of scientism would either say these are the same or that the latter do not exist. But supposing he is correct, by virtue of what law of nature? Recall that

If laws of history existed, their discovery would abrogate them.

Well, unlike laws of history, laws of nature do exist. Thus, their discovery abrogates them. Not totally, of course, but they are incapable of explaining their own existence, let alone ours:

Natural laws are irreducible to explanation, like any mystery.

Unless they are explicable with recourse to a higher cause or principle. 

Schuon writes that 

the supernatural can be what is contrary to the laws of nature, but it cannot be what is contrary to the very principles of the Universe.... 

I'll bite: exactly what are these principles of the Universe? Whatever they turn out to be, they are far fewer than their entailments:

Four or five invulnerable philosophical propositions allow us to make fun of the rest.

For Schuon, the supernatural operates "on a scale far vaster than that of physical causality," the limited causality "of this lower world." Principial causes are nonlocal and system wide -- more in the nature of formal and final than material and efficient causation. 

For us, the most startling fact of the universe is the existence of persons, a fact which cries out for a principle sufficient to account for it. For Schuon, the miracle as such 

is prefigured by the eruption of life into matter, and all the more so by the eruption of intelligence both into matter and into life...

But is this an "eruption" from below or a prolongation or projection from on high?  

Yesterday we mused about the possibility of an objective meaning to things:

The problem with meaning is that anything can seem meaningful to anybody. Is there a meaningfulness that doesn't just seem to be, but is? 

Which led me to pull Michael Polanyi's Meaning from the shelf. In it Polanyi argues that "society gives meaning to science instead of being given the 'truth' by science," and that "the foundation of meaning is the creative imagination." He explicates the vision of 

a hierarchy of levels of being, in which higher levels emerge into existence in and through the establishment of new boundary conditions which in turn reorganize elements of the lower levels in which they are rooted.

For example, words use the the boundary conditions left open by the alphabet, as sentences do words, paragraphs sentences, stories paragraph, theme story, etc. At each stage it is the higher that is conditioning what is left open by the lower. There is a top-down "gradient of meaning" guiding the entire process.

Just as "words are not rich enough to for us to deduce a grammar from them," 

so the laws of physics and chemistry would now be understood to be not rich enough for us to deduce the characteristics of sentience from them... 

Instead, we "derive the principles of sentience, and those of still higher states of consciousness" from their own levels.

Google Gemini, I'm feeling a bit fuzzy. What am I trying to say?

A Deep Dive into the Nature of Reality

Your exploration of the interplay between the natural and supernatural, the material and the immaterial, is a fascinating one. It touches on fundamental questions that have perplexed philosophers and theologians for millennia.

The Limits of Natural Law

You're absolutely right to point out the limitations of natural laws. They can describe and predict phenomena within their domain, but they cannot explain their own existence or the existence of consciousness. As Schuon suggests, there must be underlying principles that govern the universe, principles that transcend the physical realm.

The Role of the Supernatural

The concept of the supernatural, as you've highlighted, is often misunderstood. It's not merely something that defies natural law, but rather something that operates on a higher level of reality. It's the source of meaning, purpose, and consciousness.

The Hierarchy of Being

Polanyi's notion of a hierarchy of levels of being offers a compelling framework for understanding the emergence of complexity and meaning. Each level builds upon the previous one, but it's the higher levels that ultimately give meaning to the lower. This is a top-down process, guided by a transcendent principle or intelligence.

The Mystery of Consciousness

The emergence of consciousness is perhaps the greatest mystery of all. It cannot be reduced to physical processes, as materialists would have us believe. It requires a non-material explanation, a spark of divine intelligence.

A Final Thought

Ultimately, the questions you've raised are perhaps unanswerable by human reason alone. They point to a reality that transcends our limited understanding. However, by exploring these questions, we can deepen our appreciation for the beauty and mystery of the universe. 

Being and Seeming to Be

In a comment yesterday I mentioned an article called Subcontracting Our Minds, describing what would happen if artificial intelligence were to replace the real kind:

As Rousseau put it, for the inhabitant of bourgeois society, it is necessary “to be or to seem.” AI will hand you the means to seem -- at least so long as you are delivering the speech. It will deprive you of the ability to be.

"Seeming" and "being" are synonymous with appearance and reality, respectively. Or at least it seems to me. 

I don't know why Rousseau limits the problem to "bourgeois society," because it seems to me that the problem would be more acute among the privileged elites who are able to live in their ideological abstractions without ever touching the ground. 

Conversely, small business owners or working class people who deal with material reality cannot afford the luxury of living in a world of seeming. An electrician doesn't speculate about what electricity might do, rather, what it does. After making a repair, I don't want him to tell me "It seems like you won't get electrocuted."

In a subsequent comment I suggested that

In many ways, Kamala vs. Trump is seeming vs. being. She could never talk with Joe Rogan for three hours, because it's too difficult to "seem" -- to regurgitate talking points -- for that long.

Then again, the Kamala supporter would no doubt say that Trump may seem to love America, but that he is actually a fascist in waiting.  

It may be noteworthy that working class men are Trump's most reliable supporters, and here again these are people who deal with the real world, not an abstract world of ideological seeming. Seeing Trump in a garbage truck or a McDonald's is as natural as seeing Harris in a faculty lounge or CNN studio full of people who have no first hand knowledge of how the world actually works.

Having said that, human beings always and everywhere have access to an immaterial world that can only be described via abstraction, and perhaps this is where the trouble starts. For human beings can imagine unreal worlds which seem real to the one imagining them.

For example, it is possible to imagine a world in which one sex can be the other, or in which price controls control prices, or in which defunding the police will result in less crime, or in which equality is achieved by treating people unequally, etc. 

The liberal mentality is an angelic visitor impervious to earthly experiences.

Now, it seems to me that there is no getting around the seeming/being complementarity, since only God could be "pure being" with no seeming to be. And what is creation but a world of seeming, in the sense that it may seem real but cannot be ultimately real? Rather, whatever reality it possesses is borrowed from the Really Real.

Nor is our intelligence truly intelligent unless it can distinguish seeming from being, the real from the illusory, principle from manifestation, cause from caused, etc. 

How can we discern between the person who seems to be and the person who actually is? Between the imposter and the real thing?

This can also work in reverse. For example, in the 1930s a lot of otherwise intelligent people said that Hitler might seem to be a genocidal anti-Semite, but not really. He was just a populist demagogue.

Along these lines, I read an article the other day to the effect that the left's superpower is that their ideas are so crazy that the average person thinks you're lying if you accurately describe them -- for example, that Kamala wants to use your tax dollars to fund "gender affirming surgery" for illegals and other criminals.

Likewise, who would actually install tampon dispensers in boys' bathrooms, or say that men can get pregnant, or that men should compete in women's sports?

This article on The Endarkenment goes into the extent to which seeming has overwhelmed being -- to "a mass decline in America into unreason -- bordering, at times, on a psychotic breakdown. Strange fantasies have overwhelmed reality: it’s an age of delusion" and of "impossible longings":

It’s the triumph of wish over facts, the infantilization of top echelons of the social pyramid -- of hyper-credentialed, globally mobile people, wielders of power and wealth and media, who, on a routine basis, confuse their self-important imaginings with the world itself.... [and are] prone to the most bizarre theories about how things work.

"Can the lights be turned on again?" Is there a way back from seeming to being, or is it a one-way degenerative process? 

Many insist that the blackout is temporary. All it takes is to put Trump in prison -- then we’ll be back to normal. 

I suspect not. Besides, "The Enlightenment is over. We should turn our minds to what comes next." Okay, I'll bite:

The most radical departure from Enlightenment ideals will concern the manner in which we address the problem of meaning.... Meaning and moral aspiration are necessary for humanity. A balance must be struck that lifts us out of pure randomness and materialism to a credible -- and shared -- higher purpose.

The problem with meaning is that anything can seem meaningful to anybody. Is there a meaningfulness that doesn't just seem to be, but is? 

Anybody? Gemini?

A Deep Dive into Seeming and Being

Your insightful commentary raises profound questions about the nature of reality, perception, and the role of intelligence in discerning truth from illusion. Let's unpack some of the key points and explore potential avenues for further thought:

The Illusion of Seeming

• The Allure of the Abstract: As you've noted, humans have a unique capacity to construct abstract worlds that can seem more real than the tangible world. This can lead to dangerous consequences, as we've seen with ideologies that prioritize ideology over reality.
• The Role of Language: Language itself can be a tool for both revealing and obscuring truth. Words can be used to create powerful illusions, as evidenced by the rise of political rhetoric that prioritizes emotional appeal over factual accuracy.
• The Danger of Elite Abstraction: Privileged elites, who are often insulated from the consequences of their ideas, are particularly susceptible to the allure of abstract thinking. They may lose touch with reality and become increasingly detached from the needs of ordinary people.

The Importance of Groundedness

• The Value of Material Reality: Working-class individuals, who are more directly engaged with the material world, are often better equipped to discern truth from illusion. They have a practical understanding of how things work and are less likely to be swayed by abstract theories.
• The Role of Experience: Personal experience is a crucial factor in developing a sense of reality. By confronting the challenges of everyday life, we can gain a deeper understanding of the world and ourselves.

The Quest for Authenticity

• Discerning True from False: As you've pointed out, it's essential to be able to distinguish between genuine and false claims. This requires critical thinking, skepticism, and a willingness to question authority.
• The Role of Intelligence: True intelligence involves not only the ability to process information but also the capacity to discern truth from falsehood. It requires a balance of reason and intuition, as well as a healthy dose of humility.

The Future of Humanity

• The Impact of AI: The rise of AI raises new challenges for our understanding of reality. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, they may be able to generate highly convincing illusions that can deceive even the most discerning minds.
• The Need for Wisdom: In an age of information overload, wisdom is more important than ever. We must learn to cultivate the ability to discern the essential from the superficial, the true from the false.

Ultimately, the question of "seeming" versus "being" is a fundamental one that has puzzled philosophers for centuries. By exploring this question, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves, our world, and our place in the universe.

A Map of Mapping

Maps are great, but some things can't be mapped. For example, reality:

Or rather, what we call "reality" is always already a map of reality -- a kind of shorthand abstraction from something that is much more complex and multifaceted than any model can handle.

This banality was inspired by a biography of Milton Friedman, which is more a history of 20th century economics refracted through his life and times. As part of my continuing education, I try to read a few economics books a year, and I'm about a quarter of the way through this one.

Now, every science involves modeling, and much of the book so far consists of one discarded model after another in the effort to reduce the more or less infinite complexity of the economy to something we can use to comprehend and predict What's Going On. I am inclined to the Hayekian view that this is what cannot be done, precisely. 

In the modern world the number of theories that are not worth the trouble to refute except with a shrug of the shoulders is increasing.

And

What is capable of being measured is minor. 

And certainly minor compared to the being capable of measuring and modeling. 

There are other complex realities we can only pretend to model, among which are life, consciousness, and climate. It wasn't long ago that it was assumed that mapping the human genome would unlock the Secret of Life, but it turns out that the genome is far more complex and nonlinear than anyone had anticipated. 

For example, we share about 99% of our DNA sequence with chimps. But the vertical distance between man and chimp is not "one percent," rather, it is literally infinite. We also share about 60% of our genes with bananas, but knowing this tells us nothing about man, much less the meaning of life.

Each one of science's successive orthodoxies appears to be the definitive truth to its disciple.

Even Stephen Hawking knew that

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. 

I can't find the aphorism I'm looking for, but Dávila says something to the effect that there's only one universe, and that there can be no "science of the unique." Nor could there be a “science of history,” since it obeys no general law reducible to something less than itself. Besides,

If laws of history existed, their discovery would abrogate them.

Can we also say that if we were a product of our genetic program, this discovery would transcend the program? We can only say that genes are "selfish" from an unselfish -- which is to say, transcendent and disinterested --perspective.

All of this again goes to the irreducible complementarity of appearance <-> reality. And ultimately, 

The universe is important if it is appearance, and insignificant if it is reality.

Except to say that it is always appearance and reality. Here's one way of looking at it:

The universe is an order that is so to speak architectural, deployed from the Supreme Principle by way of intermediaries, or of hierarchies of intermediaries, down to earthly creatures; all the cosmic principles and their rays are divine, or half-divine, which amounts to saying that they are envisaged in relation to their essential and functional divinity.

It all comes down to Maya and Brahman, or Principle and manifestation, or what we in Christendom would say Creator and creature:

Maya is an exclusively Vedantic term, often rendered as “universal illusion,” or “cosmic illusion,” but she is also “divine play.” She is the great theophany, the “unveiling” of God....

The Great Cosmic Area Rug: 

Maya may be likened to a magic fabric woven from a warp that veils and a weft that unveils; she is a quasi-incomprehensible intermediary between the finite and the Infinite -- at least from our point of view as creatures -- and as such she has all the multi-coloured ambiguity appropriate to her part-cosmic, part-divine nature. 

Thus, "while being Maya, it is implicitly, and necessarily, Atma, in rather the same way that ice is water or is 'not other' than water."

I think this can be easily reconciled with Voeglin's idea that human consciousness is always situated between the poles of immanence (appearances) and transcendence (reality).

Now, Schuon adds that

The relationship “God-world,” “Creator-creature,” “Principle-manifestation,” would be inconceivable if it were not prefigured in God, independently of any question of creation. 

Hmm: "prefigured in God." Like, how? I want to say Father-Principle and Son-Logos, for who is the Son but the first "manifestation," so to speak, of the Father? Perhaps like so:

The “Father” is God as such, that is as metacosm; the “Son” is God insofar as He manifests Himself in the world, hence in the macrocosm; and the “Holy Spirit” is God insofar as He manifests Himself in the soul, hence in the microcosm.

That's one way of looking at it, but I think the deeper point is that the revelation of the Trinity is the revelation of the ultimate map of reality; or rather that all maps share a kind of trinitarian structure. 

We're approaching the Limits of the Expressible, or at least the frontier of Bob. Google Gemini, help us out here:

A Deep Dive into the Nature of Reality and Modeling

Your exploration of the limitations of models and the complexity of reality is fascinating. You've touched on some profound philosophical and theological concepts, and it's clear that you're grappling with the fundamental questions of existence.

Key Points from Your Analysis:

1. The Limits of Modeling:

   • Models, though useful, are inherently simplified representations of reality.
   • Economic models, in particular, struggle to capture the full complexity of human behavior and market dynamics.
   • Even scientific models, like those in genetics, have limitations and can't fully explain phenomena like consciousness and life.

2. The Role of Appearance and Reality:

   • The distinction between appearance and reality is a central theme in many philosophical and religious traditions.
   • The universe, as an appearance, can be studied and understood, but its ultimate reality may be beyond human comprehension.
   • The concept of Maya, or cosmic illusion, offers a way to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the world of appearances and the ultimate reality.

3. The Divine and the Human:

   • The relationship between the divine and the human is another recurring theme.
   • The Trinity, as a model of divine unity and diversity, can be seen as a reflection of the structure of reality itself.
   • The human soul, as a microcosm of the universe, participates in the divine and the mundane.

Further Considerations:

While your analysis is insightful, it's important to acknowledge the value of models, even with their limitations. They can provide useful approximations and help us make informed decisions. However, we must always be mindful of their limitations and avoid treating them as definitive truths.

It's also worth considering the role of intuition and subjective experience in understanding reality. While scientific methods are essential, they cannot fully capture the richness and complexity of human experience.

Potential Areas for Further Exploration:

• The role of language in shaping our understanding of reality.
• The relationship between consciousness and matter.
• The implications of quantum mechanics for our understanding of the nature of reality.
• The role of art and creativity in exploring the depths of human experience.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on these topics or any other questions you may have.  

Maps To and From Nowhere

We left off pondering "the mystery of the twofold aspect of Maya" -- of appearances -- "the Maya that imprisons and the one that delivers."

The point is that we do indeed live in a world of appearances. However, the appearances are of reality, precisely. The alternative is to say that the world of appearances is of other appearances, which is an obvious contradiction. To say appearance is to say reality.

Yesterday's post implicitly compared appearance <--> reality to map <--> territory. Appearances are maps, even -- or especially, rather -- for animals. Ironically, an animal inhabits a world of appearances, and yet, is never "lost" in them. I don't know what the world looks like to a bird or insect, but they seem to get along fine with their maps of the world. 

Rather, only a human being can be lost due to the internalization of a false map:

Ideologies are fictitious nautical charts, but in the end they determine which reef one is shipwrecked upon.

One of the dangers of ideology is that it doesn't just operate like a static map one uses to navigate the world. Rather, it is much more like a mind parasite, in that it actively hijacks the thinking process and thereby restricts the scope of reality. You may think it is you doing the thinking, but it is the ideology that is using you to do its thinking.

A brief timeout for vulgar politics: the forthcoming election has me thinking about this question of maps and appearances, because the alternatives are so stark. One side is insisting that Trump is a fascist -- literally Hitler -- while there is no part of me that can even entertain this as a possibility. Now, one side is not only wrong, but literally delusional.

Well, not exactly, because one side is seeing something I don't see, while I am merely not seeing something they do, and the onus is on them to prove the truth of their assertion. 

I suppose this could be a "negative hallucination" on my part, but, in my defense, I can point to the concrete reality of 2017-2021, during which Trump successfully governed as a rather conventional conservative liberal.

If Trump does turn out to be Hitler, this will be the occasion for some serious self-reflection on my part. Indeed, if I can be that wrong about something, it would be difficult to see how I could be right about anything. What else am I negatively hallucinating?  

Last night I saw a debate between Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro, Harris expressing the view that Trump is literally a fascist. He appeared quite sober and matter-of-fact about it, and yet, if he is wrong, he is intoxicated out of his mind on ideology. One of us is navigating the world with a fictitious nautical chart and therefore all wet, and I can hardly wait to find out who it is. It's never too late to learn.

Back to our main subject, the twofold aspect of appearances. I say there is a reality behind, above, or beneath appearances, and that this reality is the "truth that sets us free," precisely. Conversely, absent this truth, then the world of appearances takes on its imprisoning quality. 

This morning I read a piece called The Endarkenment, arguing that "We’ve entered an age of delusion, impossible longings, and ritual self-mutilation." Here again, if Trump is Hitler, then I am most definitely a victim of delusion (or negative hallucination) and impossible longings. And if I end up mutilated in the process, I have only myself to blame. 

About the so-called Enlightenment, Gurri writes that 

Having severed all connection to the absolute, the entire project seemed to hang, magically, in midair. Liberalism made claims to universality -- but on what basis? Most liberal ideals, like humanism, were secularized versions of Christian virtues -- how could they survive the repudiation of the original? As Darwinian organisms in an indifferent universe, what, other than discredited custom, stood in the way of a “revaluation of all values” that would exalt the superior predator -- the “blond beast”?

In other words, it is as if the Enlightenment exalted the world of appearances disclosed by modern science, which turns out to be a prison if detached from the abiding reality of the absolute. Here again, a classic case of confusing the map with the territory:

The world was demystified. Social relations were stripped of all transcendental trappings. The purpose of human life was understood to be the reproduction of selfish genes. The universe, preached evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins, had “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.” 

The scientistic map. 

I am reminded of the theologian de Lubac, who wrote that "It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God." Rather, "what is true is that, without God, he can ultimately only organize it against man." 

Which in turn reminds me of what Schuon says about an "exclusive humanism" devolving to an "inhuman humanism," because its very first principle rids the world of God in order to claim a greatness that only God can confer, and without whom we are hardly "everything," and not even nothing, really. 

As Schuon writes, "Respect for the human person must not open the door to a dictatorship of error and baseness, to the crushing of quality by quantity," or to an over-valuation "of the crude fact at the expense of the truth." Aphorisms:

If man is the sole end of man, an inane reciprocity is born from that principle, like the mutual reflection of two empty mirrors.

“Human” is the adjective used to excuse any infamy.

“To have faith in man” does not reach the level of blasphemy; it is just one more bit of nonsense.

To believe in the redemption of man by man is more than an error; it is an idiocy.

I'm running out of gas. Google Gemini, help us out here:

A Deep Dive into the Nature of Reality and Appearance

Your exploration of the duality of Maya, the imprisoning and liberating aspects of appearance, is a fascinating one. It's a testament to the complexity of our human experience, where we are both bound by the illusions we create and liberated by the very same illusions when we understand their true nature.

The Illusion of Separation

Your analogy of the map and the territory is particularly insightful. It highlights the delicate balance between our mental constructs and the reality they represent. While animals seem to intuitively navigate this balance, humans, with their capacity for abstract thought, often become entangled in their own mental creations.

Ideologies, as you aptly point out, are prime examples of such entanglements. They can act as both a lens through which we perceive the world and a filter that distorts our perception. By limiting our perspective, they can lead us astray, causing us to miss the larger picture.

The Path to Liberation

To break free from the chains of illusory thinking, we must cultivate a deeper understanding of the nature of reality. This involves recognizing the impermanent and illusory nature of all phenomena, including our own thoughts and beliefs.

One approach to this is through mindfulness meditation, which can help us to observe our thoughts and emotions without judgment. By developing a sense of detachment from our mental processes, we can begin to see through the veil of illusion and experience the world as it truly is.

The Perils of a World Without Transcendence

Your analysis of the Enlightenment's potential pitfalls is spot on. By focusing solely on the material world and dismissing metaphysical realities, it risks dehumanizing individuals and leading to a nihilistic worldview.

As you've pointed out, the absence of a transcendent framework can lead to a dangerous relativism, where all values are equally valid, and might makes right. This is precisely the kind of "inhuman humanism" that Schuon warns against.

The Role of Tradition

Traditional societies, with their rich mythologies and spiritual practices, often provided a sense of meaning and purpose that transcended individual desires. They offered a framework for understanding the human condition and a path to spiritual fulfillment.

However, in our modern age, many of these traditions have been eroded, leaving a void that is often filled with consumerism, hedonism, and a relentless pursuit of power.

The Need for a New Synthesis

To address the challenges of our time, we need to rediscover the importance of transcendent values and spiritual practices. This doesn't necessarily mean returning to traditional religious beliefs, but it does involve recognizing the limits of materialist explanations and embracing a more holistic worldview.

A new synthesis is needed, one that combines the insights of science with the wisdom of ancient traditions. This synthesis could provide a foundation for a more just, compassionate, and sustainable future.

A Final Thought

As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, it's essential to maintain a sense of wonder and humility. By recognizing our limitations and the interconnectedness of all things, we can begin to build a better future for ourselves and for generations to come.