Thursday, May 29, 2008

Vertical Man the Microcosm, Horizontal Man the Microchasm

I'm trying. Save. To remumble. Save. Yesterday's lost post. Save. But it's not. Save. That easy. Save.

For one thing, as always, I was in a sort of half-dream state when I wrote it, so not only do I have to remember the barmy content, but to try to re-enter the "state" from which it arose. But you can never really have the same dream twice, although the left never stops trying (no, that wasn't only gratuitous -- see here for details. This book has entered my list of foundational raccoomendations).

This is a G-rated blog, so I'll try to keep it clean, but let me just add that entering this fertile state sort of involves simultaneously penetrating and being penetrated. But there's a big payoff at the end.

Let me also add that the Boy is still recovering. His sleep has been disrupted, so he could wake up at any moment. That's not exactly conducive to sleeping in and out of my usual trilit hypnopomposity.

I know I started off yesterday with several quotes from The Spiritual Ascent, which always gets me "in the mood." If Mini-me should wake up prematurely and we lose contact, just meditate on these while repeating "there's no place like OM," and you'll get the point of the whole post. The rest is just commentary:

And do you say 'God is invisible'? Speak not so. Who is more manifest than God? For this very purpose has he made all things, that through all things you may see him. --Hermes

This world is verily an outer court of the Eternal... --Theologia Germanica

If you do not know the way, seek where his footprints are. --Rumi

There are many ways to prove the existence of God, but these come down to two broad categories, mysticism and intellection. The former involves union with the object (or Subject), while the latter involves a resonant symbolic understanding which fertilizes and "illuminates" the higher mind (i.e., the nous, buddhi, "psychic being," etc.), drawing us upward and inward to the very source of our understanding, which is none other than Truth itsoph.

You might say that science knows in order to understand, while intellection understands in order to know. But various misosophic pseudo-philosophies also engage in a caricature of the ladder, which, as we shall see, leads to the annoying paradorks of "false understanding," who are more rung than height, or dung than light.

Another way of saying this is that man, although mortal, may know the immortal; although he is relative, he may know the Absolute, because he shares the Absolute. Looked at one way, you could compare it to a venn diagram in which our crazy little bercircles intersect with the sanosphere of the Creator (a sphere "contains" an infinite number of circles, but can never be reduced to their sum). Or, you could say that our deepest center is the center of All, "the still point of the turning stomach," for those of you whom I make ill.

Now, importantly, this is something which the atheist believes no less than the theist. One of the reasons we know that Darwinism cannot be true, is that if it were, it could never account for how natural selection has produced beings capable of understanding the truth of their origins (as always, when I speak of "Darwinsim," I am referring to the simple-minded, reductionistic, all-explaining version; likewise, whenever I criticize science, I am not referring to the limited claims of the scientific method, but to the abject philosophistry of scientism).

Whenever someone uses their transcendent intelligence to dismiss intelligent design, don't even bother with them, because there's a bug in their design. Or, you could say that in their case, their little minds are indeed fully explained by natural selection, and leave it at that. For whatever reason, they simply lack the evolutionary accoutrement to transcend their genetic programming. But it takes all kinds to make a biosphere -- let alone psychosphere -- so we bear them no ill will except for when they try to force their silly two-dimensional religion on the rest of us.

For human beings, Truth is the sufficient reason of intelligence. In other words, our intelligence is ultimately a function of Truth; indeed, it is truth "prolonged" into the horizontal. If you invert this formulation and attempt to arrive at truth through purely Darwinian means, you simply cannot get there. Or, if you do, you have disproved your own Darwinian assumptions.

Likewise, if a physicist can comprehend the origin of the cosmos, the cosmos is "contained" within his comprehension, not vice versa. No equation can contain our conscious understanding, any more than an EEG can reveal the content of your mind, much less whether or not said content is true.

God may be known through the psycho-morphic resonance engendered through the archetypes of revelation. Again, we posit three broad categories of revelation, 1) the cosmos itself, or existence, 2) the human subject, or Man as Such, and 3) what is commonly known as "revelation," or direct divine-to-human murmurandoms. Being that these are always necessarily human, they will be subject to some degree of distortion, even if the distortion only exists on the receiving end. But the more we calibrate and cleanse our own instrument, the more we can see into it and get out of it.

Theists and atheists agree on at least one, and implicitly two, of the forms of revelation. For example, science begins with the assumption that the cosmos reveals its own truth to human beings. Oddly, most of them do not take the next logical step, and realize that Man as Such is the key to the cosmos, or the Whole Existentialada. But obviously he is, so long as he is capable of understanding and therefore transcending its appearances with Real knowledge.

What is commonly called "revelation" simply fleshes out the implication that man is a both a bridge to, and symbol of, the divine reality. Man alone traverses all of the degrees of creation, at least in potential. In this regard, he is an inverse image of God, in that you might say that God is an empty fullness, while man is a full emptiness. Thus, both are potentially inexhaustible, only our emptiness is dependent upon God to fill it. Or, to put it another way, God and man "kenotically" fulfill one another: God empties his fullness into man, and man fills his emptiness with God.

Into the blisstic mystic, no you or I, nor reason wise, a boundless sea of flaming light, bright blazing fire and ecstatic cinders, Shiva, me tinders, count the stars in your eyes. Fulfilled, filledfull, what a shakti ma system!

You see, mathematical symbols are not exactly like archetypal religious mythsemantical symbols, in that the latter are simultaneously more precise and inexact. As Guenon explains, "It is the function of symbols to be the support for the for conceptions where the possibilities of extension are truly unlimited, while all expression is itself but a symbol; therefore one must always make allowance for that part which is inexpressible, and which in the realm of pure metaphysics is precisely that which most matters."

Do you see the dilemma? We are using symbols to precisely express that which transcends precision, which is why we can express this fulsome truth in such a rich diversity of ways, including my last 973 posts. All emanate from the one truth, except that truth is refracted through various layers and modalities before it comes out in the form of a post. On a good day, it is like a magnifying glass, which gathers the rays of the sun and creates a beam of intense light that can set fire to an insect or troll.

Right?

Right.

So man is either the hypermeaningful microcosm or a meaningless microchasm; he either contains the cosmos within his understanding, or he is an abyss of ultimate ignorance and a chasm of existential naughtiness -- a nihilistic bridge from nowhere to nothing, because the bridge only goes out but not up.

As a matter of fact, man is indeed a circular bridge from nothing to Nothing, as I attempted to non-verbally explayn in my book, through its circular form. At the end of the deity, we are the nothing-everything that is the source of the whole he & shebang. For as Sri Aurobindo wrote, our ultimate state "is a zero which is All or an indefinable Infinite which appears to the mind a blank, because mind grasps only finite constructions." This is why perceptive readers will have noticed that my posts are always shooting at blanks.

There is a rounding out of the circle in which the beginning and end, the primal Origin of creation and the ultimate Consummation of the creative process, meet and touch in Christ... --Josef Pieper

...[T]here is something even beyond this Word. It is the silent vastness out of which everything, even the Word, arises. It neither exists nor does not exist. --Richard Smoley, author of Inner Christianity & A Blurb for Bob

28 Comments:

Blogger Robin Starfish said...

Saving is an age-old problem.

Writer's Block
inkpot has run dry
right brain unheard by the left
humming mud daubers

5/29/2008 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

"...we know that Darwinism cannot be true... if it were, it could never account for how natural selection has produced beings capable of understanding the truth of their origins..."

Okay, that case is going to need to be fleshed out for me instead of baldly asserted. Which of the 900+ previous posts addresses that specifically, or is there an upcoming one that will do so?

(It sounds reminiscent of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, which I have problems with.)

5/29/2008 11:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Can't you read? The post clearly said that that statement doesn't apply to your kind.

5/29/2008 11:49:00 AM  
Anonymous A. Tree said...

Forest? What forest?

5/29/2008 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Sure, assume that anyone who disagrees with you does it solely from base motives. That's worked out so well for so many people in the past, I can see why you'd want to continue it.

All the critters are not trolls...

5/29/2008 12:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Some people won't take yes for an answer. We agree with you that your mind is fully explained by natural selection. No one said anything about "base motivations."

5/29/2008 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Jesus saves.

By the way, I do hope Future Leader is better soon. Nothing is worse than a little one being sick.

Ray, as I read the post I was thinking of you. I was thinking, 'Now here's where Ray will pull out his EAAN link.' Not that I'm saying you are predictable or anything. I do like to read your stuff.

The easiest thing to do is just re-read this post a few times. Everything is in there that you need to know. Think of the patterns in the random dots -- as Bob says, he is "always shooting at blanks".

5/29/2008 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Mushroom - the physics of the driven pendulum we discussed before is entirely two-dimensional... but the behavior displays three-dimensional organization.

That's where people have trouble with 'reductionism', I think. They think it denies the behavior, that it denies the possibility of the amazing things people are capable of. It doesn't. It doesn't degrade humans to think they are on one level processes, it ennobles process to think they are capable of being human.

That's how I see the statement I quoted above. It's like denying that a pendulum could display three-dimensional organization from two-dimensional physics. If there's a post in the archives that addresses that more specifically, by all means point me to it.

5/29/2008 03:26:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Ray the Process - Whatever might be the "amazing things people are capable of", if there is nothing that transcends space and time (God), they're really not so amazing after all, are they? Amazing relative to what?

5/29/2008 03:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing because we're created in the image and likeness of God.

5/29/2008 06:22:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

No, my problem with reductionism is not that it denies anything. It doesn't explain anything. So DNA helps us understand cellular reproduction better. It makes more sense, but it doesn't explain anything in the basic sense. Modern atomic theory is better than ancient Greek atomic theory because we know about smaller pieces? You miss the point. Reductionism says if you can see the mechanism, there is no mystery. I say to see the mechanism is to see the Mechanic.

5/29/2008 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well to see the mechanic is an unnecessary step. Assuming the mechanic's not there, would there be a need for him to be? If he's not around to fix it, does that mean we should just let it break down?

5/30/2008 04:28:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Mushroom,
I’m with you.

I brought my old grey mare in for realignment about a year ago. I was keeping it between the ditches well enough. I thought so anyway. But not Him. Said it was overdue. Amazing thing about it was I didn’t even make an appointment. And He makes house calls. How great is that. Anyway, He got me pointed again. Wow, it was way off – you sort of get used to the way things work. Lot better now. Funny thing is He sort of looks like Charles Bronson. Haven’t really figured that part out yet though, not that it matters. I’ll bet you’ve seen him.

Btw, I liked “the one that squeals is the one you hit” from the other day. I’ve seen this work since, very recently as a matter of fact. A keeper.

5/30/2008 05:08:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Petey,

Speaking of old gray mares, if you accidentally “rear kick” a troll does it increase your carbon shoeprint?

5/30/2008 05:18:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Ricky said "Speaking of old gray mares, if you accidentally “rear kick” a troll does it increase your carbon shoeprint?"

Nay, just your sense of satisfaction.

5/30/2008 05:27:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Mushroom - In the sense you seem to be using, how does a Mechanic 'explain' anything?

5/30/2008 05:55:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

Nomo - amazing relative to basically everything else we've seen. Amazing enough to comprehend (at least a good chunk of) our own origins.

Of course, relative to an infinite, incomprehensible God, nothing else could be amazing at all, right? A googol's just as far from infinity as zero...

5/30/2008 06:08:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Again, we posit three broad categories of revelation, 1) the cosmos itself, or existence, 2) the human subject, or Man as Such, and 3) what is commonly known as "revelation," or direct divine-to-human murmurandoms."

Murmurandom to Self:
Quit playin' with your ego and listen up!
Good one, Bob! Murmurandom is another Oddition to the OCUG Trictionary! :^)

5/30/2008 06:26:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Whenever someone uses their transcendent intelligence to dismiss intelligent design, don't even bother with them, because there's a bug in their design."

Great stuff! Ha ha! Scientismists don't even get the joke! They think the bug belongs in their design...I mean absolute random selection...doh! Did I say absolute? I mean totally relative randumness. Damn it! I can't say totally.
How do scientismists communicate?
No wonder they so messed up.
Woof!

5/30/2008 06:32:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Or, to put it another way, God and man "kenotically" fulfill one another: God empties his fullness into man, and man fills his emptiness with God."

Ladies and gentlemen! We have a really big O for you! Todays kenote speaker is: God! :^)

Stand-up cosmology by: Gagdad Bob! :^)

We hope you enjoy the O!

5/30/2008 06:42:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

That's good, Rick. Yes, Charles Bronson -- more Magnificent Seven than Death Wish, perhaps, but yes.

Glad to be of some benefit.

Ray, in the sense that you seems to be using it, I'm not interested in explanations.

In fact, in the sense that I use it, I got most of the explanation I need right here, in John 7:16,17 -- "My teaching isn't Mine, but it is the One who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he will understand whether the teaching is from God or if I am speaking on My own." Jesus speaking, of course, and the key phrase is "if anyone wants to do His will".

Faith comes by hearing, we are told. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.

The Truth is not a fact, a theory, or an equation. The Truth is a Person. "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Although we used the term Mechanic it was mainly a play on words. As someone once said, the universe looks more like a great thought than a great machine. Infinity (I prefer the more traditional word eternity), if it is anywhere, is in your heart.

5/30/2008 06:47:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

And now the newest theory that explains everything: Null physics.
http://www.nullphysics.com/

Did you know there wasn't a big bang? Did you know the universe is finite and not expanding?

That's what these folks claim.
And they say they can "prove" it "empirically!"

Well, if it's empirically proven...what can possibly be wrong with it?

Heh.

5/30/2008 07:03:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"You see, mathematical symbols are not exactly like archetypal religious mythsemantical symbols, in that the latter are simultaneously more precise and inexact."

Mythsemantical! The new math! Yet another word full of...um...depth n' meaning...and um...symbology.

Of course, some might say it's just semantics, but Bobviously it's much more than that when you thinker with it. :^)

5/30/2008 07:09:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

BTW, for any of you who like to share scripture, here is a very solid and accessible (and inexpensive) little book I discovered recently...with minimum "Jesus willies".

5/30/2008 07:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thought and thing are one in the thinker, so understanding depends on what the thinker is like.

But loved and lover are one in the loved, so love depends on what the loved is like.

The mind takes in, but the heart goes out, so if you're asking to understand this, you're doing it wrong.

So WANT to do his will first (ie love Him), then you will come to understand.

"B-b-b-but, how can I want if I can't see it first?" You can't. That's a grace for you to pray to want to want it. God will Provide for you, you blind little pathetic thing! Just trust. I know that's hard for you. But you can't want whatever you want, as Lawrence of Arabia said.

Credo ut intellegam.

5/30/2008 07:40:00 AM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

RE: Explanations

There are five questions (basically.)

What, Where, When, How and Why.

How is the realm of science; All of the 'W's require something transcendent to compare to.

For instance, 'What Am I?' Typically explained in terms of how you come about (i.e. you're a mass of cells or some such) but what is asking, what am I that makes me specifically what I am?

Then also: 'Where Am I?' We can only attain relative answers (like with What) when we use nothing more than material explanations. It can never ask, what is beyond what's beyond the beyond? Where are we REALLY?

Again, 'Who Am I?' Who is tough, because materialism cannot really distinguish 'who' from 'what', for we are both an object (what) and a subject (who). To know this one you have to have some kind of transcendent understanding or explanation.

And Why? Materially this answer is always falsely given in terms of 'How'. 'Why do I exist?' 'Because your mother gave birth to you.' No, that's How I came into this existence. Closer would be, 'Because humans are able to reproduce.' But why is that? Why leads back to God, or to an infinite regression of turtles.

5/30/2008 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Ray Ingles said...

River - "We don't know - yet - but here's as far as we've gotten," is always an available answer to such questions. Scientists always put error bars on their graphs, yet they get accused of wanting absolute certainty about all things...

5/30/2008 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger Ian said...

"And now the newest theory that explains everything: Null physics.
http://www.nullphysics.com/

Did you know there wasn't a big bang? Did you know the universe is finite and not expanding?

That's what these folks claim.
And they say they can "prove" it "empirically!"

Well, if it's empirically proven...what can possibly be wrong with it?

Heh"
See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist:
http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Nul...cs_Review.html

Also see my review at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html


The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.

Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.

11/17/2008 05:52:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home