Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Liberal Emotiology: I Feel, Therefore I Am (and You Must, Or Else)

It is clearly not possible to even begin to think about the world in the absence of the category "transcendence." The moment one thinks, one has already transcended the world, or rather, realized that the world consists of more than its physical constituents. Although science is literally inconceivable without transcendence, it can never account for it. Rather, transcendence is a necessary condition for the practice of science. Ultimately, no God no science, but that's the subject for a different post.

"For example," writes Spitzer, "the laws of physics described by standard equations... cannot be identified by direct observation or standard scientific instruments or tests." So, where are they? We know them by their effects, but we can never perceive the thing itself.

I suppose the strangest and most surprising thing of all is that these transcendent laws are intelligible to our own transcendent consciousness, *almost* as if they were made for each other. Einstein famously observed that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe was its comprehensibility.

We can compare this to how our senses work. Obviously our senses are proportioned to the environment they sense. To paraphrase Einstein, we might say that the most non-sensical thing about the world is that it can be sensed. Nevertheless, our senses interiorize a world that is exterior to us, as does our consciousness. Just as our senses are made for the physical world, our consciousness is made for a transcendent one (without excluding the physical).

I suppose I first encountered these ideas in Ken Wilber's Eye to Eye back in the early '80s. Humans have three "eyes," the eye of the senses, the eye of reason, and the eye of spirit. Even the tenured are forced to recognize the first two in some form or fashion, but seem to know nothing of the third.

But consistent with what we said yesterday, just because we ignore the third eye, it doesn't mean it stops "seeing." By way of analogy, there are certain people who are physically blind, and yet, will flinch if you take a swing at them. Something in them still "sees," except that the seeing isn't conscious. One of the purposes -- or outcomes at any rate -- of the spiritual life is to train the third eye, so that it can become familiar and comfortable in the spirit-realm. Notice, for example, how the spiritually untutored -- Bill Maher comes to mind -- simply ridicule what they cannot perceive. How easy is that?

And yet, they do perceive it. Or better, the perceptual apparatus is still there, but not seeing what it should. We all perceive higher values. Where did Bill Maher get his? From reason? No, because again, reason cannot furnish its own materials. Probably he derives them from his feelings, which is not generally a good idea. I mean, feelings should be consulted, or at least not ignored, but they should never be dispositive.

This is one of the main characteristics of the left, that they replace thinking with feeling. To the extent that they deploy their third eye, it simply ratifies what they feel about this or that, conferring upon it the familiar arrogance and self-righteousness. This is a kind of master key to understanding the preoccupations of the left, and how they transform the subrational to the transnational. Then their own feelings acquire a kind of omnipotent authority to which they are in no way entitled.

Think, for example, of their attitude toward the redefinition of marriage, or envy of the rich, or global warming. Because they consult only their feelings, and their feelings are imbued with a kind of bogus omnipotence via an absence of higher reflection, mere sentiment is transformed into a categorical imperative. Then, the person who denies the imperative -- that would be us -- is rendered evil. Yes, it is evil to transgress genuine moral imperatives. The left just substitutes the real ones with their feelings.

Back to how the higher fields of transcendence might operate. Spitzer writes that "they could exist in the same way as physical laws and constants -- as determinative information in the universe as a whole." This information "is not a thing, but rather, a controlling influence on things" and their relations.

In the past, I have used the example of how language works (probably borrowed from Polanyi). There are 26 letter of the alphabet which may be combined in certain ways to create words. The purpose of letters cannot be found in themselves; rather, they can only be understood with regard to what they converge upon, i.e., words.

The same relation applies to words and sentences, sentences and paragraphs, paragraphs and blog post, blog post and ... well, it depends. In most cases, the post is converging upon O. We are trying to aim language at higher realities -- not realities disclosed by the senses or by mere reason, but those realities disclosed by a proper awakening and discipline of the third eye.

The really shocking thing is that from the moment of the Big Bang, the universe is implicate with innumerable information fields that will only be explicated much later.

For example, the laws of physics were (are) buried in there, as was mathematics, life, mind, all of it. This is why I came up with the idea -- at least I think I did, because I've never really heard anyone else explain it quite this way -- that when merely biological homos became human, they specifically entered a "human space," so to speak, that pre-exists us. Life is the exploration and colonization of this space.

Think of Jesus' ungrammatical crack that "Before Abraham was, I AM." There is definitely something similar going on with all humans, which is why Plato was correct that the most important things involve vertical recollection, or what he calls anamnesis. Much of scripture is understood in this way, as in, "oh yeah, I remember paradise!" Or. "I remember escaping from slavery," or "I remember driving in that nail at the Crucifixion," etc.


Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

As Ace writes this morning, "Obama has one mode, and that mode is contemptuous condescension. He is a deeply mediocre man who has confused himself for a world-beating intellect, and cannot lower himself to speak to people whose IQ and insight actually exceed his own."

Third Eye Blind.

7/27/2016 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

This is one of the main characteristics of the left, that they replace thinking with feeling. To the extent that they deploy their third eye, it simply ratifies what they feel about this or that, conferring upon it the familiar arrogance and self-righteousness.

This is neatly encrapsulated in a formula trotted out by a millenial speaker at the DNC earlier this week: "Don't yuck my yum!"

7/27/2016 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Don't yuck my yum must be the infantile feeling behind political correctness, microaggressions, leftist revisionist history, etc. It also suggests that it is rooted in Freud's primitive oral stage, which has some interesting implications, or at least good insultainment potential.

7/27/2016 10:38:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Among other things, an arrested oral stage results in a lot of binary primitive aggression, i.e., devour or be devoured.

7/27/2016 10:41:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Hitler was certainly that way. There was no in between.

7/27/2016 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

File under:
Wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove.

7/27/2016 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Even the tenured are forced to recognize the first two in some form or fashion, but seem to know nothing of the third.

I don't know. Seems like they spend a lot of time telling us not to believe our lyin' eyes, as they lionize the jackals.

I was told Bill Clinton did a great job and "got Hillary elected" last night. But I learned from Lewis that a jackass wearing a lion's coat is still a jackass.

7/27/2016 11:33:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7/27/2016 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Mushroom --

Clinton is only effective for LoFo's who know nothing about the man -- or who want to pretend they know nothing. I mean, if Hillary is so great and he loves her so much, why can't he help cheating on her? People vote with their feet. Clinton votes with his willie.

7/27/2016 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

True. The person who told me that said that Bill and Hill really have something. I said it's the fact a spouse can't be forced to testify.

7/27/2016 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger ge said...

The most comprehensible thing about the universe is its incomprehensibility, anyone?
-[mind's] incomprehensible given [whup there it is!] magnificence perfection and joy i say!

7/28/2016 07:21:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...


Yes, indeed :D

7/28/2016 08:39:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home