Sunday, December 05, 2021

I Renounce Brandon & All His Jerks

The previous post alluded to "Satan's limits." As a youngster I heard over and over on the radio that even the Devil is in need of some restraint, so we should just call him Lucifer. But I never really thought about it. I just liked the song.

As far as metaphysical principles go, to the extent that the Good exists -- and it does -- then we have to concede that evil is built into the cosmic cake. This orthoparadox is both disappointing and perfectly understandable -- like saying evil cannot not be and you cannot participate in it. Or, offenses must surely come, but wo, dude! to the guy or gal through whom the offense comes.

Still, the basic point isn't beyond our grasp: only God is good and this ain't Heaven, so evil is the price we pay for being creatures living in a subcelestial creation: original sin and all that.

But when someone personalizes this principle -- or inevitability, if you prefer -- now we don't know whether to take it as a myth, bearing in mind, of course, that myth isn't synonymous with false, much less a lie.

Rather, myth is here to teach us something that is true, has always been true, and will always be true about the human adventure. It is a true story that never happened, but which happens every time, e.g., Genesis, Exodus, Flood, etc. Just because it didn't happen that way doesn't mean it doesn't always happen that way

Interesting that Satan makes his first appearance right there at the genesis of things. Or at least a few paragraphs down. For it means that man was aware of his presence within moments of becoming man. 

By the conclusion of Genesis 1 it's still All Good, indeed, Very Good. But then midway into Genesis 2, evil makes its first inconspicuous appearance, albeit as a mere possibility ("the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"). But everything is still good so long as we steer clear of the latter. No worries.

Just after that an ambiguity enters the narrative. It's not evil, just not ideal, i.e., not good, in reference to our being all alone. This I think is a hint about God's own trinitarian nature, because God is both One but never allone, i.e, a radical monad. So if we are to be the Image and Likeness, we need a coequal helpmeet made of the same substance, which is to say, an irreducible substance-in-relation. Is God just ribbing us? Yes and no.

By the way, while all this is going on -- as God is finetuning his most theomorphic creature -- man gets to name everything. Among other things, this proves the falsehood of nominalism, deconstruction, and postmodernity. Put conversely, it vouchsafes the metaphysics of realism, transcendence, and cosmic order. There are things and names for things. It's not all in our heads, and reality isn't just perception.  

Things go south quickly in the next chapter. Interestingly, the last word of Genesis 2 is ashamed, but it's still in the context of goodness, so it's good to be capable of shame. Which is why it is bad to be a shameless progressive.

But just three words later the Serpent makes its appearance on the stage of cosmic mythtery. In other words, evil is now personified, or at least ssssquamatified. 

What the heck?

No, I mean, what the heck, just as things are about to get interesting, I have to get ready to leave!

Let's wrap this up with some preliminary bobservations. First, Satan is depicted as an ironic fellow, but it is important to emphasize that irony itself isn't necessarily satanic, but that Satan's irony has a superficially cynical, seductive, and deceptive edge to it -- for example

Just as every cop is a criminal / And all the sinners saints  

While this sounds sophisticated to progressive sensibilities, it is so deeply stupid that even Bill Maher no longer sympathizes with it. That verse continues with 

As heads is tails / Just call me Lucifer / 'Cause I'm in need of some restraint

A sophisticated cynic might say that one man's heads is another man's tails, and vice versa: one man's vice is another man's virtue. 

To put it in more abstract and conceptual terms, it would seem that authoritarian absolutism masquerading as a pseudo-generous & openminded relativism is the basis of every satanic ideology, or at least CHANGE MY MIND. Unless you are a troll, in which case your very existence proves my point. 

This conveniently brings us back round to some recent notes to myself which I would like to clear from the desk. They touch on the subject of Satan, or are at least close enough for rock & roll. I'll just reproduce these first notes below and try to explain later what they might mean, if anything: 

Hydraheadedness of Satan; each head is an -ism, each hand a non-STEM department, discipline, cable news station, or center of power. 

Regarding the latter, we can see how important it was for the founders to divide power against itself -- and conversely, why it is so important for the left to reunify it via court-packing, the politicization of Justice, the state-media complex that transforms the means of information into a mechanism of threat and coercion, or Education into Big Indoctrination. 

Each must be the counterfeit of something real & untarnished by pettiness, pseudo-omniscience, the will to power & other deformities of the spirit.

relativism, materialism, empiricism, positivism, naturalism, feminism, humanismreductionism, racism...

Every Ism is a declaration of independence from the Whole, even though it only exists as a consequence of it -- like the Son declaring independence from the Father, the ultimate engenderation gap.  

 Weird way to end, but it can't be helped. I'm out.

Thursday, December 02, 2021

Satan' s Limits

I recently rereread Schuon's last book of essays, The Transfiguration of Man (after that he published only poems). 

It's more of the same, although generally more compact, which is understandable, being that it is backed by lifetime spent thinking about these subjects, including all the Big Ones, e.g., God, Man, Truth, Thought, Art, Virtue, Sacrifice, Mysticism, etc. The book itself is short (125 pages) and some of the essays are a page or less. 

As always, Schuon expresses alarm at the degraded state of Man, in particular, the effect of the Modern World. But the latter is just an effect of man, one of his dreadful -- or, to be charitable, ambiguous -- possibilities. Predictably, human nature is full of surprises, but surprisingly, these are wearily predictable. 

This, from the Foreword, is a key point:

The image of man presented to us by modern psychology is not only fragmentary, it is pitiable (emphasis mine).

Being that psychology used to be my racket, I can confirm the truth of this statement. The fragmentation isn't a bug but a feature; this defect has been transformed -- transfigured if you will -- to a virtue. Somehow, the discipline of psychology distinguishes the psyche from every other organ, insisting that it has no formal telos, i.e., no objective end.

It would be as if we could no longer define a normal heart, and instead maintain that pathologies such as hypertension, arrhythmia, atherosclerosis, cardiomegaly, stenosis, etc. were all just different and equally precious forms of normality. 

This intrinsically heretical fragmentation of man goes by the name "diversity" -- or multiculturalism, "inclusion," "tolerance," equity, etc. 

In addition to meaning what they mean, even worse, these terms mean the opposite of what they mean. Ultimately they mean whatever the liberal wants them to mean, so "tolerance," for example, means both state-sponsored Drag Queen Story Time and a state-sponsored ban on conservative speakers on campus. It amounts to obligatory craziness, accompanied by the marginalization and persecution of normality.

Yes, human nature always disappoints, but I think it needs help from below in order to disappoint this badly. 

It reminds me of something Rob Henderson said about our genetic predilections. These might be necessary but are not sufficient conditions, for example, vis-a-vis criminality. Criminality is undoubtedly genetically loaded, and yet, most would-be criminals will exert remarkable self-control in the presence of a police officer.  

You've probably noticed that neither the left nor Satan respect formal logic -- or, they obey it to the letter. Regarding the latter, recall Chesterton's gag about the madman having lost everything except his reason. Thus, it is difficult to say if St. Fauci is merely a madman or in the grips of someone worse.

It's the same with regard to the law, which is why the QAnon Shaman gets 41 months in prison for wandering around the capitol building, while the worst among us, from Darrell brooks to George Floyd to to Kyle Rosenbaum to Hunter Biden to Barack Obama, run loose. 

As to ignoring logic altogether, this is the ultimate source of the left's ubiquitous "hypocrisy." One can point to their hypocrisy all day long long, but it is wholly ineffective and beside the point -- the point being that they are ultimately motivated by power, not by truth, standards, merit, logic, consistency, order, decency, or objectivity, so of course their logic, such as it is, will be subordinated to expediency. 

They can of course be "intelligent," but you will have noticed that their intelligence is always an accomplice of something less. In a properly human world, nothing is more privileged than truth, so this makes them anti-human at best.

This came up yesterday in the Supreme Court. Obviously, Roe v. Wade is no more logical than Dred Scot v. Sandford, and one will search in vain for any principle underlying these judicial... abortions, much less a constitutional one. The exorcist Clarence Thomas, in the role of Supreme Court justice, asked the Devil's Advocate a simple question:

"Would you specifically tell me, specifically state what the right is, is it specifically abortion? Is it a liberty? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?” Thomas asked.

"[I]t is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term,” one of the lawyers challenging the Mississippi law said.

"[I]f we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment I know what we’re talking about because it’s written there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”

“It’s the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with a pregnancy.”

Similarly, the Dred Scott case hinged on the right of the slaveowner to exercise control over his property. Just as Sandford owned Scott, the mother owns her child.

When did my mother stop owning me? I don't know. Probably when Dred Scot was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments. 

In a recent newsletter on the nature of evil, Rob Henderson writes that 

Evil begins when someone crosses a moral line. Therefore, anything that makes the line fuzzy or unclear can promote evil.

In this regard, "ambiguity is a key factor in the escalation of violent acts," and "is centrally involved in getting someone started in harming others."

Ambiguous, like a constitutional right to do anything one wants with one's body. Islamists would like to blow up their bodies in public. Some pregnant woman would like to put fentanyl in their bodies, but this isn't allowed. By virtue of what principle? 

"Dangerous ambiguities can become apparent in the absence of clear laws," adds Henderson. "For instance, we in America take our Constitution and laws for granted. In the Soviet Union, judges operated without clear or explicit laws."

Yes, the Soviet Union had a living constitution, good and hard. But if the constitution is alive, then the rule of law is dead. Besides, it's not the constitution that's alive, rather, the scheming minds who will read into it what they need in order to justify the exercise of power.

Here is a note to myself that says -- and I don't know how I would know this, but here it is anyway --
Fortunately, there is not only spiritual warfare between good and evil, but within evil itself.  

This is apparently because evil must be subordinated to its own principle of fragmentation. It explains why the office of the Vice President is in such disarray.

I have to drop off the boy somewhere, so to be continued. I'll leave off with a few tweets from Happy Acres Guy that pushed me down this rabbit hole:

The incoherence we see around us is the direct consequence of multiculturalism (aka no culture)

Be assured that this madness will change -- progs in their restlessness tire quickly of things; tomorrow they could be saying the opposite

The Left pattern of denouncing money while demanding more money has always caught my eye

The Left doesn't know what it wants, believe it or not

(https://twitter.com/HappyHectares?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1230904238407991296&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Famericandigest.org%2Flinkskrieg-politicians-price-tags-and-the-great-black-nope%2F)

Wednesday, December 01, 2021

Post-postmodernism

We didn't get very far in the desk-clearing exercise, did we? So let's bear down and try to tie up some loose bleeping ends.

What could this note to myself mean?

Just say reality and appearances, and draw the implications therefrom.

I think I know: both are grounded in a principle: in the Absolute and Infinite, respectively. Reality is one but appearances are many, because of the intrinsic Infinitude of the Absolute. 

More generally, to say "appearances" is to say "reality," and vice versa

A dog, for example, dwells in a sensorium of instinct-bound appearances, but knows nothing of this -- i.e., that appearances are but the vehicle and veil of something deeper and/or higher. The dog does not say to itself: it looks like A, but on a deeper level it is really an instantiation of B

To say, with our postmodern fiends, that "perception is reality" is to say, 1) that appearances are reality rather than of reality. Thus, they are literally stupider than our canine friends, because at least dogs don't grant each other tenure and Pulitzers for barking at shadows and calling them an "insurrection" or "Russian collusion."

Come to think of it, postmodernists have given postmodernism a bad name. For example, Michael Polanyi is one of my favorite philosophers, and he retains the good things about postmodernism while ignoring all the pratfalls.

What do I even mean by this, and do I really want to write a whole post about it? Might that not require some actual work? Here, this guy seems to understand exactly what I mean, and he's already done the hefty riffing: https://isi.org/intercollegiate-review/beyond-post-modernism-via-polanyis-post-critical-philosophy/

Virtually the entire body of philosophical work by Michael Polanyi was published prior to the emergence of postmodernism. As much of Polanyi’s work was devoted to criticism of some of the most fundamental assumptions at work in modern intellectual culture, it would seem reasonable to locate Polanyi as postmodernist or allied with postmodernism in some sense of the word....

Though he did not live long enough to be exposed to and become acquainted with the principal expressions of postmodernism, Polanyi’s work properly understood is, I believe, directly addressed to the core issues at stake. I think that Polanyi’s coinage of the term “post-critical” is an extraordinarily apt designation of what can move us beyond the dead ends and stalemates of post-modernism.  

Don't ask me how that reversal happened. This is key: the writer correctly alludes to a constructive postmodernism and a destructive one. Here at One Cosmos, for example, we are very much in the former camp, which is precisely why we are at times so bleeping campy.

But (ob)noxious postmodernism is like catabolism with no anabolism, i.e., pure destructiveness -- like the Biden administration. Resident Biden himself is nobody nowhere, the appearance of a deeper reality; we're talking about whoever it is that is actually pulling the strings and causing all the damage to the economy, the border, education, law and order, supply chains, election integrity, race relations, ad nauseam). 

I suppose we could say that Polanyi rescues us from postmodern idiocy, not by reverting to the modern intellectual dead-ends of positivism, empiricism, and reductionism, but by blowing past them to what he calls a "post-critical" philosophy -- one that is actually (although this was not his goal) compatible with the Aristotelian Thomism we should never have abandoned to begin with. 

We might call this latter a "critical Thomism" -- as if Thomas weren't already the most scrupulously critical of thinkers anyway.  

In a way, just as leftism is degenerate liberalism taken to absurd extremes, so too is destructive postmodernism just a decadent entailment of modernism (see Father Rose's Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age for the grusome details: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1887904069?ie=UTF8&tag=onecos-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=1887904069). 

Or, just look at California for the Newsom details and lootsome retails.

There's no need for me to reformulate all of this in my terms. Just read the whole essay, because I didn't. Nevertheless, Petey gives it his Good Bleeping Guess Seal of Approval.

I've already moved on to the next bleeping squirrel, and am thinking to myself: how about a post-critical Christianity? But then I'm pretty sure that's what we already do around here.

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Missing Links, Light Privilege, & the Cosmic Catechism

It's the end of the month: time to clear the desk -- in particular, of all the books I've recently read but which failed rise to the lofty threshold of blogworthiness. That is, they may have contained a good point or two, but not enough of them to justify an entire post.   

Month. Say it quietly to yourself. It's a funny word: month. It just occurred to me that it must come from "moon." Cap'n Bobvious!

Speaking of astronomy, let's begin with this one called The Destiny of the Universe: In Pursuit of the Great Unknown, by a prolific fellow who calls himself Gerald Verschuuren. I probably bought it on the strength of that insolent title alone. Sounds veryschuuren himself.

Did it deliver on that bodacious promise? If it had, you'd have already read about it in this space. 

I see that it did prompt some interesting notes to myself, even a kind of poem on the inside front flap:

Humanness: a window, a door, a ladder, an escape hatch;

 a maze, a snare, a greased pole, a booby trap

an illusion, a nul de slack.

Now, if I could only get William Shatner to read it.

More noetry:

We cannot be "from" DNA unless we are "to" something.

Yes, go on, Cap'n Kirk.

Man is a message addressed to God

We all know that natural selection involves descent with modification. Well, spiritual growth must be... ascent with modification, or something. After all, we are ultimately descended from God. I read something about this just yesterday.... what was it?

Here it is: it's from another one that didn't make the cut, this one by Fulton Sheen. The particular passage is a riff on the missing link between man and our immediate descendent, whomever he might be. But even supposing we could locate him, it wouldn't do anything to resolve the mystery.

Well, I have good news: the real missing link has been identified, a "link suspensed from Heaven, which binds us unto God":

Christ is the link between the finite and the infinite, between God and man, because finite in His human nature, infinite in His Divine, and one in the unity of His Person; missing, because men have lost Him...

In yesterday's post we spoke of the bi-directional vertical arrow, and one might say that Christ is the very Incarnation of it:

His mission is to do two things: to bring God to man by the infusion of Divine Life []; and to bring man to God [].... This Our Lord declared was the double purpose [of His coming into the world.

Back to the Destiny of the Universe. Here's another note, although I'm not sure what triggered it:

If you don't know language can be abused, you're probably abusing it. Language has rights!

To say that language -- which is an emanation or prolongation of the Logos -- has rights is to say that man has verbal and even transverbal responsibilities, am I right?

But you only have to spend a few minutes listening to politicians, professors, and pundits, oh my, to realize that most of our societal problems are aggravated if not caused by language abuse. Which in turn is another instance of crucifixion, AKA the logicide of which we spoke just last Thursday.

Man has rights, obviously, and the source of these rights is our Creator. But no one -- least of all the Creator -- is stupid enough to give unalienable rights to a fundamentally irresponsible creature. Therefore, our rights don't just co-arise with the responsibilities, but rather, our duties, obligations, and responsibilities are ontologically prior to the rights.

If only people understood this, it would clear up so many problems! It needn't even be taught in a Christian context, because it can be conveyed in terms of pure metaphysics -- as an aspect of the Cosmic Catechism, which is the owner's manual of Homo sapiens

My son, for example, is so well grounded in the Cosmic Catechism that I've literally never caught him in a lie. He knows that language has rights that confer responsibilities on those who are privileged to use it. I want to say light privilege.... Hmm, I read something alluding to this yesterday.

Here it is, from Schuon: 

A noble animal or a lovely flower is "intellectually superior" to a base man.

God reveals himself to the plant in the form of the light of the sun. The plant irresistibly turns itself toward the light; it could not be atheistical or impious.

The infallible "instinct" of animals is a lesser "intellect," and man's intellect may be called a higher "instinct."

One reason we could never be a Calvinist is because of the manmade and cosmically heretical concept of "irrestible grace." I have it on personal authority that grace can indeed be resisted; or lost, stolen, and strayed from.

Oh, and speaking of Schuon, in the previous post we mentioned the jazzy nature of vertical and horizontal inneraction, and later in the day we ran into this confirmatory passage by Norris Clarke, one of our favorite theologians. I'll just let it speak for itself, because I have to make my weekly run to Trader Joe's:

But the future as future does not yet have any real existence in itself. So Thomas does not hesitate to say that no mind, not even the divine, can know with certainty the future as future, since there is nothing there yet to know. God, and we, too, can know the future actions of a non-free cause, because they are already determined as flowing necessarily from its own nature.

But this is not the case with free agents, like ourselves. As free, the action is not yet determined until it is actually decided on by a real agent; but it is then no longer future but present.

In fact, God

might be said -- in an at first perhaps shocking, but to me illuminating meaphor -- to be the Great Jazz Player, improvising creatively as history unfolds....

The complete script of our lives is not written anywhere ahead of time, before it happens, but only as it actually happens, by God and ourselves working it out together in our ongoing now's.

Kind of blue, really. No, really:

Miles conceived these settings only hours before the recording dates and arrived with sketches which indicated to the group what was to be played. Therefore, you will hear something close to pure spontaneity in these performances. The group had never played these pieces prior to the recordings and I think without exception the first complete performance of each was a "take" (Bill Evans).

First take last take. Like this post. 

Monday, November 29, 2021

Rendezvous with Truth

The head is loaded and ready to fire. In other words, I just read a brief and compact essay (not even two pages) by Schuon, and will proceed to disgorge what it triggered in me. Better back away from the screen.

Oh, by the way, lately I've been mildly susceptible to "automatic writing," or something. I first noticed this a few weeks ago, when I thought I was making some notes to myself, but it was as if my hand was hijacked and made notes to me. There was a clear sense of just surrendering to it and completing the sentences as they were given to me. 

Let's think about the minimum number of tools we need to think about ultimate reality, and where we stand with it. 

In order to do this, we need the most abstract possible terms or symbols, which cannot be reduced to anything more fundamental. 

These terms must also be imbued with certitude, which means, among other things, that we cannot explicitly deny them without implicitly affirming them -- for example, the statement that "man cannot know absolute truth," which is what eggheads call a performative contradiction: if it is true that man cannot know truth, then he absolutely can.

Let's begin. First and foremost we need a symbol for ultimate reality, and O seems to be as serviceable as anything else. Similar to the gag above about truth, who is bold enough to say that ultimate reality doesn't exist, even if we can't exhaustively describe it? 

Next, we'll need a symbol for man. I'm partial to (  ), reminiscent of O, but like an incomplete echo of it -- an image, perhaps, but not (yet, anyway) a likeness.  

Next, we definitely need two axes, a horizontal one and a vertical one.

Let the vertical axis stand for space, or the simultaneous copresence of everything, so to speak. If we could somehow stop time, then everything would be here and now. Am I right?

But we need to supplement this static axis with a horizontal, dynamic one, which encompasses time, and with it, development; which in turn involves the movement from potential to actualization, but also deterioration, death, and leftism.

In a certain sense we could think of the vertical axis as the Absolute, the horizontal as the Infinite. 

These two -- Absolute and Infinite -- are the first fruits, as it were, of O. They also suggest masculine and feminine, respectively, and all this implies, for example, principle (abbasolute) and mamafestation. This latter is as ambiguous and mystifying as any woman, and can be an obstacle and snare on the one hand or a vehicle and ladder on the other.

Somewhere in another essay Schuon alludes to maya as a both light veiled and a veil of light. Or maybe it was the Sphinx.

I'd like to think that all the time I spend collecting and listening to music isn't a total waste, rather, that it has genuine spiritual importance. Perhaps this contributes to my suspicion that the horizontal is melody while the vertical is harmonic structure. And life is jazz, baby, i.e., improvisation.

Here is a passage by Schuon that reminded me of jazz: 

Everything is in reality like a play of alternations between what is determined in advance -- starting from principles -- and what is incalculable and in some way unforeseeable (syncopation mine).

For "principles" substitute chordal structure, and for "incalculable and unforeseeable" say improvisation, AKA spontaneous composition. 

Reminds me of something maestro Keith Jarrett said the other day in some liner notes:

A master jazz musician goes onto the stage hoping to have a rendezvous with music. He knows the music is there (it always is), but this meeting depends not only on knowledge but openness.

There's no doubt that it's a spiritual practice: 

It [music] must be let in, recognized, and revealed to the listener, the first of whom is the musician himself.

Tell me about it -- about how this resembles blogging, I mean.  

The structure -- the basic form of the composition -- only

provides a layer of substance above or beyond which the player [blogger] intends to go. It's also possible to do this by going deeper into the material.

Since we're talking about the vertical, there is both height and depth. And certainly shallowness, which covers about 99% of the musicians and bloggers.

I guess this will be a short one, because I have something else I need to do. So we'll summarize by saying O, (  ), ↕, and ↔, bearing in mind that the dynamism of the vertical and horizontal results in a spiral. Whether it spirals up or down, in or out, depends upon how you exercise your freedom, which exists in the vertical space between O and (  ).  

Saturday, November 27, 2021

The Rock Bottom Upon Which I Will Build My Post

Expanding upon the previous post, recall that -- for how could you forget? --  IT IS and I AM

We don't want to say "therefore," because each is a spontaneous realization that isn't deduced from or reducible to anything else. This is the Rock Bottom upon which we will build this post.

As mentioned this morning, there is the ocean (of being) and there is the shore (of intelligence and knowledge of being, which is truth). 

Nor is man able to drink the ocean, only drink from the ocean. If the human subject could somehow contain "the whole reservoir of truth," it would suffer a fate worse than Midas, for 

wherever it turned, it could find only itself and its own truth. Just as Midas could not eat anything without turning it to gold, the subject could not receive any truth that it did not already recognize as its own. 

Absolute boredom. Might this be another hint about what goes on behind the door of the Trinity, and why the party there never stops?

Back to the simultaneous recognition of IT and of I, of being and subject:

We need to understand that self-knowledge and the disclosure of the world are not just simultaneous but intrinsically inseparable (emphasis mine).

Again, not I think, therefore I am: "It is not as if the worldly subject began with a kind of solitary self-preoccupation," and after pondering it for awhile,  

realized that it also had the ability to apprehend other truth outside of its ego. Rather, one knows oneself simultaneously with actually being addressed by another's truth.... 

There is no moment when subjectivity monadically and self-sufficiently rests in itself. Rather, subjectivity is a matter of finding oneself always already engaged with the world.

Just wanted to clear that up. 

Okay then, if intelligible being is on the ocean side and we're on the shore, how is progress possible? Good question.

[K]nowledge does indeed make authentic progress, which means that there is such a thing as certitude but that every new step displays the field of truth in ever greater, ever more infinite enlargements.

It's like the ocean of being gets bigger, which of course it doesn't. Rather, 

The more of the truth the subject manages to master, the more the truth overmasters it.

So, it's always high tide, but we learn how to swim:

At the beginning of knowledge is an expectant readiness... Yet insofar as each new truth opens and promises further truth, this readiness does not gradually grow numb or surfeited but, on the contrary, becomes increasingly intense.

Yes, INTENSE!

The more particular truth the subject comes to know, the higher and vaster the firmament of truth as a whole arches above him.

Very much as if the bigger we get the smaller we become, but also vice versa, for the poor in spirit shall inherit the cosmos.

It all reminds me of O, which is to say,

a sphere of absolute identity on which all reality and truth in the world are necessarily based. 

On the Next Day But in Yet Another Post

We made two rather largish points at the conclusion of the previous post: first, that truth is double-sided, and second, that the disclosure of being implies an absolute and a relative aspect. Each of these claims is in need of additional justification, or at least a plausible alibi.

As to the first, truth is always double-sided, for the simple reason that Being is frankly a two-faced beach. 

For to say ocean is to say shore, and here we stand on the latter, casting the pole of intelligence into the sea of being and pulling out something fishy indeed. But here at One Cosmos we throw back the little ones and pan-fry the big ones.     

Regarding the second truth, as we've said so many times and in so many ways, it turns out that I Am and It Is -- Creator and Creativity -- are so intimately related as to be...  relatives. Absolute relatives. 

Let's say you open your eyes and gaze upon the world for the very first time -- no, not as an infant or progressive, but as a fully functioning adult. What do you apprehend? 

First, IT IS! 

And second -- although it may be nearly simultaneous -- I AM!

With God, of course, it's the other way around: I AM!, followed by IT IS! 

Or Abracadabra! -- which is from the Aramaic phrase avra kehdabra, meaning “I will create as I speak." 

However, to say "followed by" is slightly misleading, if it is true that there is no time in the Godhead, but you get the point: in heaven the tense is always present, while for us it stretches forward and back, up and down, inside and out.

Now, come to think of it, our account of God isn't quite accurate, because IT IS! should properly read HE IS! In other words, God engenders the other subject(s), who is in turn "followed" by a relation-in-love -- this latter being not a verb or noun but a third pronoun.

The point is -- and we will no doubt return to this subject as we proceed -- ultimate reality must be thought of in terms of three-subjectivities-in-oneness, even if doing so strains your puny brain. 

And do not think of either three or one in mere quantitative terms but in fundamentally qualitative quantitative terms. God writes straight with a crooked number.

Thinking properly about God requires both a maximum of precision and a generous slackful of wiggle room. This latter is not a loophole or a copout, rather, just an acknowledgement of the limits of.... of limitation. God doesn't have any, you know.

I take that back, since God is of course "limited" by his own nature. If this weren't the case, then we would have no word for God.  

I'm not trying to annoy the reader, rather, it is quite effortless. But we'll also have to take back what we just said, because Who are we to linguistically limit God with our own linguitations? Isn't this crudely anti-semantic? The Jews recognized this early on, thus the Unpronounceable Name. But guess what? 

"Jesus" is actually the Greek form of the Hebrew Yeshua, which in turn was a shortened form of Joshua (Ye hosu'a). Yeshua, a common name at the beginning of the Christian era, means "Yahweh saves" (Marthaler, The Creed). 

But properly speaking, "Yahweh" is just our way of pronouncing the Unpronouncable. So if we want to be quite literal and in context, we would have to say something to the effect that the meaning of the name "Jesus" is that the Great Unprouncable becomes Pronouncable in order for the pronounceable to become the Unpronouncable.

I remember -- must have been 20 years ago -- mentioning Jehovah to a Jewish friend, thinking that I was being culturally sensitive. He responded with words to the effect of, "who is this Jehovah of whom you speak?, and of course, by Jove, he was correct to do so, for Jehovah is a made up Christian term. Prof Wiki:

Jehovah is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה‎ Yəhōwā, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה‎ (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible....

The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai ("my Lord"). 

We're just about out of time, so let's just stipulate that Someone whose name is linked to the ocean of being that surpasses language not only became that ocean but then leapt from the ocean to the shore in order to fish for men. Or something like that....

Friday, November 26, 2021

On the Same Day but in Another Post

 I don't want to get too far ahead of myself in the Theo-Logic, but rather, try to post as I'm making my way through it. So many thoughts arise, but just sail by if I don't catch them in flight and reduce them to a post. 

We have often written of the "in between," i.e., the mysterious space between subject and object where it all goes down. This is because subject and object are primordial complements, neither one reducible to the other. Well, Balthasar agrees:

there is an indissoluble polarity between subject and object. Subject and object comprehend each other reciprocally, in the sense that the subject is introduced into the ever vaster world of the object, while the object's appearance opens it to be surveyed and judged from the subject's more comprehensive vantage point.

This means that subject and object, as subject and object, are always in communion with one another -- that world and intellect are two poles of a single dynamic, or inspiraling process. This is not woowoo deepakery. Rather, quite literal, matter-of-fact, and experience-near.

This explains why 

truth begins to unfurl its inexhaustible plenitude -- which only goes on becoming more and more inexhaustible -- in the course of long familiarity with it.

Way back in the previous post we spoke of how ideology darkens the windows and bolts the doors, enclosing one in horizontality. In reality,

truth cannot itself be enclosed within the limits of any definition.... The land of truth has no fixed frontiers of the kind to be found on maps, because its essence and its domain are as boundless as the essence and domain of being itself.

Being, while infinite, is fungible into truth: "truth can only be described as a property of being and knowing." Truth can never exhaust being, but being can never cease from communicating its truth(s). 

And yet, all the truth in the world adds not one whit to being, since being already subsumes anything and everything that Is. It's analogous to God: there's never more God, since God is essentially completeness itself.

As to the nature of being, consider this:

Consciousness implies not only the abstract property of being conscious, but also, with equal immediacy, the reality of being conscious....

Again, this is not a woowoo argument to the effect that "everything is consciousness." Thus,

It is not essential to the concept of truth that all being should be self-conscious, but it is essential that all being should have a relation to some self-consciousness.

This goes back to why reductionism of any kind is such a non-starter, since it always removes the subject from the cosmos, which necessarily removes the objects-in-communion with it. To use a biological analogy, it would be like a world of men with no women, or vice versa; or, it is like a language with no ears to hear it.

We'll end with this:

Now, this two-sided relation in which, on the one hand, the object is captured and enclosed within the subject, while, on the other hand, the subject is initiated into the all-embracing world of the objective disclosure of being, suggests a fundamental point that will be decisive for all our further reflections, namely, that truth is double-sided. 

In other words, the disclosure of being implies an absolute and a relative aspect.

And boy is that important, all the way up to and including God.

... In the Same Life but on Another Level...

Let's begin with a mysterday passage that's worth coming back to, albeit on a different level:

The same basic questions keep coming back, at a new level, as we wind higher around the spiral, or as we drill more deeply into the mysterious abyss of being.

It's called human development, and it never ends, even though it has a telos without which Balthasar's description would lack any sufficient reason. But the description is true, and this truth has implications that lead all the way up to... let's just call it O, so as to not foreclose this fertile space.

Back in another lifetime, a late colleague (Dr. Grotstein) wrote a book called "... But at the Same Time and on Another Level...", ellipses and quotation marks included. I've never actually read it, only lived it. Perhaps I should have a look at it, for reasons of closure. Nah. For now let's just plagiaphrase the title.

The title alludes to the fact that the mind is (obviously) multidimensional, such that we can view most anything from a multitude of perspectives, or what Bion referred to as "vertices." I don't want to get bogged down in psychology, but it's very much like the text of a great novel, which can be approached and interpreted from various angles. Which is the correct one?

Well, if you're a postmodernist, the correct interpretation is that there is no correct interpretation, so let's dispense with that one right away due to its unreflective reductio absurdum.  Such absurdity doesn't necessarily prove its opposite is true, but it's a good start. 

For example, reductive Darwinism is another absurdity, so it goes a long way toward proving the existence of God, but only in negative terms. True, God is the opposite of complete idiocy, but this doesn't provide us with much positive information about him. 

What we really need to do is consider the implications of Darwinism at the same time but on another level... However, we've bored into this rabbit hole in so many posts that it's more than a bit boring. 

Suffice it to say, to the extent that our intellect comprehends natural selection, then natural selection cannot comprehend the intellect; in other words, either we contain it or it contains us. All we ask of reductive biologism is that its devotees be consistent with their own principles and commit intellectual suicide. Don't pretend you can embrace scientism and call yourself an intellectual (in the non-vulgar sense of the term). 

In the course of a long life we're bound to run into a bonafide genius or two. According to the google machine, between .25 and 1.0% of the folks are geniuses -- or one in one to four hundred. I'm inclined to the latter, but that's not the end of it, because there is hardware (genius) and software (the form or discipline in which it is expressed). 

Let me think... I suppose I've only known two genius-level intellects, one of whom was Dr. Grotstein. Unfortunately, he limited himself to the software of psychoanalysis, from which -- as is true of any manmade ideology -- there is no escape once one adopts it. Yes, there are always windows and doors -- thank God, literally -- but ideology blacks out the former and bolts the latter. 

Let's move on. Again, I just want to highlight passages from the Theo-Logic that hit me where it counts. These may or may not provoke additional commentary on my part.

Behind every answer there is a new question, and behind every reassuring certainty there is an expansive new horizon.

Well duh. On the one hand this is obvious, but few people stop to wonder not only why this is so, but why it must be so.  

In other words, the constantly deepening intelligibility of the cosmos tells us a great deal about the cosmos, about man, and about the Creator. 

It's getting late, so for the moment let's just stipulate that a good answer is the gateway to an even better question; and that one -- question or answer -- is no more important than the other. For without answers and questions there is no progress.  

Ever notice that progressives have all the answers? Now you know why they render progress impossible, and devolution inevitable. Barbarism is the opposite of civilization, but that doesn't mean that knowledge of Darrell Brooks, or Barack Obama, or Paul Krugman tells us anything positive about civilization.

This is a short post. You know why? Because last year I published 180 posts, while this year I've so far published only 141. For reasons that escape me, I'd like to surpass last year's tally, which means I will occasionally have to double up. So who knows, maybe another post will appear later today....