Continuing where we left off, we were discussing the orthoparadox—
I’m already sick of that word.
Fair enough. What is important is the concept, whatever we call it. We could say vertical paradox, i.e., something that appears absurd or contradictory on the surface but is resolved with recourse to a higher level. Assuming Axioms 2 (primordial complementarity), 3 (openness), and 5 (verticality), then the paradoxes disappear.
In the previous post we spoke of the Anthropos as a paradoxical species of unique instances. But in realty everything partakes of this antinomy, except to say that it reaches its highest expression in man. For example, every rock is unique, but in a trivial sense compared to the way human beings differ from one another. Uniqueness is to generality as is individual to category or substance to form. What a thing actually is is not the same as the category to which it belongs. For example, our Great Dane is different from our four previous Danes.
Even the hairs on your head are counted, but they’re still hairs.
An important distinction between Danes and humans is that we are aware of such categorical distinctions. McGilchrist writes of how for children, “the excitement lies in discovering that not everything is unique, but that there are general categories giving shape to the world: ‘Bunny!,’ ‘Doggie!; This gives pattern to experience.” But as jaded adults we may default to these abstract categories, such that “we have to make an effort in the opposite direction: the excitement comes only when we recover the uniqueness of what it is we contemplate.”
Does this not require a heroic dose of LSD?
Not necessarily. For example, if we go on vacation to an unfamiliar locale, part of the charm is in experiencing the uniqueness of things anew. Novelty is always here, but LH capture prevents us from experiencing it. Thus, for example, “the real, experienced presence of the mountains and lakes as a child was overwhelming -- they were, in our terms, present ‘in their very essence’ to him, awe-inspiring and unique; when as an adult he could see them only as re-presented, now become the essential Mountain and the essential Lake.”
But in reality, supposing both hemispheres are fully functioning, difference and sameness -- like the One and the Many -- “constantly interpenetrate one another and give life to one another.” In spiritual health – which is to say, wholeness – both hemispheres should be dialectically involved with one another. However, if forced to choose, it is far more impoverishing to have a hypoactive or decommissioned RH, but it’s a little like choosing between sight and hearing when health and wholeness mean possessing both.
Nor is there a Sightworld radically separate from Soundworld, rather, a single world with sights and sounds: the five senses are integrated by a higher one called (in scholastic terms) common sense; likewise, we might say that RH and LH are unified in a higher synthesis that discloses the world as it is, or at least closer to what it is with one hemisphere offline. We are always relative to the Absolute, the latter being uniqueness as such — mirrored, by the way, in our one unique Cosmos.
But you needn’t think long about the Absolute to understand that it is of necessity Infinite, i.e., unbound, and admitting of no limitation or final determination. Where the Absolute excludes nothing, the Infinite includes everything, and yes, these are subtly different – as different as LH and RH, respectively, for LH is again to Absolute as RH is to Infinite.
If LH and RH are ultimately ordered to Absolute and Infinite, we are getting close to the end of what we can say of them, AKA ultimacy (Axiom 6). It remains for us to explicate the details and implications, which is more of a task for Book III. For now, let us affirm that the Anthropos is aware of “a deep gravitational pull towards something ineffable, that, if we just for once get beyond words and reasons, is a matter of experience,” for it is “something outside our conceptual grasp, but nonetheless present to us through intimations that come to us from a whole range of unfathomable experiences we call ‘spiritual.’”
That’s a little weird.
Agreed, but is it weird enough?
The Cosmoneurology of the Great Attractor
McGilchrist follows philosophy as far as it goes, which is to say that “ultimately there must just be an uncaused cause, or an ungrounded ground…” For the “brute emergence of Being from non-Being is either the miracle of all miracles or a straight impossibility.” One might say that it is either necessary or impossible. But since it happened, we can rule out the latter.
The problem is how to characterize this gratuitous miracle.
What exactly is a miracle? Whatever else it is, our competitors will no doubt say it constitutes unchecked aggression toward the known laws of nature.
Those creeps can roll!
Now, even the existence of laws of nature violates the known laws of nature, being that there is no law that can explain how they got here: Natural laws are irreducible to explanation, like any mystery. Moreover, if the Cosmos were eternal, it would have long since reached entropic heat death, so it would scarcely be a Cosmos.
Just as no one knows what O is, nor does anyone know what matter is. Regarding the latter, it seems the more we know, the less we know. As was previously said regarding Aristotle’s hylomorphism, it remains the case that no one has ever seen uninformed matter, rather, only “elements of the world to which we attribute the quality, within our consciousness, of being material....” And McGilchrist sounds very much like Schopenhauer in affirming that “Materialism derives the only thing we undeniably know, the concreteness of experience, from an unknown abstraction: matter.” Schopenhauer likened the materialist to a person who attempts to build a house starting with the roof. For by trying to derive mind from matter, the materialist forgets he has deployed the mind to conceive of matter in the first place.
Oopsie.
In order to explain the mind, materialism’s star witness is physics, which, under cross examination turns hostile, for “the particles that make up a brain remain, in many ways, as mysterious as consciousness itself.” As for the origins and nature of consciousness, the Cosmic Judge has ruled that physics has no relevant testimony to offer. “If you’re not clear on this limitation, you have no idea what physics is,” and certainly not what consciousness is.
People who claim to be materialists presumably do so because it is less weird and miraculous than theism. However, it turns out that it is not nearly weird enough but certainly more miraculous.
Recall that there are two ways of going about this: there is the ascending approach that proceeds from the senses to the Principle, and the descending approach that begins with the Principle and deduces consequences and entailments therefrom. Analysis and synthesis: the former is an LH specialty, the latter an RH one.
Now, although we can tackle the Cosmos from either end -- top or bottom -- the fact remains that, to quote Cap’n Obvious, reality is one. This suggests that there is only one miracle, the rest being consequences of it. It makes no sense to situate the miracle at the bottom, because, supposing we do, it’s not going to be enough; rather, we will need a multitude of subsequent miracles.
For example, the first miracle will be that there is something instead of nothing. We say “miracle,” because we simply have to assume it as first principle. But then, after a few billion years of so-called matter just doing what it must, it suddenly comes to life. How did this happen? Another miracle, I suppose. Okay, but then rational souls appear on the cosmic stage. What explains this miracle?
Nothing explains it. It’s a miracle!
What about the principle of parsimony -- the one that says we shouldn’t multiply hypotheses, let alone miracles? Cosmotheandrism has a better idea: why not clean up this mess of gratuitous miracles by reducing them to just one big one -- one that is, say, eternally subsistent in the form of Absolute and Infinite? Moreover, it is alive, conscious, intelligent, and free. It is one, true, beautiful, creative, open, and intrinsically related, which is to say, irreducible substance-in-relation. It is what we call the nothing-everything of O: nothing because it is beyond containment, everything because it contains everything.
Better yet, it’s not even a mystery in the magical sense of the word, rather, a necessary principle that renders the others intelligible. One might call it a “necessary mystery,” which is precisely what O is intended to symbolize: an ultimate reality that necessarily is, even if we necessarily cannot say exactly what it is. Which goes to what McGilchrist writes of the word God, which has become so “obfuscated and overlaid with so many unhelpful accretions in the West that it is not surprising that people recoil from this idol.” In other words, if we are not careful, it is very easy for the Anthropos to make God into a graven image of O, which we might say is the ultimate LH heist.
For if McGilchrist is correct, “a disposition toward God is largely dependent on the right hemisphere, the hemisphere we already know brings us closer to the truth than the left.” But as to the ineffable something toward which we are pulled, McGilchrist agrees that “if we are to say anything about it, we still need some sort of placeholder, within language, for all those aspects of Being that defy direct expression, but which we sense are greater than the reality which language is apt to describe, almost certainly greater than whatever the human mind can comprehend.” He adds that what we really need “is a word unlike any other, not defined in terms of anything else: a sort of un-word.”
O!
You are correct, sir: O undermines — or overminds, rather — the problem of LH idolatry.
