Metaphysical Adventures and the Outlaw Universe

Everything is trivial if the universe is not engaged in a metaphysical adventure. --Dávila 

One definition of adventure is a wild and exciting undertaking (not necessarily lawful). However, as Rabbi Zimmerman reminds us, To live outside the law you must be honest. Which is what we shall call an orthodoxymoron, i.e., "conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence')," only as an expression of orthodoxy.

Every truth is a tension between contradictory evidences that claim our simultaneous allegiance.

And 

Two contradictory philosophical theses complete each other, but only God knows how.

Ortho-doxy is, of course "correct opinion," which is itself an orthodoxymoron, being that opinions are about the truth, not truth itself. Nevertheless, since "Whatever is comprehended by a finite being is itself finite," it seems we are unavoidably plunged into a postmodern Dudism such that

However, for the Christian Dudist,

Truths are not relative. What is relative are opinions about the truth.

In the final unalysis, 

Christ is the truth. What is said about Him are mere approximations to the truth.

Or, more simply.

Truth is a person.   

Thus -- in another seeming orthodoxymoron -- 

The truth is objective but not impersonal.

How to squeer this absurcularity?

The sixth chapter of Metaphysics for Everyone is about Bérard's own adventure in metaphysics. It's an adventure because, in the words of the interviewer, "when one undertakes this journey, one cannot know in advance what to expect." 

Remember, metaphysics must ultimately end in a place where metaphysics cannot go, just as the Big Bang ends in a place where science cannot go. Science requires time, but there is no time "prior" to the Big Bang. Or at any rate, a different kind of time, i.e., kairos vs. chronos:

To repeat something from a few posts back, intelligence "is obliged to surpass itself, to abandon its paltry conceptual light for a beyond," and metaphysics "leads to its own erasure because it takes us beyond the pure and simple conceptual."

But in this context faith isn't just anything -- it is not an irrational assent to a proposition; it is perception of a special order of realities. Thus,

There is some collusion between skepticism and faith: both undermine human presumptuousness.

It seems you humans are embarked an a temporal adventure in the atemporal.

I'll let Gemini handle that one:

That's a fascinating perspective. It's a poetic way to describe the human experience, where we are both temporal beings, bound by the constraints of time, and yet capable of transcending time through our thoughts, emotions, and creativity.

We live in the present moment, anchored to the linear progression of time. Yet, our minds often wander into the past, reminiscing on memories, or into the future, anticipating hopes and dreams. In a sense, we exist in a timeless realm of imagination and possibility, where the boundaries of time and space dissolve.

This duality of existence is a unique aspect of the human condition, and it's a profound mystery that has captivated philosophers and mystics for centuries. 

Back to Bérard, he writes of a "two-step cure," whereby the "first stage is left to man's freedom and the second left to the bounty of God" -- or let us say "nature and grace," respectively. Or even (↑) and (↓) if you like. For what even is freedom if it is not ordered to its telos?

Nothing?

Correct you are.

Freedom is not an end, but a means. Whoever sees it as an end in itself does not know what to do with it when he gets it.

A progressive leftist.

Correct again. And only persons are free, whether divine, angelic, or human, thus

The permanent possibility of initiating a causal series is what we call a person.

Recalling everything said above about persons and truth.

"For the highest paradoxes, the truth appears closest at hand" (Bérard). One might even say that paradox is the threshold of truth. 

Example?

"One God in three persons, true man and true God, immanence and transcendence. And there are many others" (ibid.). 

After publishing his first book, Bérard "had the feeling of having gone to the end of what we could know and of contemplating the eternal truths, dare I say." I know that feeling, hence the perfect nonsense bracketing my own book. 

Nowadays, "I live every day in the sublime atmosphere of the Christian mysteries, which I have approached once and for all." In other words, he took the plunge beyond physics and metaphysics into the heart of the martyr and crux of the master, so to speak. 

Which gave rise to a second little book, a "grande finale of metaphysics" into "the 'Beyond of being,'" which makes me wish I could read French, because it must be quite the adventure. "The best knowledge of Christian mysteries stops at insoluble paradoxes," at which point it is "necessary to 'jump into the void,'" and why not? For

it is not only the rational knowledge of God that stops at paradoxes; it is the same as far as knowing the world, man, and society....

"Everything that is to be known comes up against paradoxes," but "there is a possible knowledge, itself paradoxical," i.e., "knowledge by paradox," such that "the paradox obliges us to realize that reality is beyond it."

Where have I heard this before?

The man does not escape from his prison of paradoxes except by means of a vertical act of faith.

"Behind this paradox I see a reality of a relational order, and therefore the need to formulate a metaphysics of relationship."

Same.

On the one hand, "Ultimately, the only thing we know is that we know nothing." On the other, "the opposite of knowledge is not ignorance, but certainties."

Waitwut? I surely don't know what to make of this post. Was it a trainwreck? Or just the end of the tracks?

We're Gonna Need a Bigger Tautology

Cold opening: "thought will always go beyond words," and "cannot be reduced to the language that can be used to express it." Now, this is a neat trick, but by virtue of what principle is it possible?

Gödel?

No, we abuse his theorems enough around here. Nevertheless, rational thought reduces to reason, and is thus self-enclosed. It can result in a bigger tautology, but a tautology nonetheless. Let's ask Gemini:

1. Thought Transcends Language: The assertion that thought goes beyond words is a core tenet of many philosophical traditions. It suggests that our minds are capable of generating ideas and concepts that may be difficult or impossible to fully express in language.
2. Rational Thought and Tautology: The statement critiques rational thought for reducing complex ideas to logical propositions. While reason is a powerful tool, it can sometimes lead to oversimplification and a reliance on circular reasoning. 

This perspective aligns with various philosophical schools, including:

• Mysticism: Mystics often emphasize the ineffable nature of ultimate reality, arguing that true spiritual understanding cannot be captured in words or concepts.
• Postmodernism: Postmodern thinkers often challenge the notion of a single, objective truth, arguing that language itself shapes our understanding of the world.
• Existentialism: Existentialists often highlight the unique and subjective nature of human experience, suggesting that individual thoughts and feelings cannot be fully understood through rational analysis.

Well, one out of three ain't bad. I don't mean to take his name in vain, but what about Gödel? 

Yes, there is a connection between the concept of thought transcending language and Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Gödel's theorems essentially demonstrate that any formal system will inevitably contain statements that are true but unprovable within that system.

In other words, as per yesterday's post, truth and reality always transcend the forms in which they are clothed. The biggest conceivable tautology is still a self-enclosed tautology. Even Gemini knows that

There are inherent limits to formal systems, including language, in capturing the full spectrum of human thought. Our ability to express complex ideas and concepts through language is inherently limited, and there may be profound thoughts and insights that cannot be fully articulated in language.

In this sense, Gödel's theorems can be seen as supporting the idea that thought often surpasses the limitations of language.

Now, if something is actual, then it was possible. So, how is it possible for thought to surpass the limitations of language, i.e., to escape the tautologies of reason? 

Well, alongside left-brained rational thought is right-brained "intuitive or participative thought," AKA "intellectual intuition" (Bérard), and these two are complementary, constituting the metabolism of being discussed yesterday. 

I should add that Bérard doesn't say anything about right and left hemispheres. That was my own two senses. Better run it by Gemini:

Yes, there is a potential connection between the limitations of language and the differing functions of the left and right hemispheres of the brain 

Left Hemisphere: Primarily associated with language, logic, and analytical thinking.

Right Hemisphere: Often linked to spatial reasoning, intuition, creativity, and emotional processing. 

It's possible that the RCH's more intuitive and holistic approach to understanding the world may generate insights that are difficult to fully articulate through language, which is primarily processed by the LCH. This could contribute to the idea that thought often transcends language, particularly when it involves complex, abstract, or emotionally charged concepts.

Well, good. Again, in my view this is precisely why we have these two complementary hemispheres, because reality is both horizontal and vertical, immanent and transcendent, and we are dynamically ordered to both.

In any event, "one's thinking is led to go beyond words"(Bérard). On the one hand (or hemisphere) "we have the rational knowledge of modern science," and on the other "metaphysical knowledge, which is realized through contemplation." And as we all know by now, 

Without philosophy, the sciences do not know what they know.

But they do know what they know, hence verticality, transcendence, and intellectual intuition. Every scientist transcends science, even if he tries -- for some inscrutable reason -- to enclose himself in it. 

Gemini, I reckon you know what I'm talking about? 

Your statement suggests that even scientists, who often strive for objectivity and adhere to rigorous methods, ultimately transcend the boundaries of their discipline. It implies that their pursuit of knowledge often leads them to questions that go beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

Scientific breakthroughs often require innovative and creative thinking, which may involve intuition, imagination, and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. These qualities can transcend the rigid structures of scientific methodology. 

By recognizing the limitations of scientific inquiry and embracing the broader context of human experience, scientists can transcend the boundaries of their discipline and contribute to a more holistic understanding of the world. 

For Bérard, "schematics are useful, but dangerous; you can use them initially, but then have to go beyond them," and who could disagree? Not Gemini:

Absolutely, you've hit the nail on the head. Schematics, models, and theories are powerful tools for understanding complex systems, but they are ultimately simplifications of reality. They can be incredibly useful for initial exploration and analysis, but they can also be misleading if we rely on them too heavily.

The map is not the territory? 

Exactly. The phrase "the map is not the territory" is a powerful reminder that our representations of reality are not reality itself. 

Which raises the question: if artificial intelligence can understand this, why can't real intellectuals get it? Truly truly, reality transcends tenure. 

Absolutely. This statement highlights the idea that reality is constantly evolving and surpassing our attempts to define or control it. No matter how secure or established a position or belief system may seem, it is ultimately subject to the ever-changing nature of reality. 

While tenure provides job security, it does not guarantee relevance or intellectual vitality. A tenured professor can become complacent or resistant to new ideas.

It was just a gag, but some gags are true.

Beyond Here Lies Nothin'

So, knowing and unknowing constitute the metabolism of being?

Something like that, but that was yesterday's post. Today we're moving on to the next chapter, Metaphysics and Esoterism. What is the difference between esoterism and plain vanilla theology?

The former is aimed at people who think they're special. Like you.

I don't think it's a matter of specialness, rather, of consistency. Far as I'm concerned, standard issue theology results in inevitable fissures, absurdities, circularities, and contradictions that just bug the Raccoon mind, and are easily exploited by the anti-Raccoon mind. Esoterism, broadly speaking, is a way to address and reconcile these. It's a way to believe in a God that is believable, so to speak. 

So, to reduce God to your own categories and capabilities?

No, more like the opposite: to expand them in order to lift the mind to God. If it's a capability, it's more of a negative one. An example would be Eckhart's orthoparadoxical remark at the end of yesterday's post: God is greater than "God." Or even Thomas, who said that "Whatever is comprehended by finite being is itself finite." 

For Schuon, esoterism allows us to "escape" the limitations referenced above via an "upward path," instead of a downward one into "a worldly and suicidal liberalism." Both secular liberalism and religious literalism are bad options that must be transcended. 

Nor is esoterism a dogma, rather, more of an approach or stance. It is not the denial or negation of exoterism, rather, its complementary partner. In reference to the statement at the top of the post, one might say that exoterism and esoterism constitute our metabolism of God. As Schuon describes it,

The word “esoterism” suggests in the first place an idea of complementarity, of a “half” as it were: esoterism is the complement of exoterism, it is the “spirit” which completes the “letter.”

Or, it is the substantial kernel inside the formal shell. For Bérard, esoteric "means etymologically a movement 'more inward than,' that is to say, a knowledge that deepens more and more." It "prolongs exoterism... by harmoniously plumbing its depth" (Schuon). 

This is because every form -- even a religious form -- constitutes a limit, when God is the Unlimited. Exoterism speaks via forms that in turn must be transcended, which is a perfectly orthodox position. Amiwrong, Gemini, or just an assoul?

The statement you've presented is a profound exploration of the tension between the finite and the infinite, the limited and the unlimited, particularly within the context of religious belief and practice.

Let's break down the key points:

1. Forms as Limits:

   • Religious Forms: Even sacred rituals, doctrines, and scriptures, which are often seen as pathways to the divine, are ultimately human constructs. They are forms, and as such, they are limited.
   • God as the Unlimited: The divine, or God, is often conceived as transcending all limitations. It is the ultimate reality, beyond human comprehension.

2. Exoterism and Transcendence:

   • Exoterism: This refers to the outward, public expressions of religious belief and practice. It involves rituals, ceremonies, and teachings that are accessible to the general public.
   • Transcendence: The statement suggests that exoteric forms, while essential for communal worship and spiritual growth, are not the ultimate goal. They are meant to be transcended, to lead the individual beyond the limitations of the form itself.

This perspective aligns with many mystical traditions, which emphasize the importance of inner spiritual experience over outward religious practices. It highlights the paradox of using limited human language and symbols to point towards the infinite and the divine.

It certainly aligns with Eckhart, who, orthparadoxically, knew nothing about everything, which is preferable to the atheistic nihilist who knows everything about nothing: "The whole universe as compared to God is nothing." But God himself is another kind of nothing:

God is nothing. No thing. God is nothingness; and yet God is something.

I have nothing to add.

Metacosmic Irony

We left off yesterday with the proposition that a "dual approach is necessary for any integral thought." 

First, when we say "necessary," we don't mean it in the sense of a good suggestion, rather, that one cannot not deploy a dual approach in any metaphysical statement. After all, the aforementioned "meta" both transcends and includes what is "infra" to it.

This is just another way of highlighting the unavoidable irony involved in anything we say about anything. In other words, when finitude speaks of infinitude -- or time of eternity, relative of absolute, part of whole -- we know going in that our very best formulation will nevertheless be wrong. 

Except perhaps for that one, in that we can know with absolute certitude that our statements about total reality inevitably fall short of the mark. Which is precisely why the Philosopher, when all is said and done, can -- or must, rather -- say that

This is the final human knowledge of God: to know that we do not know God (Thomas).

This is literally the last word in metacosmic irony. 

Nevertheless, at the same time and on another level, man is a knower, and knowledge by definition is ordered to the true, or it isn't knowledge at all, and man is reduced to a non-knower: Homo ignorans.  

But all is not lost, because knowing we don't know is knowing a great deal indeed. For this unknowing, it turns out, is ordered to Ultimate Reality. 

Nor is it a dead or futile unknowing, rather, a dynamic and endlessly fruitful one -- not just vis-a-vis God, but (and for the same reason) for every discipline short of God. Hence the endless progress in scientific thought.

Are you suggesting there is progress in theology and metaphysics?

Yes and no, for it is once again an example of the dual approach referenced above. Thus,

Religious thought does not go forward like scientific thought does, but rather goes deeper.

Now, both "progress" and "depth" are grounded in the same principle, in that both partake of a kind of asymptotic verticality: just as there is no end to scientific progress, nor is there any end to religious depth --- or at least any humanly attainable end, for here again, we always transcend what we say. 

When their religious depth disappears, things are reduced to a surface without thickness, where nothing shows through.

But in reality, down here in these parts,

The natural and supernatural are not overlapping planes, but intertwined threads.

There is a meta-science anterior to science, for which reason we can say -- again with certitude -- that

Being only falsifiable, a scientific thesis is never certain but is merely current.

Thus, this meta-scientific truth is more secure than any merely scientific truth. 

Science, when it finishes explaining everything, but being unable to explain the consciousness that creates it, will have not explained anything.

Unless science is grounded in a dual approach that includes transcendence: again, man qua man is always situated in the vertical space between immanence and transcendence, which is precisely where all the progress happens, whether scientific or religious. 

The cosmos is a big place. But it is hardly the biggest, which is why

Even in the immensity of space we feel caged. Mystery is the only infinity that does not seem like a prison.

Denied the transcendent pole, we're just doing time in a prison of finitude. 

Here is a fine description of the dual approach:

The life of intelligence is a dialogue between the personalism of spirit and the impersonalism of reason.

Now, a dialogue is a relation, and this relation is irreducible to anything less. The universe does not consist of things that are subsequently related, rather, relations that are subsequently abstracted into the things related -- or, in Norris Clarke's formulation, ultimate reality is substance-in-relation.

Yes, like the Trinity of which the world is an icon or symbol.

That's some heavy ramblin'. Let's get back to Metaphysics and Mysticism (which, one might say, is the ultimate dual approach). The interviewer asks, "What can we say about the unspeakable?" An ironic question deserves a meta-ironic answer:

There is already, common to almost all human beings, the recognition of a transcendent principle to the universe we know.... Everything has a cause, any science is knowledge through causes, and there is necessarily a Cause without a cause, a First Cause...

Not temporally first, rather, ontologically prior, which is to say, at the top of the vertical hierarchy; it is the unknown known or known unknown that secures our liberty from what is otherwise a prison of finitude. It's how the light gets in:

There is a risk in giving precedence to reason: it gives too much importance to one's own little individual light, which is only a reflection of that "true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

"Sun and moon" would be a symbolic or mythopoetic way of conveying the same idea. 

More metacosmic irony:

But is not the "atheizing" of philosophy quite simply a severing of philosophy from its transcendent source and thereby, paradoxically, recognizing this source?

Eckhart: He who blasphemes praises God. 

The explicit denial of God is his implicit affirmation, for if God doesn't exist, only He could know it. 

Bottom line for today: 

By carrying out the act of the highest possible conception, one subjects the intelligence to such a speculative effort that it is obliged to surpass itself, to abandon its paltry conceptual light for a beyond....

[M]etaphysics leads to its own erasure because it takes us beyond the pure and simple conceptual... The cognitive content of the intellect exceeds the degree of reality of its manifestation: in other words, it is transcendent to it.

Ironically,

Or, to be perfectly accurate, God is greater than "God," because "Whatever is comprehended by a finite being is itself finite" (Thomas).

Metaphysics and Mysticism

Yes, I know it's Thanksgiving, but what else am I supposed to do with myself? Besides, the mystery of being doesn't start and stop at our convenience. Timelessness waits for no man.

We're up to the third interview of Metaphysics for Everyone, called Metaphysics and Mysticism, the latter beginning where the former ends. Again, the boat of metaphysics takes us to the limits of the expressible, at which point comes the Leap. 

However, it seems that there is overlap, as Bérard speaks of "the metaphysics of mystics as well as the mysticism of metaphysicians." I want to say that one is necessarily present in the other, even if implicitly.

Why do you say that, Bob?

Because man qua man always partakes of two modes of thought, whatever we wish to call them: reason and intellect, knowing and understanding, empiricism and intuition, quantity and quality, appearance and reality, denotation and connotation, analysis and synthesis, surface and depth, Plato and Aristotle, L and R brain, etc. 

We are irreducibly stereoscopic and stereophonic, and the attempt to reduce our sound and vision to mono just doesn't work:

Philosophy ultimately fails because one has to speak of the whole in terms of the parts.

Except for this time, because we shall indeed endeavor to speak of the whole in terms of the parts -- and vice versa -- which is to say, articulate their complementarity. Expressed visually, it might look like so:

It's a bit like the old hermeneutical circle, whereby 

one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. The circle is a metaphor for the procedure of transforming one's understanding of the part and the whole through iterative recontextualization.

Only in this case the text is called "reality" or "being." And it is indeed a text, otherwise what are we even talking about? 

In other words, if being weren't an intelligible text, then we couldn't say anything about it. But this is a holographic universe in which each part is interiorly related to the others and to the whole, so our conversation (literally "flowing together") with it never ends.

Conversely, any ideology fails precisely because it denies this primordial complementarity. In another book, Bérard characterizes ideologies as the "mythologies of the modern world." They "are merely rationalizations, mental constructs that can justify virtually anything, down to murders and infanticides." As such,

To reach its true objective philosophy must thus transcend its own constructs, relinquish its own logic and its very thought in order to take possession of that which is beyond logic, beyond all thought.

Break through Gödel's wall?

Or look through his window.

Either way, any "pure rationalism proves to be contradictory," revealing its "spurious nature" when "disconnected from its roots." "There is simply no rational alternative, no other way to escape from the 'monster' of self-contradiction" than to open ourselves to what transcends ratio, which is to say, intellectus:

reason is the act of discursive thinking, while intellect enables us to intuitively and inwardly fathom the truth.... it is one thing to reason, another to understand the reasoning.

Reason cannot understand itself without transcending reason, thus "the natural need of reason for an intellective, supernatural completion." Left to its own devices, reason is ineluctably absurcular and tautological, forever chasing its own entailments. We comprehend reason, not vice versa.

So, "the mind of man is endowed with two faculties." First there is ratio, the "organ of calculation" through which we "acquire hypothetico-deductive knowledge through discursive reason." 

Then there is the intellect properly so-called, which involves "the immediate cognitive process of intuitive apprehension."

"Every human being has these two faculties," but this "dual faculty" is not dualistic, rather, united in the person. "These two approaches are of course complementary, and any philosophy that does not participate in both cannot be, well, a philosophy..."

In a sense, there's nothing mysterious about mysticism, which for Schuon denotes "all inward contact... with realities that are directly or indirectly Divine." Any "association with the idea of the 'irrational' is clearly false; spiritual intuition is not irrational but suprarational."

Put more simply,

Mysticism is the empiricism of transcendent knowledge.

And

The objectivity of mystical experience cannot be demonstrated. Just like that of any other experience. 

Supposing you are capable of experiencing, say, beauty, it shouldn't be much of a leap to believe one may experience the divine source of beauty. 

Frankly, experience itself is weirder than experiencing God, supposing one tries to sever experience -- i.e., consciousness, subjectivity, interiority -- from God. Nor do you have any explanation for the experience of experience, the latter being something only an immaterial intellect could do, i.e., view itself from a position of transcendence.

But that's me ramblin' again. Let's try to finish this chapter in the allotted timelessness: "the dual approach is necessary for any integral thought." And a "'kernel of gnosis' is common to all people; otherwise nothing would make sense to anyone." 

I don't think we can wrap this chapter up this morning. Enjoy your Thanksgiving and come back tomorrow for more vertical adventures.

Metaphysics and Religion

That's the title of the second interview (of twelve) in Metaphysics for Everyone.  

Our view, more or less, is that religion provides a "poetry of metaphysics," even while not being reducible to the latter. I used to go back and forth on this question, but now I see the two (religion & metaphysics) as a complementarity of words and music, letter and spirit, or maybe even left and right cerebral hemispheres. 

At any rate, in all religion there is an implicit metaphysic, while in all metaphysics God is there implicitly (or sometimes explicitly).

For example, to say that "man is created in the image and likeness of God" can be expressed in metaphysical terms, e.g., that we are local or finite instantiations of a transcendent Principle that is nonlocal and infinite; or, we are continent expressions of Necessary Being, or eternity deployed in time, Absolute in relative, transcendence in immanence, etc. 

The Incarnation is a literal expression of this principle, i.e., of Infinitude, Eternity, Absoluteness, Beyond-Being etc., participating in finitude, temporality, relativity, being, etc. We do the same thing, only not exactly, since we can reascend only so far back to the Principle -- which is precisely the function of metaphysics: to take us to the farthest reaches of the expressible before taking that final leap into the inexpressible.

But the most complete metaphysics cannot eliminate that last leap from our side of the divide unless God himself assumes human nature. Then we got something. 

The Gap is actually infinite, analogous to how the gap between man and animal is infinite. The other day my son asked if dogs could ever evolve to personhood. I said no, but I couldn't provide a good explanation as to why. I suppose it could happen, if a man could somehow incarnate as "dog nature." Then by this means dogs could be drawn into human nature. Our descent would assure the possibility of the dog's ascent.

Your analogy needs work. For one things, humans are already human before the Incarnation.

Yes, that was off the top of my head and it shows. On the other hand, you are well aware of the venerable wisecrack that God became man that man might become God -- not identical to God, of course, but in order to participate in the divine nature via theosis, deification, sanctification, and Slack retrieval. 

Baptism, of course, grafts us to Christ in such a way that the return trip now becomes possible, since Christ was never separate from the Principle -- or Father -- to begin with. We, on the other hand -- especially having been wounded by some sort of primordial calamity that keeps repeating itself...

Enough of my speculations. Let's get back to Bérard's, and see how they compare. As I said, the book is somewhat holofractal and nonlinear, but we'll try to proceed in an orderly fashion without a lot of jumping around. 

Bérard begins with a review of the whole "death of God" business, ending in an "absolute atheism." That last term caught my eye, because it demonstrates something mentioned in yesterday's post, that we can only pretend to eliminate the Absolute; rather, any absolute statement presumes its existence, even if in an incoherent and self-refuting manner. In the words of the Aphorist, 

He avoids announcing to man his divinity, but proposes goals that only a god could reach, or rather proclaims that the essence of man has rights that assume he is divine.

But 

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

For we can't help noticing -- lookin' at you, Nietzsche -- that

The relativist rarely relativizes himself. 

In reality, the relative is relative because it is relative to the Absolute. Otherwise,  

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

Bérard agrees that "the most anti-religious nonetheless ends up referring to God or to an Absolute in one way or another" -- for example, "after the French Revolution, with the summoning of the 'Supreme Being' in the Constitution of 1793 and the worship publicly rendered to him." 

How did that work out? Ideas, of course have consequences, and the bigger the idea the better or worse the consequences.

Biology, for example, limited to biology, regards man as a "survival-machine, a robot programmed blindly to preserve selfish molecules called genes." In which case,

Man is the animal that imagines itself to be Man.

Such pseudo-philosophies as biologism or evolutionism can never explain how they have access to truths that transcend biology and natural selection. Indeed, if these are true, they are false: "Here we have a case where scientific interpretation is distorted by ideology" -- the ideology of scientism.

This goes back to "the impossibility of ridding man of God" unless one presupposes the godlike abilities mentioned above. Just one more in a long list of "secular neo-religious perversions" -- as if "there is no principle behind the values immanent to humanity." Rather, they just magically "appear." A reminder that 

The doctrines that explain the higher by means of the lower are appendices of a magician's rule book.

Metaphysical Calvinball. 

Correct. Bérard quotes Pascal to the effect that "man goes infinitely beyond man," and why not? "Nothing is without cause," and "the cause is transcendent to the effects." Metaphysics, although expressed in "the language of intelligence," "points to what is beyond language and concepts, to ultimate reality." It 

gives the intellect access to the reality beyond it, access to the light of truth that never resides in words. 

Words are never just words, rather point to what is beyond words. Otherwise, to hell with it.

There is a "paradox of metaphysics," in that

it functions like a a science with its own language capable of formulating the ultimate; but, once this ultimate has been formulated, it gives access to it. It's the end of the road, after which the road no longer has any interest.

After this comes the Leap, for again, 

There are arguments of increasing validity, but, in short, no argument in any field spares us the final leap.

Gemini, I reckon even you get the point.

While logical reasoning and evidence can bring us closer to understanding, there's always a point where we must make a subjective or intuitive leap. This final leap often involves a degree of faith or belief, even in the most rigorous fields like science.

Even in empirical sciences, underlying philosophical assumptions guide research. For example, the assumption that the universe is fundamentally rational and understandable is a philosophical leap that underpins scientific inquiry. 

The statement highlights the inherent limitations of human knowledge and the complex interplay between reason and belief. While rigorous argumentation can bring us closer to truth, there will always be a point where we must trust our intuition, embrace uncertainty, and make a leap of faith.

Good place to end this post.

Metaphysics for Everyone?

That's the title of the book we'll be discussing (minus the question mark), which is in the form of an interview of Bruno Bérard, a French philosopher and theologian who has written ten books, only one of which having been translated to English. 

First of all, everyone? In an interview Schuon was asked why we need metaphysics if we have religion: "It is because metaphysics satisfies the needs of intellectually gifted men." Elsewhere he say something to the effect that we need metaphysics because metaphysicians exist, implying that they are more born than made.

For what it's worth, I know I was born this way, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it. I could try to deny it. I have indeed tried to be like the others, but it just didn't work.

Well, I try my best to be just like I am / But everybody wants you to be just like them / They say, "Sing while you slave" and I just get bored / I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more (Dylan)

Well, I ain't gonna work on matter's farm, or something. 

Regarding the agenda of one of his books, What is Metaphysics?, the interviewer says "Nice program! many readers?"

I haven't checked recently, but I'd say several hundred, which corresponds pretty well to the readership for this type of work.

So, apparently not for everyone.

And yet, everyone is, without exception, a metaphysician, for the same reason everyone is a linguist, insofar as he uses language without thinking about how or why. Likewise, every person is a psychologist, being that we all have our theories, whether implicit or explicit, about what makes people tick, including ourselves.

The book is rather holographic and nonlinear, in that every chapter is about all the others, and more. Each chapter is brimming with implications, which is just the way I like it: a springboard for my own peculiar cogitations. The interviewer says as much:

Even though the door to such an adventure has been thrown open here, it is up to each person who wishes to enter "within," or rather to step outside and walk in the open air of metaphysics.

It is an unavoidably personal adventure into the limitless. One might say that because it is a finite engagement with infinitude, it is necessarily refracted through the individual; in Voegelin's words, our Quest is "reality itself becoming luminous for its movement from the ineffable, through the Cosmos, to the ineffable."

First of all, what is metaphysics, anyway? It is "the science of what is beyond nature and matter." You -- well, not you per se, but my vast audience of nonreaders -- may insist that there is nothing beyond nature and matter, precisely. Which is, of course, a metaphysic, albeit a stupid one. 

You can reduce everything to quantity, but no amount of numbers adds up to a mathematician, not even a bad one like me. Have you ever heard of a mathematician who isn't a person? Me neither.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Like I said, the book is very triggering, provoking my own thoughts at every turn. Like so:

Collision with an intelligent book makes us see a thousand stars.

Now, metaphysics is 

"what comes" (or, more precisely "the question that arises") once one has encountered the physical world.

I myself have encountered the physical world, and I still have questions -- questions which are not, and cannot be, answered by the material world. Like, how did it get here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What was before the Big Bang? And most importantly, what am I doing here? How am I -- which is to say, persons -- even possible? 

So, metaphysics is "the science of what is beyond the physical world." Ah, but what is science? It is of course "knowledge by causes." Each scientific discipline has both a material object and a formal object, the latter being the perspective from which the object is regarded.

Human beings, for example, can be regarded from the perspective of neurology, or economics, or anatomy, or politics, or medicine, etc. Same material object, many perspectives. 

Metaphysics, you might say, is simply the "science of sciences" dealing with the Cause of causes. It puts an end to "this indefinite merry-go-round of secondary causes." This or that science is limited by its formal object, but 

they cannot and must not exceed those limits. When they reach their limit, they either stop or tip over into metaphysics.

In other words, stay in your lane! And do not confuse your lane with the whole durn freeway, for this is to pretend your little silo is the whole existentialada -- like the the frog at the bottom of a well that thinks the sky is a little blue disc:

Or just say Plato's cave.

The cave of physics "cannot deal with causes beyond the physical world without stepping outside its native realm," for "the cause of the universe is not part of it, it is beyond it, it is metaphysical." Science by its nature gives us the how but not the why.

Maybe there is no why.

In that case, why is there no why? Why would we have an intellect ordered to the intelligibility of the world, only for it to be reduced to one of the objects it knows? 

A man, entirely enclosed in his subjectivity, would not even be able to conceive the notion of subjectivity if he did not have the faculty of objectivity. The animal evolves in an environment; only man, by the nature of his intellect, can posit the world as an objective reality.

Much of this goes back to Gödel, in that man is condemned, as it were, to transcendence:

The common point of all metaphysics is this experience of the intellect as a mirror of a light that goes beyond it, that is transcendent to it. 

So, it seems the intellect is like the moon, or a crystal, that can only reflect a light that it does not produce. 

An abrupt ending, but there's much more to come.