First of all, even the ability to pose the question is fraught with implications. No other animal can ask the question. Therefore, we might say that reality is the thing human beings are able to ask about.
Here is why the question is not like any other question, and not susceptible to a cutandry answer: reality, whatever else it is, is singular, similar to the UNIverse. Now, our senses reveal to us the singular, but there is no knowledge of reality -- of totality -- at the level of the senses.
Conversely, the intellect deals with universals. But reality is not an abstract universal. Rather, it just is.
So, if we can't know it with our senses or with our intellect, how is it that we even have the word?
Along similar lines, Gilson asks "Why is there existence at all, seeing that the existence we directly know does not seem to have in itself a sufficient reason for its existence? And if it is contingent, does it not postulate a necessary existence as its cause and explanation?"
Yes or no?
We say yes, and we call this necessary existence O. If not for the Necessary, we wouldn't even have the word contingent. In the absence of O, literally nothing makes any sense, and yet, O is again neither an object of the senses nor a concept in the melon.
But at the same time, O is -- in a manner of speaking -- the Concept without which there are no concepts. Or, call it the orthoparadoxical "empty concept," so to speak -- a sort of "structured nothingness" which we spend our lives exploring and unpacking.
O has diverse degrees and modes of manifestation, but it is the unity within the diversity; or, in the words of Gilson, it joins "the diverse modes of existence to Him" -- Him being I AM, one of the names of O. One God, one Reality, one Truth, one Love, one Mind -- each of these is necessarily related to the others.
If we invert the cosmos and try to begin with thought, there is simply no way back to oneness except in fantasy, for oneness is something we could neither invent nor discover in the absence of the real One.
Indeed, to even be wrong about God is to prove his existence -- hence Eckhart's crack to the effect that he who blasphemes praises God. The Divine One "is a negation of negations and a denial of denials." He is the light that shines in the darkness of every mind, and in the absence of which there is only darkness upon the deep.
Sure, you can run around with that little candle looking for darkness, but the only thing you'll ever find there is tenure.
About that implicit two-way pre-structure of world and thought: "It is a characteristic of thought to be faced by what is opaque," writes Gilson.
But "as soon as that wall of opaqueness becomes translucent, there is always a similar one behind it," such that "thought progressively assimilates what is intelligible in a world given to it from without."
We do not create -- nor could we ever create -- "the intelligibility and existence of that world." Nevertheless, Deepak will be happy to sell you a very expensive bridge that ends in a shadow world where you can relax in the comfort of your ownan delusions.
Speaking of which, "the birth of the concept presupposes fertilization of the intellect by the reality which it apprehends. Before truth comes the thing that is true" (emphasis mine). Our mental womb must be penetrated and fertilized by a, you know, thing, pardon my French.
To put it another way, we must begin with O, "with the whole in order to distinguish the parts." We cannot begin with one of the parts, "to be posited as the pre-condition for the existence of everything else."
This very much comports with what we were saying last week about left and right brian differences. We begin with the holistic experience of the right brain, not with the abstractions of the left.
If we try to start with the left, we are essentially trying to get from thought to being, and that is like trying to capture a sphere with a circle. All the circles in the world don't add up to one lousy ball (hey, didn't Himmler have something similar?).
Oh. About how we know reality exists even though it is neither sensation nor concept. Very simple. In the real world, there is neither sensation nor intellect. Rather, there are men, and it is the whole man who apprehends being.
You will have noticed that we don't actually find human sensation or human intellect existing abstractly, separate from one another.
For the same reason, it would be absurd to state that a heart, isolated from the body, "pumps blood." In reality, the whole human body pumps blood.
As with the interior of the godhead, we can speak of distinctions but not divisions: "Properly speaking, neither the senses nor the intellect knows; it is the individual man who knows by means of the senses and the intellect."
There is only the "one subject, one being who possesses distinct yet harmonious powers and produces these diverse actions": one man and one cosmos under one God.
54 comments:
But at the same time, O is -- in a manner of speaking -- the Concept without which there are no concepts. Or, call it the orthoparadoxical "empty concept," so to speak -- a sort of "structured nothingness" which we spend our lives exploring and unpacking.
To say there is no such thing as God is something like saying there's no such thing as space. In a sense it is true, but try building a universe, or even an atom without it and see what happens.
For the same reason, it would be absurd to state that a heart, isolated from the body, "pumps blood." In reality, the whole human body pumps blood.
That's good. I suspect that is one of the reasons there will never be a disembodied artificial intelligence. Building a very complex electronic brain does not mean it can think because "thought" is not something the brain does in isolation.
Indeed. Only an infertile egghead -- someone who reduces thought to abstraction, and is lost in the left brain -- could believe otherwise.
The same goes for scientists who try to find free will in the brain, when it's a function of the whole person.
Sorry for the OT, but this is interesting,
"Shall we compare these to a strand of DNA? Goldman's team showed that they can fit the entire database of pioneering particle physics lab CERN (which holds approximately 90 petabytes of information) onto just 41 grams of DNA. In comparison, every sonnet Shakespeare ever wrote could fit on a mere speck of genetic material.
These findings aren't necessarily new—Harvard geneticist George Church was able to encode a book in DNA last summer. And some adventurous poets are even using DNA to encode new original works."
Wouldn't it be interesting, if some, oh, I dunno, you know, one of those 'creative' types, well what if this 'creator' were to not just use DNA to store poetry in, but were to write DNA AS poetry.
Huh. Wonder how that might turn out.
"In the beginning...."
[BTW, on an unrealated note, that George Church, I think is the same dude musing about cloning Neanderthals]
Truly, secular humanism is inhumanism.
"Indeed, to even be wrong about God is to prove his existence -- "
God is Truth.
Nice post Bob.
" reality, whatever else it is, is singular, similar to the UNIverse. Now, our senses reveal to us the singular, but there is no knowledge of reality -- or universe -- at the level of the senses.... Conversely, the intellect deals with universals. But reality is not an abstract universal. Rather, it just is. "
With our fallen nature, we use our intellect - with our broken moral compass - to learn about the Universe around us. Through trial and error... and error again and again... do we eventually stumble upon more and more the correct roads to walk.
The intellect is part of this constructed clockwork (and most beautiful) World. Our soul is not.
When God was born a man as Christ, his intellect was at the same level as ours: blank, as his wetware was still unused. But his moral compass (I shouldn't even deign to call it that) was perfect as he is God. God, born as man, beholding his creation through the same kaleidoscope filters of mind that we do. All the filters, and the hungers, all the desires, all the emotions (fear, anger, joy, happiness). All of it... except that he is God. A perfectly centered ... I'd like to say 'soul' or 'heart' but dare not as both would be horribly incorrect. Better to say that the center in which he inhabits is what we - us souls - struggle to achieve or attain: That unfallen perspective on the heights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1kPkLco-mk
Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God.
As with the interior of the godhead, we can speak of distinctions but not divisions: "Properly speaking, neither the senses nor the intellect knows; it is the individual man who knows by means of the senses and the intellect."
Yes, just so.
"Indeed. Only an infertile egghead -- someone who reduces thought to abstraction, and is lost in the left brain -- could believe otherwise."
So what exactly are we supposed to be doing with our left brain?
I mean, we're not supposed to be lost there, but there has to be some idea of how to tell it that it needs to behave.
"That's good. I suspect that is one of the reasons there will never be a disembodied artificial intelligence. Building a very complex electronic brain does not mean it can think because "thought" is not something the brain does in isolation."
They can probably build a mechanistic construct that kind of functions left brain with no personality.
The problem isn't even artificial *intelligence* as it is artificial *personality*.
Recursivity: R-->L-->R-->L-->R, etc, etc. You just need to start and end in the right, so to speak. It's like catabolism and anabolism. The purpose of catabolism is metabolism.
"So what exactly are we supposed to be doing with our left brain?"
Take a step back. If you get lost in the trees, stop to notice that there's a forest around you, and remember that the forest is itself only a small part of a much greater whole. Or what Bob said.
"The problem isn't even artificial *intelligence* as it is artificial *personality*."
Yes, that's a great point. The whole idea of the Turing test is to come up with a machine that can mimics personality so well, real people can't tell the difference. Interestingly, though, it seems like the way to achieve that is to make a machine that can learn from experience. Hence all the creepy baby robots people keep designing.
"Take a step back. If you get lost in the trees, stop to notice that there's a forest around you, and remember that the forest is itself only a small part of a much greater whole. Or what Bob said."
I suppose I was thinking more along the lines of "I want to use my left brain, but how do I know that I didn't get trapped in an Infinite Left Brain Loop again?"
"Sure, you can run around with that little candle looking for darkness, but the only thing you'll ever find that way is tenure."
The wackademic twist on the drunk looking for his keys:
"Why are you crawling around in the dark?"
"(urp)... too much of a chance of finding them if I'm in the light... (hic)"
"Speaking of which, "the birth of the concept presupposes fertilization of the intellect by the reality which it apprehends. Before truth comes the thing that is true" (emphasis mine). Our mental womb must be penetrated and fertilized by a, you know, thing, pardon my French."
No reality - no ideas about it.
And looping back on last post, words have as much to do with creating reality, as a painters brush and canvas have to do with creating the landscape he's painting. If he hangs it on his wall and accepts that as gospel, over what he can see by looking outside, he gets what he's asked for.
"We begin with the holistic experience of the right brain, not with the abstractions of the left."
Yep.
* Reality exists.
* Identity is reality existing in the context of some particular thing.
* In our awareness of what reality exists as, we become aware that we are aware, and become aware of ourselves, through realization of the truth of what is.
R->L->R->L->R....
Okay, how about this:
As an art student, I once had a teacher who advised that one shouldn't draw the fleas before drawing the dog. The left brain is detail-oriented, but the details of necessity are only parts of a whole. Yes, they are necessary but it's important to give them no more nor less emphasis than they deserve in relation to the whole.
Imagine that you're painting a mural: you wouldn't start by picking one small patch of canvas and filling it in without any thought of what should fill the rest of the space. You'd rough out the whole, mentally if not actually sketching it all in, then zero in on details, then literally step back and see how those details fit in with the whole. Sometimes it even helps to walk away from the whole thing for a while, until you can look at it with eyes made new, perhaps even turning the canvas upside down or looking at it in a mirror, so that it looks unfamiliar enough that you see it anew.
This is because those bits one might fixate on have an uncanny tendency to grow all out of proportion and in doing so, ruin the effect of the whole, but it can be very difficult to see how that happens while in the midst of working. Only after taking a break and stepping away for a while can one regain an accurate perspective. And if it turns out that the details don't fit the whole, usually you don't scrap the whole you just fix the details.
In your case, I don't know what nit-picky left-brain loops you might obsess over. But if you can remember that those details do not exist for themselves, but as a part of something greater, you might have an easier time of keeping them in their proper place.
R>L>R>L etc
sort of like opponent processors: duality refines control (Kinsbourne)
"without Contraries is no progression" (Hell, from Blake)
moving in stereo (ironic video here)
opponent processors was a choice nugget of an idea found in McGilchrist
if duality is good, just think what triality can do for yeh
Serendipitously, Ace has a post along the same lines of what I was just talking about.
"I find it interesting that even good directors film these unnecessary scenes-- that they don't realize in the scripting phase they're unnecessary, but only realize it when they see the filmed footage cut together as an unfinished cut. James Cameron filmed a whole unnecessary introduction to Newt's family for Aliens, the family doing some surveying and prospecting work prior to the alien infestation. Apparently his original thinking was that if he doesn't show the audience Newt's family, the audience will not really accept that Newt once had a family."
This is because those bits one might fixate on have an uncanny tendency to grow all out of proportion and in doing so, ruin the effect of the whole ...
I've often seen the Thomas Hart Benton murals in the Missouri Capitol. Whatever you think of Benton's style, he could definitely get the big picture.
The mistake of a lot of writers is telling too much back-story. The writer or director needs to know it, but they also need to give the reader or the audience a little credit. Art is knowing how much credit.
There's a book called
Reality that is unrelated to much going on here, in as positive a sense for all concerned as is possible! It's about Empedocles & Parmenides and their visionary poetry that birthed western civ...
long review here
Or the classic bit of artistic advice that applies in many, diverse domains:
"Show, don't tell"
"The writer or director needs to know it, but they also need to give the reader or the audience a little credit."
The Bible authors had this kind of faith.
I mean, have.
P Buchanan piece
[a bit more in harmony w/ yesterday's post]
But if the nation did not establish equality of constitutional rights until the 1860s and equality of civil rights until the 1960s, how can Obama claim that “equality” has been the feature that “makes us American” and “binds this nation together.”
How can he say that our commitment to equality is what makes us “exceptional” – when every Western country believes in equal rights for all of its citizens, and it was the French Revolution, not ours, that elevated “egalite” to a founding principle.
And when he says equality “is the star that guides us still,” exactly what kind of equality is Obama talking about?
Answer: The equality of which Obama speaks is not an equality of rights but an equality of results, an idea that dates not to the Founding Fathers, who would have been appalled by the idea, but to the 1960s.
This equality is not a founding principle of the republic. It is ideological contraband. For such equality can only be achieved at the price of freedom, our true founding principle.
"I want to use my left brain, but how do I know that I didn't get trapped in an Infinite Left Brain Loop again?"
@JP
Analysis Paralysis.
Its when you're stuck in an infinite logic loop and you're no longer mining precious 'spiritual ore' from that specific idea/lesson/occurrence/concept.
Infinite Loop. Logic Error. Core Dump.
Walk away from those ideas and come back to them when you have more a little data and a little different perspective.
Gagdad,
Hey, I hope you know that I pop in now and then with questions because I respect your opinion.
Do you think that there is a major difference between Tradition and Protestant Christianity? Protestantism says that outside of Christ is Hell, but Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox share similar views of Christ being a medicine for sickness, similar to the Buddhist conception of dharma.
JP - I'm still way back on the Guissani book, but just came across one more relevant passage:
"But when the human being's reason affirms that, 'My life's meaning is...' 'The meaning of the world is...' 'The meaning of history is...' then it inevitably goes on to define what this is: it is the blood of the Aryan race, the struggle of the proletariat, the competition for economic supremacy, etc. Every time a definition is completed, it will inevitably begin from a certain point of view. Another way of saying this would be: if the human being claims to define the total meaning, he can only end up exalting his own point of view. He cannot avoid claiming totality for a particular, inflating a detail to define the whole. This position must attempt to make every aspect of reality fit into its own perspective. And, since he is dealing with only a detail, his attempt to make everything fit into cannot escape denying or forgetting something; it cannot help reducing, negating, and repudiating the entire, complex face of reality."
In the parlance of our times, fitting into that list at the beginning one could include Game theory, environmentalism, and of course the ever popular demonization of capitalism...
Thanks Julie/cond.
I suppose the first thing to recognize is you don't want to start slicing off bits of reality to stuff it into your straightjacket idea.
And I suppose the left brain *likes* to do that because that's what it's for. For instance, if you are hungry and trying to find food, you're slicing off all routes that are not-food. Which is most of the world, including art and music.
On another note, I noticed that Slate's at least tracking gun deaths nationwide now - apparently somebody's realized that gun deaths often:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
"And I suppose the left brain *likes* to do that because that's what it's for. "
Certainty is very comfortable, JP. You're absolutely right that the Left Brain craves it (haha double entendre!!!). I wonder if its the Right Brain that comes along and says... now, now, let the binky go for a while ...
Any 'Rabbit Hole' is bottomless. Take the Left-Brain favorite of Math as a perfect example of how a most simple concept can spiral into the infinite.
All work is never finished, its only abandoned. When you find absolute certainty in any concept and there is no where to go, you know its time to give it a rest for a while as you've probably absorbed a wrong principle and need to back out of that dead end.
Boredom is also a bad sign.
Chris: I personality find Protestantism in general to be totally incoherent and untenable, even while I totally sympathize with the historical reasons for its appearance, and I make no prejudgment of any particular Protestant. Nor am I myself Catholic or Orthodox, so there, and every time the Catholic hierarchy says something stupid, the reasons for Protestantism are repeated. Which is a good way of introducing the forthcoming series on Meditation on the Tarot, since I think it speaks to misfits like myself who are neither fish nor fowl; or both and neither at the same time. I hate the term, but "esoteric Christianity" addresses a genuine and legitimate need -- or people who really need it because the more traditional routes are blocked for them. Why are they blocked? I used to blame Christianity, but now I just put it down to "it takes all kinds." I am who I am, and I can't become someone I'm not just to accept some superficial message. It seems to me that salvation, if it is to be efficacious, has to go all the way to the bones. For the majority of Christians the traditional ways are sufficient (and that includes both orthodox and Protestant), but not for the Raccoon, which you might say is our reason for being.
This is getting pretty long. I should turn it into a post!
GE: I'm not sure yet, but I believe the book I'm currently reading, called Being and Some Philosophers, takes Parmenides to task for conflating Being and existence. As Plato said, his is a formidable philosophy that is to be respected and feared. Updates as they become available.
Or as Gilson writes, Parmenides "will ruthlessly drag us through a series of such devastating consequences that very little will remain of what we usually call reality." Not that there's anything wrong with that.
yo Bob-- that sounds like the effect Kingsley's REALITY book had on many readers
Yes, it seems to represent one of the legitimate end points of natural reason.
But i might add Kingsley finds most scholars & translators of those olden dudes to be bass-ackwards distorters of their essential esoteric meaning
Yes, it's posible. In fact, even with a perfectly accurate translation, I'm not so sure we could ever enter the mentality. It's like trying to reanimate a corpse. Seems to involve a total plunge into the right brain.
ge - I actually read that one a few years back, on Walt's recommendation. I seem to recall thinking it was okay, as far as it went, but had a certain breathless quality about it. "Total plunge into the right brain" may be a pretty good descriptor, though it's been a few years...
J, I know what you mean; PK's subject matter there is deep and esoteric as can be but he saw fit to structure it a little like a Hardy Boys serial, with questionably-fitting goads to see what's in the next installment/chapter. But his is an important role i think in exposing us to these ancient authors as vital mysterious adepts more than old farty footnote quotes
Bob said,
"I am who I am, and I can't become someone I'm not just to accept some superficial message. It seems to me that salvation, if it is to be efficacious, has to go all the way to the bones."
I hear ya. With me, some of my reasons sound like excuses. Sometimes. I do know me pretty well (in the ability to talk myself into and out of things area), and I picture myself making a go of a traditional kind and I see my me being lousy at it. Or ultimately. And there is this being carried away into the group thing, or collective, or giving ones self up to the collective. I've always been an outsider in essence. I've always been fine alone (as long as I know where everyone is, such as in the next room).
And then we talk of "all the way to the bones" and I'm reminded that I may not know what I'm missing or my "to become" resides in this tradition I'm not experiencing or working at.
I'm saying this is the case with me at this time, but it is similar in many way to yours.
Yes, I hate to sound like I'm making all the usual excuses (e.g., "I'm not a Joiner" or "I just don't like organized religion"), which is why I want to address it in the course of blogging about MOTT -- i.e., exactly what is esoterism, why does it exist, who is it for, what are its legitimate rights and limitations, etc.
And that was some mighty fine witnessin' in the previous thread!
Every year on his birthday, Prager devotes an hour to asking callers to tell him how his program has changed their lives. Not for egoic purposes, of course, but to let him know he's having an effect, and to inspire him for another year of radio blabbing. I've thought about doing it myself, because I think it would be helpful not just to me, but to other readers as well.
Thanks, Bob.
And always looking forward to MoTTizing.
Just remembered, Father Barron's Catholicism program. Episode 7, I think. He explains the "useless things" you discussed at least once here. He did a really good job with it. Finished the work you started, Bob, since I was sort of getting it and now I think by Jove I've got it. Not sure if the book version of the program is word-for-word with the series...but the visuals while he was explaining it really brought it home.
And incidentally, I don't think he explains EVERYTHING all that well (as often and as well as you do). But much of it. And I think he's got some Raccoon in 'im. He'd like it here, I think, and like what is going on. Or we could chew the fat at least if not some fruit.
He has those truffular insights too that I've never seen anywhere else. There was one last night about the proper translation of the word used when Jesus says "eat my flesh". It's more like "gnaw".
This is no small thing. He goes on to say how many are repelled by the words, but that Jesus doesn't reach for a kinder, gentler metaphor but repeats it.
What's interesting is, although Jesus STRESSES his point AGAIN, the seriousness of it, it's not followed by some repulsive ritual, participated in by those who did not leave him, such as actually drinking human blood and eating flesh. This is an interesting difference from say not a few "cultures", false religions, cults ancient and near.
"I've thought about doing it myself, because I think it would be helpful not just to me, but to other readers as well."
Ya got my vote, you know that. They're real stories. What's not to like?
Yes, that's why I love a good spiritual autopneumography, because it's a real witness to real spiritual effects.
Re Father Barron: I had the same impression of his book Catholicism. It seemed to me that he went a little wobbly over some key areas, something that, say, Schuon, never does.
And in fact, Schuon would say that it isn't possible to construct a non-wobbly exoterism, and that only via esoterism can one clear up the contradictions and attain more unified and total synthesis.
You might say that esoterism is the only cure for an excess of "critical thinking."
What does Schuon say about mountains and fissures? Esoterism spans the fissures.
Which inverts Jesus' command to be fishers of men and not men of fissures.
"Re Father Barron: I had the same impression of his book Catholicism. It seemed to me that he went a little wobbly over some key areas"
It seemed like he was going to have a big finish and then...nuthin.
Then I thought, maybe he's talking to somebody else. Then I thought, eh, I don't care, what else ya got :-)
I have to say, there are a lot of places I'd like to visit someday. Blu-ray's the next best thing I guess. Holy cow. The places, I mean.
If you go deep enough into any Rabbit-hole, no matter how elementary its Ontology is, it eventually becomes esoteric or arcane.
That 'aha!!' moment when you bridge that gap between two mountainous concepts is not something the beer and pretzels crowd can readily understand nor explain, thus the esoteric is necessary.
Examples of mountains that require esoteric bridging are:
The Trinity and the Monotheism of Christianity.
Timelessness of God.
God and Christ are one in the same.
God is Truth.
oh... and thanks for the new word, Bob! Esoteric squishes the concept down nicely into one compact word.
Interestingly, I think the literal meaning of esoteric is something like "inside the circle." Gives new meaning to ʘ. Or old.
Post a Comment