Andrew Breitbart and Ultimate Reality

Hartshorne calls his approach to metaphysics "neoclassical," which only puts him at odds with two groups: the great majority of philosophers who devalue or reject metaphysics entirely (or pretend to, anyway), and the minority who still embrace traditional or classical metaphysics, e.g., Catholic Thomists or perennialist/traditionalists of the Guenon-Schuon school.

Let's begin by summarizing Schuon's conception, and then see if there is any way to tweak this toward a process view, something he would have admittedly abhorred, for reasons we will try to illuminate (mainly because it seems to imply an "evolutionist" metaphysic that always caused his blood pressure to spike to unsafe levels).

In the compilation Splendor of the True there is a helpful chapter entitled Summary of Integral Metaphysics (also found in the indispensable Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism). In the preface to the latter, he states that "there are truths inherent in the human spirit that are as if buried in the 'depths of the heart.'" As such, they may be thought of "as potentialities or virtualities in the pure Intellect" (i.e., the nous, not the profane ego).

In short, these ultimate truths are latent within us, but need to be activated by metaphysical understanding, which is gained either explicitly, via metaphysics as such, or implicitly, via revelation. In other words, what revelation reveals is the universal metaphysic -- or information about the nature of the Absolute: about ultimate reality and about how this bears upon our origins, our purpose, and our destiny.

Unlike animals, man may know -- or at least be aware of -- the Absolute, in the absence of which we couldn't think at all. That is to say, man's intelligence is not proportioned just to the physical world, or to culture, or to reason. Rather, it is proportioned to a transcendent reality that conditions all these lesser modalities, the latter of which fall "immensely beneath the scope of our intelligence."

The very principle of truth is unthinkable in the absence of the Absolute, which is why infrahuman metaphysics such as materialism and reductionism are non-starters. They are not "humanistic" at all, but rather, the opposite. There is nothing human about secular humanism, because to reject transcendence only ends up disfiguring man. A person without transcendence looks like the hideous Miley Cyrus, if not outside, then inside.

Thus, "our soul proves God because it is proportioned to the divine nature," which in turn reveals our purpose. In the absence of this divine-human dialectic (or dia-logue), human existence is of course absolutely meaningless (which is a contradiction in terms, but whatever).

In any event, "For the inferior man, only what is contingent is real, and he seeks by his method to lower principles to the level of contingencies when he does not deny them purely and simply."

But how can a purely contingent being presume to be so obnoxiously absolutist -- for example, like those aggressively tenured products of natural selection?

This is an example of what happens when one rejects metaphysics: one's thought has no center, no ground, no external consistency. Thus, metaphysical Darwinism is indeed internally consistent, i.e., logical within itself. It just can't apply to reality without refuting its own consistency and completeness.

Or in other words, if it is true, then it is false, for if only what is contingent is real, then there's no reality deserving of the name, and we're off to the deconstructive races, into diversity, relativism, and class warfare -- into the lightless world of unalloyed tenure.

As a very brief aside, I'm really enjoying Breitbart's last book, Righteous Indignation. It tells of his gradual emancipation from unthinking, default ambient-cultural liberalism toward the reality of conservative principles, and in many ways parallels my own developmental road trip.

And although our temperaments are very different, I think, had he lived, he would have eventually pursued those principles all the way to the toppermost of the poppermost, into the permanent metaphysical truths embodied in religion. If one keeps evolving at his rate, there's really no place else to grow.

There is an illuminating passage on p. 159, where he concedes that "I'm not religious, and I'm certainly no theologian, but if there is one thing in religion that speaks to me, it is the idea of absolute truth.

"In fact," -- sounding more than a little like a full-blooded Raccoon -- "the word truth has meaning only if it is absolute. And absolute truth will set us all free from the grip of the [Democrat/MSM] Complex, because the Complex lives in the clouds, in the theoretical heavens" of pure abstraction.

I mean, once you realize there's an Absolute Truth, you're knocking on heaven's door (or Toots' Tavern). Recall what Schuon said above about those virtual truths "inherent in the human spirit" that are "buried in the 'depths of the heart.'"

Now, one reason why metaphysics is foolishly rejected is because people imagine it is completely remote and abstract, unrelated to practical existence. But this is only half true. Yes, it is abstract, but as Hartshorne emphasizes, the abstraction is unthinkable in the absence of the concrete.

In this regard, it is analogous to Aristotle's correction of Plato's belief in an abstract and disembodied realm of pure ideas. Rather, we only encounter the form in the substance, and vice versa.

In reality -- ironically -- it is leftism that is purely abstract. This has been demonstrated time and again whenever the left has gained power and attempted to force their beautiful abstractions upon recalcitrant reality. What is Obamacare but a baroque abstraction that cannot possibly comport with concrete reality? To characterize this a priori mismatch in terms of "bugs" or "glitches" is analogous to insisting that phrenology will work just fine with a few tweaks. (Same problem with global warming: right theory, wrong planet.)

Back to Schuon's conception. Again, at risk of making him rotate in his sarcophagus, what I want to do here is find out if there is a way to reconcile his universal metaphysics with a more process view of God.

For Schuon (as for Breitbart!), "we must begin with the idea that the supreme reality is absolute and therefore infinite."

Thinking in terms of geometry, absolute may be thought of as a kind of adamantine point, whereas infinite may be thought of as radiating out from this central point. This would appear to encompass both sides of God, in that the absolute "is solely and totally itself," whereas the infinite "is not determined or limited by any boundary." Rather, "it is in the first place Potentiality or Possibility as such," and "hence Virtuality." Thus, without this "All-Possibility there would be neither Creator nor creation..."

Ah ha! Did you see that? I think I detect a little opening for process to get an edge in Word-wise. But right now I'm out of time, so to be continued.