This is the statement: "the cosmos is in the soul, not the soul in the cosmos," and later "the cosmos is in us, and we are in God." Those are not the sorts of things you can just toss out there, unless maybe you're passing a joint while doing so. If truth is "just anything," pretty soon it is just nothing.
Yes, religion is often guilty of this sort of thing because of the I-AMbiguous nature of the subject. You might be tempted to believe that science is innocent of this abuse, but you would be wrong. If anything, it is the bigger offender, because nothing about science (or scientism) is grounded in anything (or everything grounded in nothing).
And that's just the metaphysics. Concepts such as "big bang," "evolution," "consciousness," and "person" are thrown around as if they are self-evident. Which they are, so long as you buy into the whole paradigm, but the paradigm is absurd if you take it seriously.
Truly, scientism isn't "in the world" but in its paradigm. Therefore, it sees what the paradigm allows it to see. As soon as we realize the paradigm is in us, we have transcended it, as outlined in yesterday's post. And then you have to account for how this inescapable transcendence has gotten into the universe.
But it cannot be a scientific account, because then you're back where you started, safe inside your little paradigm. This is part of what I mean by saying that the cosmos is in us rather than vice versa. However, I'm saying something a little more radical, because I don't merely mean our representation of the cosmos, but the cosmos as such.
As we've mentioned any number of times, "cosmos" or "universe" are already profoundly metaphysical concepts that assume the oneness of creation. Why should creation be one? Because we intuit it as such. Deep down we know there is an Absolute, and that it is a contradiction in terms to affirm two Absolutes. Reality is one, and we all know it, if not explicitly then implicitly.
The only exceptions to this are the mentally ill or brain damaged. For example, people who are subjected to early trauma, abuse, and deprivation often suffer from a kind of primordial rupture on the ground floor of their neuro-psyche. As such, they have difficulty with most any kind of integration, whether of emotions, thoughts, or actions.
I read a short book the other day that touches on this, God and Philosophy, by Etienne Gilson. To paraphrase and expand upon an amazon review, Greek philosophy was eventually able to arrive at That Which Is -- the objective Absolute, so to speak -- while it fell upon the ancient Hebrews to not only discover the subjective Absolute -- He Who Is, or I AM -- but to then put the two together in a daring cosmo-historical act of integration.
But then Uncles Rene (Descartes) and Manny (Kant) came along and ruined everybody's lives and ate all our steak by demolishing this unity with a "'purely rational' philosophy which holds nearly every intellectual today in bondage." This is the paradigm capture alluded to above, although the prisons are diverse, for truth is one while ideology is many -- a fractured fairy tale.
In any event, any metaphysic worthy of man must account for the IT IS as well as the I AM, i.e., objectivity and subjectivity. Sure, you can reduce the latter to the former, but that doesn't actually solve the problem, any more than throwing a hand grenade onto the board solves a chess problem. Frankly, you can eliminate any problem via reverse transcendence, or "transcendence from below," but this is always accompanied by a destruction of humanness.
For example, the male-female relation is a problem. There is a cosmically correct way to deal with the problem, and then there are the left's ways, which naturally end in more problems -- which is precisely why women are less happy today than when feminism got hold of them. It is impossible to be happy while living in defiance of one's archetype instead of in conformity with it.
So many aphorisms. Regarding what was just said in the paragraph above, Christianity does not solve “problems”; it merely obliges us to live them at a higher level. Again, transcendence, not hand grenades.
About the futile attempt to enclose the cosmos in (lower case) reason, civilization is the irrational fusion of opposing terms. Those who aspire to a “rational” civilization plan slaughters. See 20th century for details.
About the metaphysical slide from oneness to diversity, After conversing with some “thoroughly modern” people, we see that humanity escaped the “centuries of faith” only to get stuck in those of credulity.
About the implicit oneness, Faith is not an irrational assent to a proposition; it is a perception of a special order of realities. It is not a conviction that we possess, but a conviction that possesses us -- from outside the cosmos. Faith is like an air hole at the top (in addition to letting in the light and warmth).
About reducing subject to object, One to many, soul to matter, He who does not believe in God can at least have the decency of not believing in himself. Because The doctrines that explain the higher by means of the lower are appendices of a magician’s rule book.
About being stuck in a paradigm and calling it freedom, The philosopher who adopts scientific notions has predetermined his conclusions.
In philosophy nothing is easier than to be consistent. Rather, the trick is completeness! And no man can pretend to be complete without God.
As to our initial problematic statement about the cosmos being in the soul, Schuon writes that "the Intellect coincides in its innermost nature with the very Being of things." Or in other words, we are ultimately in conformity with reality. If not, then what is the point? This is the truth that sets us free. Every alternative places us in bondage: God or Egypt, transcendence or hand grenades.
12 comments:
You're far from this.
Funny! I just searched "chopra bullshit," and all sorts of amusing things come up, such as this. There's even a chopra generator, in case you're too lazy to deepak your own.
It is impossible to be happy while living in defiance of one's archetype instead of in conformity with it.
Teach it to your children and your children's children.
...we are ultimately in conformity with reality
When I wanderer around in eastern religion in my youth, this was a problem for me. Christianity solved it without putting me in genuine opposition to Taoism, in particular.
Wandered, as a wanderer.
The only exceptions to this are the mentally ill or brain damaged.
...
But then Uncles Rene (Descartes) and Manny (Kant) came along and ruined everybody's lives and ate all our steak by demolishing this unity with a "'purely rational' philosophy which holds nearly every intellectual today in bondage."
Indeed, being "educated" in such a way is to literally cause brain damage.
It is impossible to be happy while living in defiance of one's archetype instead of in conformity with it.
Yes, indeed. When I was young and brain damaged, the worst possible thing I could imagine doing with my life was being "just" a stay-at-home mom and housewife. How shameful!
These days, it is the thought of having to go out into the workforce that seems the worst sort of fate.
In like a Lion, out like a Lamb.
No goats or snakes were harmed in the broadcast. Just kicks in the head, and such.
"But then Uncles Rene (Descartes) and Manny (Kant) came along and ruined everybody's lives and ate all our steak by demolishing this unity with a "'purely rational' philosophy which holds nearly every intellectual today in bondage." This is the paradigm capture alluded to above, although the prisons are diverse, for truth is one while ideology is many -- a fractured fairy tale."
Whose philosophical rations are 'I only think, therefore IT isn't.'
Been watching Wild, Wild Country on Netflix this weekend: a fascinating tale of the Osho cult. I have to say these are well produced, and offer really compelling story telling around how human nature goes awry.
Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy said , I respond positively to his message therefor I am, in retort to the ugly motto of the uncle. Humans definitely will go awry, away from his message and the stupid interpretations of the message. It is the same one message that been diversified due to the different interpretations that spread division among the one human race and have erected its civilization on the wrong premises that the good people of the west and others are reaping the rotten fruits of that soil. Faith is both a conviction that possess us by his grace and a conviction we possess by our honest work in his realm. Reading his cosmos and ourselves as his books that need to be understood to appreciate the grandness of the author of these books, is the key for opening the doors to the real understanding of the absolute. The blunder of reading nature as mechanical construct that has no life or reading god before understanding these books is a dangerous road that lead many to their destruction. The mess we are in is the result of reading our cosmos and ourselves away from their author not only that but we have turned everything upside down, natural selection instead divine selection, biological selection instead of spiritual selection, then the establishment of the humans as the source of knowledge and throw away god. In the world of god there is no monopoly and we have monopolized everything through the criminal actions of governments that never have abstained from their ugly actions despite the change in time, while its intellectuals are discussing flying concepts, unaware or careless of what their governments are doing in the world, The mess is not just of the left but we all share in it and directing our derision on others will not address the problem. We are in a time that many pointers herald the onslaught of the divine righting force process that have been abused and rendered powerless, by pulling the very high to the ream of the human, thinking, we are doing service to the humans understanding by saying god is like man, oblivious of what we have done to the purity of the absolute. It is also a waking time that makes the silent talks.
Hi Abdulmonem: Your wide ranging comment contains many interesting assertions, one of which reads "The mess is not just of the left but we all share in it and directing our derision on others will not address the problem."
I like this a lot, however what you mean by "the mess" is unclear. Are you referring to the general untidy state of the world, wherein much is not as we would like? In other words, business as usual, with all of the Godless running amok?
Thank God (literally) for the timely arrival of the out-system visitors, who by igniting such a colossal media frenzy we all get a needed respite from the usual dreary concerns.
Then back to business as usual, now with aliens.
Post a Comment