Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Person, Ground, and Center

For the last several weeks we've been stalking several subjects that appear to be implicitly related, otherwise we wouldn't be circling them. In other words, it isn't so much that we are circling them as they are drawing us toward them, and that they in turn cohere around their own center.

Think of stumbling upon a series of seemingly independent planets that are actually in the orbit of one central star. Is there a star witness somewhere who can tie up our loose ends?

The fact that we keep flitting from topic to topic -- along with the discontinuous nature of the flight (which is a little like trying to resume a dream the following night) -- may obscure the fact that we have indeed been orbiting around a center and trying to zero in on it. It's just that this center is what is called a strange attractor, in fact, the strangest of all attractors, specifically, O.

In other words, I'm sure I have a point, or rather, that the point has me (in its orbit). The wiki article includes a helpful image of a strange attractor, which looks something like this (although each one is necessarily unique, which suggests to me that each individual human person is none other than a strange attractor):

As you can see, it's a little like a roller coaster in hyperspace. Which is a good metaphor for life.

You may recall that this strange and complex thread began with Brendan Purcell's From Big Bang to Big Mystery: Human Origins in the Light of Creation and Evolution, but eventually homed in on Eric Voegelin, beginning with his Hitler and the Germans. After that I leapt with both feet into Voegelin's oceanic corpus, where many men have drowned. It seems that all he ever did was think and write, and no thought was left unwritten.

He also changed his mind in fundamental ways that affect all his previous work, so it's not as if you can just grab one piece out of context and run with it. Rather, it's more like the Bible, in which one must have a view of the whole in order to comprehend the particulars. Just last week I heard someone mention that the Bible is "hermeneutically asymmetrical," meaning that the relation of the NT to the OT is not reversible, in that the former fully illuminates the latter, whereas the OT can only imperfectly hint at and grope toward its fulfillment in the NT (for Christians, of course; no offense to our Jewish friends).

And the Whole is precisely what we are dealing with in this thread (indeed, this blog), which is to say Cosmos and Man, or Macrocosm and Microcosm, or Time and Eternity, or ultimately -- to express it in a completely unsaturated manner -- O and ʘ. This latter equation is irreducible to anything less, because there is always man and ground, however one formulates it.

As mentioned in the book, the cosmos is either absurd or it is not absurd. Indeed, we can begin with a kind of flow chart, with that question at the top.

But if you deicide at the outset that the cosmos is absurd, then you may stop. Game over. Philosophy is not possible. Thinking is a waste of time because reality is unknowable. The cosmos -- and Darwin -- is finished with you, assuming you have passed your genes on to the next absurd generation. Or not, depending upon your fitness for genetic duty.

However, if the cosmos is not absurd, then this is where things get interesting, for we are thrust into the strange attractor referenced above. If I grasp Voegelin rightly, it was his purpose to actually describe this attractor in as much detail as humanly possible. He called the attractor order, hence the title of what many people feel to be his magnum opus, the five volume Order and History.

Now, bear in mind that exhaustively describing this order -- i.e., containing it -- is precisely what man may never do, since this transcendent order contains us.

But man doesn't like this idea, and has had difficulty swallowing it ever since Genesis. There we learn that this transcendent order is All Good, so long as man subordinates himself to it and doesn't try to concrockt his own.

Thus the birth of ideology, which is always wrong, only more or less demonically so. An ideology is any system of thought that superimposes a second reality on the first, which has the practical effect of severing man from the ground in more or less coercive or violent ways. Ideology ends in the murder of man -- man as such -- either physically or spiritually (and usually both).

One important point of, er, order. It is quite clear that man's lust for ideology is, or might as well be, intrinsic -- as if we are all infected with Adam's primordial mind parasite. Thus, there is nothing that cannot be "ideologized," including the very cures for ideology, e.g., Christianity or American (not European) style conservatism.

A useful point of entry into Voegelin is his Science, Politics, and Gnosticism. One reason it is so helpful is that in it he recovers a certain transtemporal unity of man, in tracing the modern ideologies -- e.g., scientism, positivism, Marxism, fascism, socialism (but I threepeat myself), etc. -- all the way back to antiquity.

And "prior" (ontologically or vertically) to antiquity is mythology. Myth occurs at the horizon of history, and tells us vital things about our deep structure that cannot be recovered through the historical method. Again, Genesis would be a prime example.

If we are aware and respectful of the cosmic order, then it is a kind of unknowculation against ideology. Properly speaking, Christianity, for example, should not be an ideology, but rather, a ground-level encounter between persons. "Dogmatic order" is obviously important, but is posterior to the Person (or Relation of Persons) and all it implies.

Nor should conservatism ever be reduced to an ideology; rather, it should simply be a healthy respect for the Nature of Things, whether human, societal, economic, political, spiritual, or any other mode. The point is, reality always comes first, not the ideology. Which is why Voegelin concluded that the "essence of modernity is gnosticism."

We'll leave off with some aphorisms that circle the same Attractor, i.e., Person-Ground-Center:

Conservatism should not be a political party but the normal attitude of every decent man.

Loyalty to a doctrine ends up in adherence to the interpretation we give it. Only loyalty to a person frees us from all the indulgence we grant ourselves.

For the Christian, history does not have a direction, but rather a center.

For God there are only individuals (NGD).

10 comments:

julie said...

An ideology is any system of thought that superimposes a second reality on the first, which has the practical effect of severing man from the ground in more or less coercive or violent ways.

Another way to understand the search for truth is see it as an unmasking, wherein we tear away the veils of ideology in the hope of one day touching what is real; touching, because truly understanding is a whole 'nother level entirely.

Anonymous said...

Much as a crustacean must molt and cast off old shells in order to grow, it seems to me a human being inhabits various mind-sets and ideologies in succession, casting them off in succession, before finally molting out of ideologies altogether.

It is possible children and adolescents need ideologies as a framework or scaffold to build individuality, after which it being created the scaffolding can be torn away, exposing the masterpiece.

Voeglin changed his mind, and each of us may change our minds a number of times.

Olden Ears said...

Anonymous said: It is possible children and adolescents need ideologies as a framework or scaffold to build individuality...

I like that. I can certainly see it in my own life. It also explains why so often the ideologically committed seem childish.

Roy Lofquist said...

"Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more
pleasing than Chaos and Old Night."

--Russell Kirk

https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @6/19/2019 01:20:00 PM,

Indeed. Except the humans you describe are in the small minority. More than half of the general population is temperamentally driven to want to follow, to be the best they can be at appearing traditional, tribal, and 'normal'. And often the rest of us must at least appear to follow, lest we be shunned. Or worse.

This is why the more successful of the power mad have and always will take fullest advantage of ideologies. Even conservatism. Is anybody still quoting Goldwater, Kristol or Will anymore? Hell, even Bannon seems to have gone obsolete.

I'd think conservatism should be about steadying the tides and storms of an ever advancing population and technology, with long established and proven moral principles. The hard part is, as always, getting such things to stick with the traditional, tribal, and ‘normal’, with their very short and highly rationalistic memories.

julie said...

The closest thing to true conservatism that exists in the US is the Amish. Vanishingly few people are willing to live that way, though. And even they, ever so slowly, adapt to "progress."

Anonymous said...

Russell Kirk was a naïve fool.

From “Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions:”

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.


Between conservatives and progressives, the above paragraph far more readily describes modern progressive desires than it does the modern conservative. There are plenty of mindless liberals: those queer creatives, the atheist metrosexuals, the “I’m With Her” glass ceiling witches, the green haired SJWs... But I’ve never heard an actual thinking modern progressive demand a utopia. What their kind wants is a not-dystopia. More specifically, they’re trying to prevent the corporatized total surveillance, endless wartime, climate refugee, cyberpunk dystopia state which we all seem to be heading towards. For their part, most modern conservatives I know just want to be raptured off this rock already.

Where Russell Kirk was a naïve fool, was in expecting that conservatives could fully absorb and strive for all ten principles, when your average capitalist can’t even live by Milton Friedman’s simple profit aphorism (in its entirety). He was a fool to believe that our once-American greatness from the time when Christian Paleos limited the excesses of Christian New Dealers, and vice versa, would last forever. Most modern conservatives and modern liberals have been herded into wasting all their time and energy fighting endless non-battles, while the “conservative” and “liberal” elite caste gets away with whatever it wants.

Yes I'm nostalgic. But at least trying to understand the devolution away from the way things once were is one goal to strive for.

Van Harvey said...

"...An ideology is any system of thought that superimposes a second reality on the first, which has the practical effect of severing man from the ground in more or less coercive or violent ways. Ideology ends in the murder of man -- man as such -- either physically or spiritually (and usually both)."

Spot On.

Anonymous said...

Ashah the Persian says:

Let us dialogue concerning the tensions between our peoples. We all love God.
Surely, there is a peaceful way to coexist. How shall we proceed?

Anonymous said...

Gosh, it's quite simple really. Stop throwing acid in people's faces, stop raping anything that isn't wrapped in a burka, maybe rethink that command that anybody who isn't Muslim deserves death or enslavement, stop trying to bring about the Muslim apocalypse, and quit trying to impose Sharia law in any country foolish enough to allow your co-religionists to immigrate.

And to help all that along, maybe allow Christians to do unto their neighbors as their neighbors do unto them. Things would settle down pretty quick if that all happened, eh wot?

Theme Song

Theme Song