Which reminds me of a little visual aid in one of Schuon's books. Or maybe I'm just imagining it. Let's start with the division between Creator and creation, or God and existence:
Creation / Existence / many / relative / Ø
Now, irrespective of how fervently you may deny it, this is the deepest deep structure of things. There is always an absolute above and a relative below, on pain of the world being completely unintelligible and thought -- intelligence -- being strictly impossible.
However, there are additional subdivisions that we don't generally think about. For example, Christianity situates a paradoxical "division" in the upper realm; of course, it's not really a division -- a distinction, rather -- but one could say the same of the entire scheme, if one is looking at it through the lens of immanence.
In other words, immanence is the principle of continuity whereby God is in all things, and yet, the sum of all things is not equivalent to God. Conversely (or better, complementarily), transcendence goes to the principle of discontinuity whereby there is a radical breach between Creator and creation.
Come to think if it, transcendence is also to apophatic (negative) theology what immanence is to cataphatic (positive) theology. Which means there is a kind of O/Ø dialectic or dynamism within the Godhead, certainly from our perspective. In other words, whatever we can know or say of God is dwarfed by what we can't.
Nevertheless, we can still say a lot. Indeed, what we can say is literally inexhaustible; "relatively infinite" you might say, in the sense that all of the poems, melodies, stories, jokes, and paintings added together don't put even a tiny dent in the divine plenitude.
Nor, for that matter, does the entire world, which obviously cannot exhaust the divine creativity. You might say that the whole of creation is merely a visible symptom of God's unending creativity, or that the manifest is like a little bubble on the surface the unmanifest. We can intuit this whenever we "get beneath the surface" of something, or in other words, begin to transcend the appearances for the reality. Bear in mind that there is literally "no end" to this transcendence except in God.
In other words, what I'm trying to convey here, is that transcendence is rooted somewhere, and it is obviously not in matter. Now, man qua man is a transcendental being; to be a man is to enter transcendence via language, meaning, concepts, essences, etc. If we couldn't do this -- and even infants can do it -- we would be reduced to animality.
So, I should think that the first thing you want to do when you ask "what is a man?" is to ask "what (and how!) is transcendence?" It's very simple, really, in that there are only two possibilities: either transcendence is reduced to immanence and is thereby no longer transcendence; or it is anchored "above" in that creative / principial / absolute domain.
Actually, I forgot that there exists a third path, and this is faith of the credo ut intelligam variety, i.e., "I believe that I may understand" (and know). The way I sees it, it is as if religious doctrine is like a.... hmm, what is it like? How about perspectival painting, whereby a three dimensional reality is conveyed on a two-dimensional surface?
Come to think of it, the really gifted painter -- or photographer, for that matter -- conveys more than three dimensions in a painting, and I'm not just talking about motion. Rather, he can depict the invisible interior of the subject. Why, it reminds me of an aphorism or three:
--Without aesthetic transfiguration all of reality is pedestrian.
--Strictly speaking, the work of art does not have a meaning but rather a power.
--The existence of a work of art demonstrates that the world has meaning. Even if it does not say what that meaning is (Dávila).
I don't mean to pick on such a low-hanging brute, but imagine living inside the head of a Labron James, whose intelligence, as it were, doesn't transcend anything outside or beyond a 94' x 50' hunk of wood. But he's hardly alone in this respect. To cite another aphorism,
--Nothing proves more the limits of science [or any other subcelestial discipline] than the scientist’s opinions about any topic that is not strictly related to his profession (Dávila).
Which simply means that so-called experts generally cannot transcend their own expertise, but rather, are confined to a reality tunnel forged with one part narcissism and one part idolatry.
17 comments:
Nothing proves more the limits of science [or any other subcelestial discipline] than the scientist’s opinions about any topic that is not strictly related to his profession (Dávila).
Which can be easily observed in the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
There is a type of spiritual practice called concentration. With the mind fixed on one word, phrase, or object in a persistent manner, knowledge of the thing can be extracted by direct identification, and the underlying spiritual essence of it known.
This is a tough practice, beyond a doubt. However, if you are the type who gets obsessions, that focus can serve you well here.
You can stare at, let's say, a kiwi fruit, and limit your awareness to just the kiwi fruit, and sort of blank out your own thoughts about it, and sooner or later you will enter into union with the kiwi fruit and it will reveal its hidden meaning and glory.
I've had some limited success with this with rocks, minerals, and stones. They do reveal plenty.
Give it a shot if you have a couple of days to kill.
Relevant to Sunday's post, the Zman on PC & microagression:
"The concept of the microaggression is something superstitious people living in a dark age would have understood. After all, a microaggression is the idea that certain words and phrases, incantations, will cause a miasma to develop around the people saying and hearing the words. This miasma or evil spirit will cause those exposed to react involuntarily and uncontrollably."
To the point of this post, Zman (same link as above) has some other relevant observations:
"This twitter thread from last month is a useful example. It is primitive howling at the moon, but the source is someone claiming to be a scientist. ... If you look at the twitter profile of that person, you’ll note she has her pronouns listed. These are the talismans of the modern academy.
Mx. Townsend is not some isolated example. She is a milder form of what is becoming quite common in academia. Cordelia Fine wrote a whole book denying that there are two sexes or even that sexes exist. She was carried around from campus to campus, celebrated as a great thinker."
Demonstrating that even within their professions, many of today's "scientists" undertake to prove that truth is false and falseness, true.
I used to wonder how psychopaths did it. How do they usually win their battles and how are they considered “intelligent” by most researchers? Is it that only the smartest psychopaths are the ones who avoid prison and death, and they’re the ones being studied? Well no, it turns out they’re all being studied.
I noticed suspected psychopaths (based on my armchair PCL-R tests which I ‘took’ for them) weren’t very knowledgeable at whatever it was they were supposed to be knowledgeable at, though they were expert at hiding it. They appeared to instead, invest their energies into manipulative salesmanship. Was that the secret? They were intelligent liars and con artists after a lifetime of learning how to avoid punishments? Well, no. They’re notorious for being immune to punishments to the point of being society’s most incorrigible humans.
Then I hit on the idea that since they don’t feel emotional pain (...outside of boredom. Anger can be invigorating). Emotional pain serves to regulate the thinking and behavior of normals. But psychopaths can simply scan the environment and absorb all the variables with their sole emotional need being the avoidance of boredom. They avoid the logical pitfalls which trip up us normals, things like cognitive bias, cognitive closure, empathy, perfectionism, fear of failure, fear of public humiliation, fear of loss of emotional support.
They can face and process “painful thoughts” without feeling a thing. It's all data to them. So I wondered if a normal could discipline themselves to temporarily, do the same.
"They can face and process “painful thoughts” without feeling a thing."
I'm just now reading a compelling book on the psychopathic killer Gary Gilmore, and that is indeed how his brother describes him -- that he "learned to kill or silence the part of him that needed to cry out in fear or pain. When Gary overcame himself in this manner, he finally found the power to ruin his own life and to extinguish any other life that it might take to effect that destruction."
It's the double-edged sword of self-control. Perfect self control in the hands of the wicked means not only can they ignore both insults and praise, they also have cut off means by which they might be corrected by other people.
That, I believe is called "One Mindfullness"
I was introduced to the practice in the S.T.E.P.P.S. program.
It's also the traditional Christian practice of nepsis - the old story goes like this:
23. A brother came to see Abba Macarius the Egyptian, and said to him, ‘Abba, give me a word, that I may be saved.’ So the old man said, ‘Go to the cemetery and abuse the dead.’ The brother went there, abused them and threw stones at them; then he returned and told the old man about it. The latter said to him, ‘Didn’t they say anything to you?’ He replied, ‘No.’ The old man said, ‘Go back tomorrow and praise them.’ So the brother went away and praised them, calling them, ‘Apostles, saints and righteous men.’ He returned to the old man and said to him, ‘ I have complimented them’. And the old man said to him, ‘Did they not answer you?’ The brother said no. The old man said to him, ‘You know how you insulted them and they did not reply, and how you praised them and they did not speak; so you too if you wish to be saved must do the same and become a dead man. Like the dead, take no account of either the scorn of men or their praises, and you can be saved.’
A poem for our history buffs:
They have the sense of history repeating
But history is everything happening at once;
When troubles should, sudden and fleeting
Squeeze us a day with harrowing wants --
Troubles keep coming, walking and running
Of every kind, without reason or rhyme;
And when the unknown is so sure to be coming --
History repeats, all of the time.
Greetings to everyone, Gagdad Bob, Julie, Doug, River C, Anonymous:
Of late we've had students accusing faculty of brain-washing them to become compliant and tolerant social robots. We'd never gotten feedback of this nature from students prior.
A majority mentioned you, Mr. Gagdad, in connection with their feelings about this. The faculty is flabbergasted. We've never instructed morality here or insisted on any particular beliefs; we just stick to the facts of the matter in any discipline.
On student stated the entire national college system was colluding to cause students to become communists.
One student characterized our nation's college system as "whack-a-demia," meaning the whole of it was flamboyant and eccentric. And the essay papers we've been getting are verging on hostile at times.
What are you up to, Gagdad? What have you told these students? And why?
Are you trying to be Socrates and corrupt our youth? Clearly there must be some draw to your view-point, however it has resulted in tensions which are counterproductive in regards to higher learning.
Some explanation is in order, sir.
Respectfully yours, Indra Chandragupta, Professor of Economics
aninnymouse said "One student characterized our nation's college system as "whack-a-demia,"..."
Kids. Funny. But I still prefer the more conservative 'wacademia'.
I'm curious about this school-taught socialism of which we speak. It's been a while, but I attended both public and parochial schools and found that the only differences were that religion classes were mandatory at the latter.
Can anybody itemize all the ways socialism is being taught to our kids? I'd greatly appreciate it.
Good Morning All.
Van, regarding the spelling of whackademia versus wacademia,the former is more grammatically correct, and therefore the more conservative of the two. I hope you are not harboring unconscious socialist tendencies. One can't be too careful.
Anonymous 12:21, socialism reaches the children through anti-patriarchal and revisionist history textbooks and classroom discussion of same. In grade school, there tends to be a lack of focus on commerce, industry, and detailed military history. The curriculum is bereft of money earning subject matter. In this regard it seems a bit anti-capitalist.
High school is a bit of a general waste-land, academically. With the exception of the teaching of Spanish, French, German, etc, and of course algebra, geometry, and calculus.
In higher educations, the subscript is always that you need a degree to make money. In that regard, it is capitalist. They start teaching business, and science at last gets its due. Some disciplines are markedly anti-patriarchal, such as psychology, sociology, and literature. Religion may be discussed, however it is sometimes painted in a negative way regarding past conflicts fueled by religion. Religious positives are not emphasized.
The end result is a slightly left leaning student body. This tendency is well known.
There you have it.
Regards, Dr. Tanya Apple-Bottom, Professor of Psychology.
Thanks Dr.,
I was hoping it wasn’t something as silly as a mass virtue signaling, or as nefarious as a Deep State plot. Thoughts of teachers going into strange buildings, then coming out the other side looking like them, sounding like them... but it’s not them anymore, are keeping me up at night.
Hello Anonymous 7:55 AM.
Tell me what you know of Deep State. I've been trying to locate Deep State people, and I'm not coming up with any names so far. In fact the DS has not turned up in any context in the organizations or groups infiltrated. There are plenty of other clandestine groups,
but the DS itself is very elusive. I could use any information you might have.
Slightly left leanin.... lol. More.like brainwashed clones. The millenials at least. But hey, the left in its hubrisnhas gone so far in reality denying even 13 yr.olds laugh at them ( see soph on youtube before she was unpersonned). Reality will have the last laugh.. universities as we know.them will go the way of the dodo, the msm. And we will have affordable, small centers of learning . And more tradespeople who can actually fix or make things and not just listen to themselves talk.
"The Deep State" is they who want to keep the ground fertile for themselves (regardless of damage to anything but themselves) by using their considerable money/power influence any way they can. Political Party, religious affiliation, end result, patriotism, national defense... are of little concern to them.
A tightly structured secret entity like Skull and Bones, probably not. Exxon execs who're into kissing KSA princes, perhaps.
Post a Comment