Number two of Clarke's six main themes of metaphysical reflection is existence as the act of presence. This involves a shift of perspective from the Whatness of things to their sheer Isnsess; from the form of existents to existence itself,
seen as the radical underlying act of presence in each real being by which all beings are real -- i.e., actually present in the universe and actively present to all other beings.
This is the most general category we may conceive, surpassed only by the God whom we can never conceive; I like to think of God the Father as Beyond-Being, and Being as eternally conceived and begotten in his matrix/womb. I'm not saying this is correct, only that it helps me to think the unthinkable. Ignore the names and just think of an eternally generative perichoretical dance between....
Come to think of it, this gnotion can be fruitfully applied to any number of ultimate categories, from Beyond-Being <--> Being on down, e.g., eternity/time, whole/part, absolute/relative, personal/interpersonal, wave/particle, subject/object, etc. We can never finally come down on one side or the other without either denying half of reality, or illicitly smuggling properties of one complementarity into the other.
For example, you can't just eliminate truth or free will from the cosmos and then proceed as if nothing has happened. Because if there is no truth or freedom, there is no thinking, period. Conversely, if you are actually thinking, and your thoughts are conformed to reality -- i.e., disclose truth -- this alone implies a great deal, to put it mildly.
Truth and Presence. Can't have one without the other: for
the Absolute is either Truth or Presence, but it is not one or the other in an exclusive fashion, for as Truth It comprises Presence, and as Presence It comprises Truth.Such is the twofold nature of all theophanies; thus Christ is essentially a manifestation of Divine Presence, but he is thereby also Truth: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” No one enters into the saving proximity of the Absolute except through a manifestation of the Absolute, be it a priori Presence or Truth (Schuon).
In other words, we must know the truth, and the truth shall se us free, not as a horizontal "consequence" but because these are two sides of the same coin-cidence. Truth coincides with freedom and presence; not to mention love and beauty.
But let's not put words or thoughts into Clarke's mouth or head. What does he say?
The principle of existence is not a form or structure in things, a "what," but rather an inner dynamic act of presence that makes all forms of structures actually present as diverse modes of the radical "energy" of existence.
In short: existence is an inner dynamic Act of Presence.
It's difficult to put these things into words without sounding like one is high, or even Heidegger. But there it is, right here and right now: an interior dynamism presently acting as active presence of interiority-truth-freedom. Or something. Let's try to find some clarity here. We are fumbling around in the dark, but let us grope for the damn light switch!
Clarke:
every real being, in virtue of its in-dwelling act of existence, has the power to express itself, relate itself to the rest of the universe, communicate its own existential energy to other beings.
In other words, because the existence of the Cosmos is an Act of Presence, it is present before us as precisely that communicative Act. If this weren't the case, then the created world wouldn't speak to us so coherently and intelligibly, and to the extent that we "understood" it, we would be understanding nothing.
Bob, you are really on a roll this morning -- a roll of obscurity. You sound positively tenured. Another stab? I guess we're not alone:
this deep-lying act of existence at the core of every being, as the ultimate bond of union between all real things, does not come easily to a common-sense vision of the world, more concerned with what things are and how they act than that they are.
Mere common sense must be supplemented with uncommon nonsense. This requires a kind of "metaphysical conversion." I would say we must be born again, or undergo a metanoia, a "turning around" from existence to being; we have to get out of the tired rutness of Whatness and into the spirited business of Isness.
This latter is truly the business of God, or of God's first business: first and foremost he is busy with Isness.
Clarke quotes Shelley, who said that The mist of familiarity obscures from us the wonder of our being. Note the irony: clarity can impose its own special kind of fog, which is surely the case vis-a-vis any ideology, from Marxism to Darwinism to atheism and All the Rest.
Indeed, there is a power of negative thinking, or better, a complementarity between apophatic (+) and cataphatic (-) theologies. Can't get more mainstream than Thomas Aquinas, whose "anti-doctrine" of God
never tells us what God is, only what God is not. His entire approach is to undermine all our idolatrous attempts to turn God into something understandable or controllable....
Well, if that's the way he feels about it, I'll just shut-up.
7 comments:
The one place I'd seen the terms apophatic and catophatic introduced had Eckhart in the former class and Aquinas in the latter. Interesting to hear Aquinas's approach characterized this way.
Barron says Eckhart was profoundly influenced by Thomas, and that there's actually no ultimate difference in their approaches.
Makes sense. The two sides of the arch are not actually in opposition, rather they both uphold the keystone that connects and unifies them.
Hello Panel, Dr. Godwin, and new commenter "T":
I thoroughly enjoyed your explication of Clarke's writings. This was rarefied air, nuanced and technical. In short, high caliber philosophy writing. Well done.
To this I can only add some personal impressions.
The "isness" of things can be perceived via contemplation; for instance, one may visit El Capitan, a granite massif in the Yosemite Valley. If one gazes at El Capitan with a long, fixed stare, at the same time quieting the mind, El Capitan will exude a subtle, sublime feeling which can be described as "isness." This links up with your own "isness" and some intercourse between the towering stone and yourself will take place. This is a very exalting state to linger in, recommended.
The sounds of wind through foliage also triggers this kind of sensation and reverie. Many other examples can be had.
The Vedas mention "Sat, Chit, Ananda" (Being, Consciousness, Bliss) as a compact description of God. They run it together in the Sanskrit so it comes out as "Satchitananda" as a respectful address to God. This shows the Rishis of yore were on to the "isness" component which this post discussed. They called it "being."
They put a lot of emphasis on bliss, due to having contemplation experiences which led them to believe bliss was a background state for God, characteristic and always there. They did caution the human being could not bear the full undiluted force of God's bliss, it would destroy a human being "like a lightning bolt on a sapling." Enough bliss to blow all circuits. However, in smaller doses the Rishis agreed God's bliss was wunderbar.
OK, enough said, call Ed. Signing off, Lone Cowgirl
I think you are looking for the holy light switch, not the damned light switch. Just sayin'.
with a large portion of the human race prevented from seeking the truth by the false truths engendered into it and is now in a delusional state where more falsehoods arise deductively and we're now at the point where straight faced serious people accept the fake news of homosexual marriage and climate action. with a large portion of the human race accepting the destruction of children in the womb in a manner that makes the halocaust look like enforced euthanasia it's no wonder the cosmic alarm bells are ringing and if we don't wake up from our stupor our cosmic benefactors will enlighten us with a rude awakening.
Hello anonymous 5:46 AM:
Early risers unite!
Your comment indicates you are not happy with the current state of things. Unhappiness is not uncommon these days; however this is mostly self-inflicted.
I recommend you pull in and examine your inner state carefully. Do your listed concerns affect you directly? If they do not, then why are you contemplating these concerns?
You may be importing concerns from media sources, not uncommon these days. This practice shows your are quite interested in what others are saying and doing. Everyone does this (guilty).
You've twisted your panties into a knot over fake news. My panties are tightly bunched as well. What to do?
Chores are very relaxing, recommended. I think grocery shopping for me today.
- Milk Jugs
Post a Comment