The trouble with an a priori axiom such as this is that it forecloses a possible dimension of reality -- as mentioned in yesterday's post, we may unwittingly enclose ourselves in tautology and then imagine that our method of looking just so happens to coincide with all that can be seen.
What are the chances of this occurring in a random universe (which would actually no uni-verse at all)? Now, that would be miraculous -- as if the keys to the cosmos just happen to be left in the only place where we are constrained (e.g., by natural selection) to look.
But what if we are under no such constraint? In other words, what if the human mind isn't just a contingent epiphenomenon adapted to an accidental universe? What if our world isn't just an appearance mirroring appearances -- oops² -- but rather, consciousness of, and conformity to, the Absolute? What if we are the real mirrors of that which we may truly know?
Well, science -- whether explicitly or implicitly -- says as much: that real adequation is possible between mind and reality. It's just that we 1) take this seriously (i.e., draw out the implications), and 2) posit multiple dimensions of reality which require very different modes of knowing.
Not to insult your intelligence so early in the morning, but understanding a chemical reaction, a mathematical equation, a work of art, or a person, require very different approaches. And understanding God requires all of these and then some -- in part because all of these are mirrors of, and pathways back to, the divine mind.
In short, to say mono-theism is to say mono-realism: there is one reality, but with diverse modes of... how to put it... output and input. We are always situated in a spiral between Intelligence and Intelligibility, but there are diverse manifestations and modes of each.
My son, for example, is gifted with a musical intelligence that allows him to perceive things others can't. He has access to a whole world that is more or less silent to others. Conversely, it's looking like math is a closed book to him. At any rate, he has zero interest. Except to say that music is -- of course, and among other things -- flowing math. So he loves math, just not the frozen kind.
But miracles. It's always helpful to warm up the mind by conducting some stretching exercises with our favorite nonlocal trainers. Schuon, for example:
This phenomenon [the miraculous] has in itself nothing mysterious or problematical about it: the so-called natural laws of a lower degree of Existence can always be suspended through the intervention of a higher degree, whence the perfectly logical term “supernatural”: but this degree also has its laws, which means that the miracle is “natural” on the universal scale, while being “supernatural” on the earthly scale.
Here again, it isn't so much that natural and supernatural are "out there." Rather, if they aren't "in here" as well, neither will be seen.
For example, for a primitive animist there is no natural world, no world uninhabited by spirits -- just as for the primitive naturalist there is no spiritual world that can't be reduced to a preferred building block (e.g., atoms, chemistry, DNA, the dialectic of history, etc.). But of course, both (spirit-and-matter) always exist and cannot not exist together.
More Schuon:
The miraculous is that which is due to a direct, thus vertical intervention of a heavenly Power, and not to a horizontal progression of causality.
Recall what was said yesterday about how humans beings are at once links in the great chain of being, and yet, the broken (feel free to interpret that word in two ways) links where freedom intrudes. You could pose the question as a paradoxical koan: What is the cause of indeterminism? In other words, what compels freedom?
Perhaps a better way of approaching this crossroads is to say that there is an unbroken chain of horizontal causation from Big Bang (or whenever you wish to begin) to Little Now. But this must -- MUST! -- be supplemented by a vertical chain that dangles from -- let's call it O -- to... let's call it the Big Now, because it's where everything happens and can only happen (blindingly soph-evident, since the past is gone and the future doesn't exist).
Now, nothing can dangle from above if it isn't anchored in something. Let's say Dupree wants to hang a chandelier in his converted tool shed. He's afraid of heights, and also a little buzzed, so he doesn't want to use a ladder. He solves the problem by purchasing a very long chain. But no matter how long the chain... you get the picture.
Same with free will. Here we can agree with the naturalist, that if nature is all there is, then freedom simply cannot exist. We may imagine it exists, but this is just an illusion.
But this actually makes no sense, since knowledge of necessity is itself a manifestation of freedom. In other words, if we were wholly determined, we could never know it. Nor could we have any valid knowledge, of anything.
The problem is solved if we simply sober up (attain objectivity) and overcome our fear of heights (theophobia), and attach freedom and truth -- will and intellect -- to the ceiling.
If truth and freedom aren't anchored above, then they simply cannot be. Likewise beauty. Dávila:
Aesthetics cannot give recipes, because there are no methods for making miracles.
Not even with Auto-Tune, a drum machine, and the most sincere adolescent doggerel.
The free act is only conceivable in a created universe. In the universe that results from a free act.
To plagiaphrase Thomas, an error concerning the creation ends in false thinking about God and everything else. We're just about out of time this morning, but let's end by agreeing that there is really only one miracle, although everything else participates in it: the miracle of existence from being, or being from beyond-being. We'll sort it out in the next post.
4 comments:
This phenomenon [the miraculous] has in itself nothing mysterious or problematical about it: the so-called natural laws of a lower degree of Existence can always be suspended through the intervention of a higher degree, whence the perfectly logical term “supernatural”
To a stone age man, the flicking of a light switch would be completely mindblowing; and yet, we do this understanding that there are natural laws at work which, even if we don't really understand them, are at least predictable and dependable as gravity. Until the lights go out, anyway. And yet the science we can understand and make use of is merely so much child's play in comparison to the source of all miracles. I can explain how the lights work, more or less. Can't explain at all how I got where I am today, except through a great many little miracles and answered prayers. Even if the answers aren't usually what I want to hear.
With Ash Wednesday in mind, entering the season of Lent is like letting go of the things on this side of the veil, in order to enter heaven in a brown pea shell.
Oh, Lordy me! May we all shake sugaree, whatever this season may bring.
We were designed to view miracles as normal, that's why we fail to see we are walking miracles. It is also why we deny a Designer and steal God's thunder, literally so with climate action. To say grace before meals today is seen as a treasonous act. The master chefs are impostors. There is only one Master chef.
Dr. Godwin asks: "...what if the human mind isn't just a contingent epiphenomenon adapted to an accidental universe?"
Well, what if it is? There's a question to keep one up late at night.
But...it has been shown the human mind works directly on physics like nothing else.
Amply demonstrated: protracted, single-pointed concentration by one human mind on a tightly defined outcome will over time produce that same outcome or an approximation. This could include a material object or it might be happenstance/behavior of others. It does not matter, atoms, molecules, time, space, are affected. This without physically lifting a finger.
This fell property militates against thinking of the mind as an epiphenomenon. This would make the mind a central player in the cosmos. Other things might be epiphenomenon, but not the mind.
Consciousness. It's what's for lunch.
-Sous Chef
Post a Comment