First, as mentioned in yesterday's post, order is synonymous with cosmos, while history is... what, exactly?
It must be the Order as it evolves through time. Perhaps we can visualize the process. Imagine a horizontal line which represents time as it moves from its ground to its meta-temporal telos and attractor, the latter situated outside or beyond time; it is bisected by a vertical line, except it is more of an ovoid space that expands and differentiates as it moves along the horizontal axis.
Having said that, this is no linear or ineluctable process a la Marx or Hegel. For one thing, we can never arrive at the right hand attractor, only be perpetually attracted by and to it. Foreclosing the space between -- let's symbolize them (¶) and O -- doesn't actually move (¶) foreword, but rather, leads to a host of problems herebelow. And that is putting it mildly.
Put it this way: yes, we could actually create paradise on earth. However, it would last only a nanosecond until typology kicked in and kicked us out again.
In other words, we have a problem, and the problem is called human nature. Yes, there is a solution, but it must -- obviously -- involve "solving" the problem of human nature. Absent that, then we can no more create paradise on earth than we could reassemble a broken spider web by hand.
Let's get back to our visual image. Bear in mind that the O on the right side isn't God per se; rather, let's keep it unsaturated and experience-near, and simply affirm that this is the attractor to which man is always attracted by virtue of being a man.
This of course goes to the fundamental difference between animals and man, being that the former can know nothing of the divine attractor at the end of history, as they are plunged in neurology and bound by instinct. A small cosmos -- similar to academia, only with no stupid and dysfunctional ideas.
Perhaps we should emphasize here that we are not "speculating." Perish the thought. If we were, then everything about which we have written for the past 3,500 posts would be no better than any other philodoxic Babble of Tenure. (A philodoxer is a lover of opinion, man.) No, we are always trying to describe the objective and empirical facts as given to us by our expounding cosmos.
At this point I will defer to Voegelin, Sandoz, and Webb for some scholarly back-up. The following are selected more or less at random, because if I try to locate the Perfect Illustration, we'll be here all morning; to a large extent, all of this is intuitive, but nevertheless objective. Or better, it is noetic (never confusing noesis with Gnosticism!).
Correction. This actually is perfect (or as perfect as we're going to get on this imperfectly perfect morning: Webb has a glossary that defines our terms with precision. Let's begin with the cosmos, which is
the whole of ordered reality including animate and inanimate nature and the gods. (Not to be confused with the modern conception of "cosmos" as the [merely!] astrophysical universe.)
"Gods"? Yes, of course. Imagine what we would be excluding if we were to ignore them! For we'd be leaving out the whole conception of reality as experienced by premodern (and postmodern pagan) man, which is a lot of people for a long time -- much longer than we've been here. And to leave mind and intersubjectivity out of the cosmos is obviously a non-starter, too crude an approach to ever take seriously.
In this regard, it reminds me of what psychotherapy would be like if I were to ignore everything that happened to the patient before the age of 18. In a way, this is the problem, as people inevitably attempt to rationalize away the non- or irrational components of development, which results in various symptoms down the line.
Back to the cosmos: it
Encompasses all of reality, including the full range of the tension of existence toward the transcendental. Noetic and pneumatic differentiations of consciousness separate this cosmos into immanent "world" and transcendent "divine ground."
Oh my. This is getting complicated. Let's start with "transcendent." What does it mean, exactly?
to go beyond, surpass. General term for that which extends or lies beyond some set of limits; may be relative (beyond some particular limits) or absolute (beyond all possible limits). The opposite of "immanent."
Again, man qua man exists in the differentiating space between immanence and transcendence. This differentiation can be experienced noetically or pneumatically (or it can be pathologically denied or compacted). Noetic differentiation is
the process by which one moves from compact consciousness to a more differentiated, conceptually articulated awareness of the inquiring consciousness and its structure... and its orientation toward the transcendental pole of the tension of inquiry toward Truth as such.
Or just say philo-sophy, properly speaking; it is intellectual differentiation within the ovoid space mentioned above. It is complemented by pneumatic differentiation, which is more spiritual than intellectual:
the awakening of the soul both by and to the experience of the pull in the tension of existence toward the pole of transcendental perfection; the emergent realization of the absolutely transcendent character of that pole.
In other words, it is the discovery of monotheism, which was one small step for Abram, one giant leap for mankind, but from which it is but a small step back into paganism, scientism, materialism, leftism, et al. Just don't, okay? We have enough problems.
To be continued, of course.
11 comments:
In this regard, it reminds me of what psychotherapy would be like if I were to ignore everything that happened to the patient before the age of 18.
We've been watching Mindhunter the past week. Interesting show about the development of the FBI's serial crime unit back in the 70s; essentially, they started asking serial murderers questions about their lives, motivations, experiences, etc. In one episode, one of the researchers, who is a lesbian feminist, gets angry when the other two detectives attach significance to one man's early obsession with women's shoes. She's all for asking questions, until the questions dig up dirt that's a little too close to her own experience for comfort.
In other words, it is the discovery of monotheism, which was one small step for Abram, one giant leap for mankind, but from which it is but a small step back into paganism, scientism, materialism, leftism, et al. Just don't, okay? We have enough problems.
Unfortunately, the people who take that step back too often have no idea they've done so. rather, they honestly believe they are making progress.
This Cosmic Mind I presume is subconscious only, the same one alluded to by Thomas Nagel in 'Mind and Cosmos'. If it were conscious I could say what was it thinking when It thought up the Animal Kingdom as it is like ' A Kingdom divided against itself' but thank God most of it is still standing. The pain and suffering experienced naturally by some at the 'hands' of fellow animals couldn't be part of a conscious plan, so that Cosmic Subconscious needs some positive affirmations to build some compassion into It. This evening I seen a cat come up the garden path with a young sparrow fluttering in her mouth. No doubt Jesus's Father knew all about it, but it's just not good enough.
A splendid post! Full of thought provoking assertions and concepts, this is fine writing indeed.
Although, your claim non-withstanding, most of the post is speculation.
Case in point is the claim that animals cannot sense the attractor. Well, we can speculate they cannot. But the funny thing about animals is they sometimes break out of character and surprise us. A dog may show grief upon the death of its owner that goes far beyond any animal instinct. We have no idea what goes on in the minds of the corvid birds, the great apes, or of ceteceans. We don't know, and all we can do is speculate. It seems they cannot sense the attractor? What is your evidence to support that assertion?
You make a strong case for paradise on earth being impossible to achieve, and state attempts to immanentize the eschaton are harmful. I would agree with that.
Further, the eschaton could be immense, massive, overweening. One could speculate "O" needs some relief from all that eschaton, and so made a place to the side where things are very flawed and difficult and un-eschaton-ish. That is Earth. The last thing He may want is for Earth to become another tract of eschaton. There would be little joy in attaining more of what He already had in superabundance.
No, we are very special here, and it is our imperfections that makes us interesting and noble. Wouldn't you agree?
Anyway, carry on good sir. I trust your patients appreciate your skill as a therapist, and endure the probing of their childhood experiences.
How about you? Have you had therapy?
It can be argued that they are already immanentizing the eschaton. But just not for us. And that they always have, always will.
But is there a damned thing that any of us can do about it? Not as long as the eschaton being immanetized is all tricksy and false.
Think of Sméagol with Gandalf-like powers, who controls many brainwashed orcs. Now from that perspective, doesn't the modern world make more sense now, my precious?
anon @ 6/04/2020 09:07:00 PMI,
I think Bob has a special practice. He has one client. The Don. I think there are a lot of Tom Hagens out there, always the consigliere but never the don.
I was once at a county fair with my wife, sitting in some bleachers enjoying the lumberjack show. Even though it’s pretty much just a bunch of flannel climbing poles and chopping poles with some yahoo on a bullhorn, it was pretty entertaining.
For some reason this guy sitting behind us started muttering stuff about liberals. Like how much he hated them and wished they’d all die. He was with his family who was just trying to enjoy the show. In fact, his wife kept trying to gently coax him away from his obsession with liberals and to just enjoy the show with his family. But he just kept getting louder, more and more amped up. About liberals.
So I looked around. Were there some obvious liberals, like a black family or apparent gays or satan worshippers or some Chinese in green commie suits sitting nearby, who I’d been missing? I couldn’t spot anybody fitting any of those descriptions. It was just a bunch of suburbans and country family folk sitting in the bleachers watching a lumberjack show.
I briefly entertained the thought that the lumberjacks, with all their flannel and denim and manly boots, were inspiring some unconscious latency in the man.
But then I got this mental image of the Superfans, from SNL. Da Bearss. Was it something like that? Da Liberalss. Everything wrong with America is all about Da Liberalss.
Was this man was trying to immanetize his eschaton? Not saying that in some alternate universe there isn’t a liberal at a lumberjack show obsessing over Da Conservativess. I wouldn't be surprised if there was. But he did kinda prove my point. Most people can’t just leave well enough alone. I think that immanetizing the eschaton is a basic part of human nature, for some. And others who really can immanetize the eschaton use them for their own sinister ends.
What exactly is the eschaton? I'm not quite sure what that means.
Julie, regarding your mention of a person's obsession with women's shoes on "Mindhunter:"
I was perusing videos on FB the other day, and came across a video of a pretty young woman woman seated on the floor wearing sandals. She addressed the camera "why are you looking at my feet? You like them?" Then she slowly removed her sandals, flexing her toes and putting her feet up close to the camera. She kept up a running commentary "What do you think? Do you like my feet? I'll bet you'd like to touch my feet."
It then occurred to me this was a video for foot-fetish viewers. Damn, people are weird. How do folks get their wires so crossed up?
Would anyone like to share if they have a fetish and if so what it is?
Hopefully you feel this is a safe space where you can talk about it.
Thanks, but no
I submit to strict women, especially if they sport a Bible in one hand and a riding crop in the other.
When they quote me Ezekiel 25:17 while whipping me silly... oh god, ohhhh god!!
My parenting was very shamed based. And so, now here I am.
I am anon 05:15 PM which must be a broken clock. I'm back to apologise to Jesus's Father for incorrectly implying that He had endowed my cat with an incorrigible nature and now realise that this is not so. I had scolded my cat at the end of her ritual with the sparrow when she was playing with the dead bird and then this morning as I was walking down the back garden I seen her hiding behind a tuft of grass looking over at me and when I went over to investigate she ran away leaving behind a rat she had killed (it reminded me of the time in the Garden of Eden long ago when we were hiding from God after robbing the orchard ) returning a short time later looking sheepishly at me as she squatted by her kill. She's young now, but she'll grow up to be one confused cat for this time I praised her as the location was close to the house and the rat unlike the cat may have liked to live indoors. I now realise the cat's nature is capable of change over time like ourselves and some day she'll be sitting down with the mouse and 'the lion sitting down with the lamb'.
Post a Comment