As I am putting down these words on an empty page, I have begun to write a sentence that, when it is finished, will be the beginning of a chapter on certain problems of Beginning.The sentence is finished. But is it true?
I know that feeling: As I tap away at the keyboard, I have begun to write a sentence that, when it is finished, will be the beginning of a post about an unKnown subject that will come into focus as the writing proceeds.
Was the end there all along? That's how teleology works: the first shall be last. Although the end is ontologically first, it is temporally last, i.e., the mature oak is somehow lurking nonlocally in the acorn.
I know from experience that new ideas have a habit of emerging while the writing is going on, compelling changes in the construction and making the beginning unsuitable.... the story has no beginning before it has come to its end. What then comes first: the beginning or the end?
That sounds like a trick question. I'm guessing it's a both/and situation, AKA beginning and end are complementary, and that we exist in the tension between these polar directions. These poles don't arrive at their destination but ceaselessly point the way there.
If you're in the mood for irreverent orthoparadoxical aphorisms, we might even say that there is no God, only the ceaseless movement toward or away from Him.
Neither the beginning nor the end comes first.... Is then the whole, with its spatio-temporal and existential dimensions, the answer to the question: What comes first?
Hmm. No, it can't be, because that would entail a determinism that is inadmissible by anyone with a functioning brain.
The whole as a literary unit called "chapter" is not the answer either.
I knew it. What then?
The whole is no beginning in an absolute sense; it is no beginning of anything at all unless it has a function in a communion of existential concern; and the communion of concern as a social field depends for its existence on the communicability of the concern through language.
Now -- whether Voegelin realizes it or not -- we are beginning to touch upon a trinitarian metaphysic, for what truly comes first is the very possibility of communion and communicability, or soul-to-soul touching via meaning, which is a form of Delight.
You, my friends, love to understand, and the more deeply the better. And I love to be understood. These are very specific *feelings* (or something), irreducible to anything else. Nor is there any genuine substitute. Of course there are distractions, evasions, and counterfeit forms, but no one who has tasted the Real Thing will be attracted to or seduced by anything less.
Do you not agree, Eric? Yes: our writing
is not a piece of information about familiar objects of the external world; rather, it seeks to communicate an act of participation in the quest for truth.
This is the key to the enigma, because we're talking about a form of writing that isn't just about abstract meaning but experiential meaning.
Via a typical series of miracles, I first encountered this notion in the spring of 1985, nearly two decades before bumping into Voegelin. I won't bore you with the details, but it was definitely a Come to Jesus moment, only without Jesus per se. By which I mean it was an ontological breakthrough -- whether me into it or it into me, it no longer matters. But it was both.
The main point is that it is easy for language to become saturated by constant use and thereby become incapable of conveying the experiential meaning it did when first developed. How do we keep language alive? Which means, how do we communicate in such a way that the experience -- not just the abstract concept -- is provoked in the recipient?
Yesterday while rereading Koestler's Act of Creation, I found a good example. In a footnote, he discusses the etymology of "wit," which is Too Good to Check:
"Wit" stems from witan, understanding; whose roots go back to the Sanskrit veda, knowledge. The German Witz means both joke and acumen. It comes from wissen, to know; Wissenschaft -- science, is close kin to Fürwitz and Aberwitz -- presumption, cheek, and jest. French teaches the same lesson. Spirituel may either mean witty or spiritually profound; to amuse comes from to muse ( à-muser), and a witty remark is a jeu d'sprit -- a playful, mischievous form of discovery.
How experientially rich with implications are the original connotations of the term! Moreover, it conveys the purpose of this blog, which is to combine all of the above: wit, understanding, knowledge, joke, acumen, science, presumption, cheek, jest, spiritual profundity, amusement, playfulness, mischief, and discovery.
You'll know it has succeeded if you endure something like a guffaw-HA! experience, as opposed to merely knowing it outside the experiential matrix, AKA the primordial womb with a clue.
We'll leave off with a relevant observation by Voegelin:
we are still living in the reality of the cosmos and not in the universe of physics, the brainwashing propaganda of our scientistic ideologues notwithstanding.
Always remember that you first live in experiential reality before their soul-killing abstractions, and the ideologues will never catch up with you.
31 comments:
Now -- whether Voegelin realizes it or not -- we are beginning to touch upon a trinitarian metaphysic, for what truly comes first is the very possibility of communion and communicability, or soul-to-soul touching via meaning, which is a form of Delight.
Alpha & Omega, yadda yadda yadda...
You, my friends, love to understand, and the more deeply the better. And I love to be understood. These are very specific *feelings* (or something), irreducible to anything else. Nor is there any genuine substitute.
Yes, exactly!
It comes from wissen, to know
So it's also etymologically linked to wisdom? I mean, I don't see how it could be otherwise, which is why it's fun to pair wit and wisdom - acknowledging with a wink that there's a certain amount of redundancy, even though they aren't quite the same, either. Two leaves on the same verbal branch.
Analyzing the comedy of Seinfeld with Tristan is what prompted me to revisit Koestler's book, which has a whole section on the deep structure of humor, which turns out to be identical to that of discovery in general. It is literally true that there is a deep connection between the ah-ha! and guffaw-ha! experiences. Nature is filled with puns.
Jesus Chrysalis!
Someone once suggested to me that there's an etymological link between Brahman and Abraham, but that strikes me as a stretch.
I know that "theoria" has to do with viewing, beholding, contemplative in-sight, etc.
Interesting; I didn't realize that either theory or contemplation had to do with perceiving as such; "contemplation" always struck me as meaning to be with something in time, (or another way to refer to Presence), since it sounds like it should relate to "contemporary." Instead it has to do with being in a temple.
My theory (which is mine!) suggests that it's a case of both/ and. Or if it isn't, it oughta be.
Dante still called it a Divine Comedy albeit 2/3rd of the book drudges up the fallibility of mankind. Which again is witty from a God's eye view. If Seinfeld was about anything, it was how crazily funny we all are.
Theories are always something we "look through" rather than "at"; or perceive through in order to throw light on existence. Likewise, Chesterton or Lewis said something about viewing the world "through" Christianity, which makes a great deal of sense, especially when you consider the alternatives. Thomas Aquinas, for example, made the most complete map of the world ever drawn by peering through Christian lenses.
Ted: one of Koestler's points is that tragedy and comedy are the same, just looked at from different angles. Think of all the tragic things that befall George Costanza!
Why do we laugh at him instead of cry?
I have a theory about that, too - it's funny as long as the fool remains foolish and impervious to personal growth. If George suddenly had a moment of clarity, wherein he stopped being what he was and developed true personal growth (beyond just doing the opposite of every instinct he had), it would no longer be funny; in fact, every instance of his idiocy would just be painful.
Along those lines, that's why in the final episode when they went to jail, it was still funny - the whole group had learned nothing. Had they looked back in horror at their sins, who could keep laughing?
If George suddenly had a moment of clarity, wherein he stopped being what he was and developed true personal growth (beyond just doing the opposite of every instinct he had), it would no longer be funny; in fact, every instance of his idiocy would just be painful.
Julie, you may referring to the episode when he decides to do the opposite of what he normally would do. It gets him the girl, the promotion, etc. It was the "fake it until you make it" episode, which was still funny because we always knew it would eventually backfire on him! But you're right, there was no self awareness in any of it. It was just one big con job on himself! :)
Interesting theory. Similar to how Homer never learns. Come to think of it, the Simpsons -- like anything else -- became unfunny when it became woke.
My kids practically speak in Simpsons, but we don't watch much beyond season 7 or so.
Great Post, very amusing.
GDB wrote "Neither the beginning nor the end comes first.... Is then the whole, with its spatio-temporal and existential dimensions, the answer to the question: What comes first? Hmm. No, it can't be, because that would entail a determinism that is inadmissible by anyone with a functioning brain."
I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
The rishis of yore thought time was like a loaf of bread; the beginning, middle and end of time are already baked and done. The cosmic traveler (ourselves), are likened to ants which eating a tunnel through the loaf. Everything is new and surprising to the ant as it chomps its way through the space time loaf.
However, God sits back and sees the whole loaf at once, beginning, middle, and end. So is there predeterminism? You bet here is. However, only God is privy. We as subsidiary beings must see the loaf sequentially via time, and make decisions as "we go along." However, these decisions were made long ago and it is an illusion they are made on the fly in real time.
Another metaphor is that of a cinematic movie. The whole thing has been shot and his in the can, however the viewer must enjoy it sequentially on frame at a time.
Some people find this view of time and cosmos inadmissable due to odious pre-determination. And I can see how folks might not like it.
Moreover, it conveys the purpose of this blog, which is to combine all of the above: wit
You're halfway there!
Get it? No? Too subtle?
Bob's a half wit!
Yeah, my friends call me Winston.
Which is an insult, because Churchill was another fascist half-wit.
The saying back in the 70's was "Reality if for people who can't face drugs."
As I recall there was pressure to experiment with drugs. When the joint was passed around, it was considered uncool to say no. It was considered semi-uncool to take a little hit and then blow the smoke out real quick. People were definitely watching and evaluating you.
Same with the coke. Want a line? The answer had better be yes. Snnnnnoooooorrrrrt. Yikes, my nose hurts. Ouch. But say "My lips are numb! That is some dope sh*t!"
LSD. You really had believe the sketchy chemist got it right. Nobody in their right mind would put that noxious sh*t in their bodies. And yet- Hey dude we got some blotter. I saved you six hits. I just took all of mine!" So of course you took the LSD, all six hits. You didn't want to seem like a pussy.
In comparison to all this, sober reality seemed like a paradise. As soon as we settled down, we could say "Naw can't smoke tonight got to get up early tomorrow." And all was well.
Yet there was a certain charm to trippin' Does anyone remember their most memorable highs?
So where are we exactly with the drug taking thing as grown-ups now? Does anyone do drugs anymore? Do raccoons trip? If so what do they trip on? Is it Ayhuasca? Is it Ketamine? What's the latest "in" drug?
Let me know, I'm open to something wild tonight. Grrrrrrr. Cougar on the prowl. Milf and cookies.
When we were young Grandpa used to tell us stories about God while he whittled.
He said that the universe was an unfinished project, where God kinda knew where he was going with it but not entirely. Sort of like whittling.
So then we told Grandpa that since God was all powerful that he'd know everything even before it ever happened. Grandpa then told us that an all powerful God would be powerful enough to suspend his precognition so he could make his life more interesting. Sort of like whittling.
Grandpa then told us about how the stars were holes poked into the fabric of heaven so we could get a glimpse of the light inside. We then told him that stars were actually luminous spheroids of plasma held together by their own gravity so massive that a fusion reaction could happen at the core creating all that heat and light.
Grandpa then waved the shank he'd finished whittling at us, declared that it was bed time, and unchained us and locked us into our nighttime boxes.
anon @7/10/2020 07:12:00 PM,
I remember the 70's. And yes, there was certainly pressure to conform. We all had disco blow dry hair, except for a few rebel girls who got the Dorothy Hamill cut. Blacks wore "fros" so long they resembled giant mushrooms. They usually stayed separate from us honkies and at the end of the day would jive-strut down to the street where all their school buses were lined up to take them back to the hood. But I think it was the adults who were pressured to make those kids conform with that bus stuff.
Then came the 80's, with androgynous jerry curl men and poofy haired women. There were new wave mullets here and there but I don't wanna talk about it. Crack cocaine showed up about the time Run DMC was popular and I think this was what ruined the age of conformity.
After that you'd see most kids appearing however they wanted to, but within certain moral and legal limits, but that was only if they didn't have any money. Those with money dressed like Gordon Gekko and Kate Moss.
But sometimes I wonder about the conformities of today. As a practicing misanthrope I don't really get out much. I have noticed that the kids are really into wearing masks and checking their cellphones every 2 minutes. But all over the place I'm seeing these scary looking mixed-race people dressed like a cross between french revolutionaries gone punk and zombie gulag commandants. Are these "the left" we're hearing so much about these days?
The only viable solution is a temporary alliance between liberals and conservatives in order to reaffirm our founding principles and destroy the left. Which I don't see happening.
Conversely, if liberals continue to ally with the left to crush conservatism, liberalism will be the first to be crushed. If it hasn't happened already.
"That sounds like a trick question. I'm guessing it's a both/and situation, AKA beginning and end are complementary, and that we exist in the tension between these polar directions. These poles don't arrive at their destination but ceaselessly point the way there."
Imagine that you come up to a teller window, the teller unlocks it, swings it open, hands you an orange (sure, it could be an apple... but... that's somewhat saturated), and closes and re-locks the window, and asks you to show him where it begins, and where it ends, and to pass it back to him through the slot in the teller window.
Naturally you're puzzled, because as a sphere, it doesn't have either, and it won't fit through the slot. They insist though, that you must pass it back to them in one piece, having a beginning and an end, they point to an orange peeler on the counter and ask you again to show them where it begins and where it ends. SoOo... you take the orange peeler and carefully begin peeling it into one long, continuous peel, and hand it back to him.
He notes that where you chose to begin peeling, simultaneously identified both the beginning and the end. You say "But wait, I could have started anywhere, so, neither is either the real beginning, or end!". He smiles, nods, and says "Also, you've given me only the rind, flattened. What will you do with the fruit?" You look puzzled for a moment, glancing at the thin slot in the window, and the ripe fruit in your hand, then shrug "I guess... I'll have to eat it?"
He smiles, nods, and calls out "Next!"
This episode in deep woo-hoo theater, brought to you by the good folks at Slack.
Bob nothing you said made a lick of sense.
When an American Dream is open to most, your despised liberalism, progressivism, leftism... dies. That's it. At the end of the day nobody cares about Benghazi or Putin or Lewinsky sideshows. People want to be free to survive by doing whatever it is their heart desires. Take that away (or maybe just the illusion of such) and leftism happens.
If you can't see this then you simply aren't getting out enough.
OTOH, there may be hope in a corporate concocted bread and circuses solution.
The logic of leftism in three easy steps:
Freedom results in unequal outcomes.
Unequal outcomes are racist.
Freedom is racist.
Just another sideshow Dupree.
Nobody over the age of 7 believes in equal outcomes. They just want freedom from being dominated by unequal outcomes, within an emotional tolerance acceptable for them.
When I was a kid anybody who wasn’t college material could damn near just walk down the street and get a job which with some care, could grow into a career which would easily provide a home, medical care, and further affordable education if one desired.
I knew a grocery store manager, a painting contractor, an auto mechanic, a food marketing consultant, a landscaper, and a realtor from my old neighborhood who all successfully did pretty much that.
All of that is virtually dead now. Just ask a millennial. Or ask one of my engineering PhD friends. I dare you to call them idiots for going to school wrong, to their face.
Today, most manufacturing is offshored or being automated.
Today, most honest tradesmen are competing against illegals who have far more freedom than they do.
Today, most techies will likely be replaced with agism or an H1B.
Today, most higher education is unaffordable for most.
Today, most farms are owned by large corporations.
Under enough economic stress, people will rebel. And IMHO, they'll tend to do so in some of the most unpredictably counterproductively of irrational ways. Not to mention the historic danger of some clever psycho jumping in front of the mob direction and yelling "Follow me!"
Hello Van:
I enjoyed your episode in deep woo-hoo theater, it was a fun read. I would like to see more comments like it. It was creative and thought provoking and told a story. The literary conceit of the orange peel was ingenious. Well done sir.
In the same vein, I enjoyed Anonymous's 7:48 PM comment featuring the "Grandpa" character, with the sinister shock ending complete with a shank, chains, and night-time boxes. Well done, I would like to read more about Grandpa. Grandpa said interesting things about whittling which bear on predeterminism. Marvelous stuff.
Dupree wrote an outstanding comment as well. Cousin Dupree said...
"The logic of leftism in three easy steps:
Freedom results in unequal outcomes.
Unequal outcomes are racist.
Freedom is racist."
Well what do you know, Dupree gets it! The lights have come on at last. Freedom is racist, and a whole lot more.
When people are free, they can do and be anything they want...and that isn't good.
Freedom has to be carefully limited; ordinarily we do this by passing and enforcing laws which prohibit the free exercise of violent acts such as homicide, rape, stalking, beating, harassment, choking by the neck, bullying, taunting, shaming, tasing, pepper-spraying, threatening, and the list goes on and on.
Dupree would LOVE to live in totally free society, where he would act out and indulge every sick and twisted impulse which crossed his diseased mind, without fetters or consequence.
But fortunately we live in a thoroughly un-free society. Just try to harvest the tasty waterfowl at the local park. No, them geese you may not eat. There is much you want to do, but you can't because you fear the consequences.
We need enough freedom to thrive, but not so much as we hang ourselves with it.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; you don't need unlimited freedom for these.
Long live the Democrat Party! May it Last a Thousand Years! Here's to limits on all things Bad! Long Live the Rule of Law!
Hello All, Happy 07/11/2020! On this day we celebrate convenience stores all over the nation. Everyone has a convenience-store tale. What's yours?
Anonymous 11:52, keep alive the dream of the basic universal income. We don't need a mob revolution. We need the write leaders and an American people willing to change and let go of the dream of big money via hard work.
That's over now, we need to release that vision and embrace a less is more philosophy; less money but more Slack, less freedom but more security. These are the needed trade-offs.
Reduce the Carbon Footprint. Thank you.
Don't believe all the bad news about the country. Any American who works hard and doesn't give up can still be a victim.
America was and still is a great country. The diverse population is a strength. Immigrants are a strength.
Now some Americans took to the streets to remind us that America made a promise to be a great country for all Americans. We had not kept the promise for all Americans so an adjustment was necessary. It kind of hurt, but in a good way.
Feuding parties debating keeps us strong.
The hard-working middle class tends to business and to raising a crop of happy, well adjusted but oddly neurotic children.
Meanwhile Americans flock to houses of worship in their millions and continue live the Puritan tradition of piety and/or fidelity to the Catholic Mass. Some go to Mosques and some to Synagogues. Some sit at home and contemplate the sayings of the ancient ones. Some offer tobacco to the Great Spirit. Still others look for the Lord in a bottle.
God smiles down on this blessed Nation. Nothing can keep us down. This irate and dissatisfied blog too is a strength; lest we think too much of ourselves, the purveyor of "culture war" has his place on the American scene.
Now let us all crack a Coke or some other refreshment and drink to our Immortal nation.
-Uncle Sam and Auntie Karen XXXOOO Yes damn it she wants to see the manager. We can all be victims here.
Post a Comment