We're just flipping through Keys to the Beyond, looking for one that might unlock the doors. Of perception. And of realization, i.e., intellect and heart, respectively. Knowledge is one thing, its realization another -- at least for this kind of knowledge, which is always experiential.
Which is interesting, for what is "experience" anyway? In a moment I'll look it up, but obviously any conceivable definition presumes someone there to experience it -- in both the writer and reader. Like "being," it's too general to be defined with precision, as it encompasses everything.
We've been down this rabbit hole before, but who is "I" but the experience of pure subjectivity? And what is "AM" but its specification? Thus, I AM WHO I AM is more than a mythful. I AM applies to us, but goes double for God.
Ex•pe•ri•ence: direct observation of or participation in events: an encountering, undergoing, or living through things in general as they take place in the course of time.
Observation, participation, encountering, undergoing, living, time. Now, to define, according to the same dictionary, is to determine, limit, conclude, bring to an end, etc. The problem is, experience is literally boundless and unlimited, so it can't actually be defined. It is what it is, but more importantly, it is who I am, and more.
So let's not pretend we know what experience is, much less the experience of experience. That latter is purely immaterial, but this doesn't convey much, since 1) we don't know what matter is, and 2) "immaterial" is just the negation of the matter of which we already stipulated we are ignorant. Does this mean that the immaterial world is just ignorance²?
That can't be right, since the immaterial world is precisely where everything happens -- knowledge, experience, being, etc.
I'm always trying to think of the title of the unwritten book. If I could only come up with the perfect title, the book would write itself. One rejected title was The Metaphysics of Jesus. The idea was to go through his words line by line in order to explicate the deepest structure of reality.
First of all, if Jesus is the Truth, then not only should everything he say be true in the colloquial sense, but also relate the truth about the nature of things, about ultimate reality.
Example. His first recorded words in the Gospel of Mark are The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand. There are many ways to interpret these words -- for example, what they mean in the context of Judaism, but what is the deeper principle by virtue of which they are true? Or, what is the ultimate principle they explicate?
"Time is fulfilled," for example, clearly implies that temporality must be something more than mere quantitative duration or meaningless change. Rather, to say that time can be "fulfilled" means at the very least that time had theretofore been unfulfilled, but what can this mean?
To the dictionary! Fulfill: to make full; to supply the missing parts of: make whole; integrate: to carry out: accomplish, execute; to finish out, bring to an end; etc.
Once again our definition doesn't de-limit or reduce, but rather, is incredibly expansive. But if Jesus is correct, it certainly means that "prior" to his presence, time is an impoverished thing: it is wounded and scattered instead of complete or integrated, nor has it accomplished its purpose and achieved its end.
That's a lot to ponder.
Anyway, back to the Keys. Laude quotes Schuon in a footnote, who says
The desire to enclose universal Reality in an exclusive and exhaustive "explanation" brings with it a permanent disequilibrium due to the interferences of Maya; moreover, it is just this disequilibrium and this anxiety that are the life of modern philosophy.
Well, first of all, this desire to enclose reality within our own categories has been declared against the Law by Deputy Gödel. But whence the disequilibrium? This occurs because any manmode explanation not only excludes a great deal, but necessarily excludes a great deal more than it can ever include. And what we exclude always comes back to bite us in the aseity.
For example, how much bigger is infinitude than finitude? Now you know why the tenured not only explain such an infinitesimally small portion of reality, but unexplain so much more in the process.
Laude talks about the need for a coherent metalanguage with which to map supra-reality. In the case of Jesus mentioned above, we see that he generally uses ordinary language to advert to the extra-ordinary. What would the same point look like in strict meta-language?
Let's face it, infinitude is a big place. How do we tame it, or cut it down to size? Think about linear thought and language. It can never do the job. Okay, how about circular? Now we're getting somewhere, but it all depends on the size of your circle. Laude alludes to the "spherical" quality of Schuon's writing. This is the way to go.
To be continued...
9 comments:
Though Schuon's writing could be referred to as "spherical," as Francis Schaeffer points out, in "The God Who Is There," most philosophical thinkers have discarded the possibility of a unity of all knowledge being contained in a circle, or sphere, for that matter. Most have discarded Jesus and The Word, also.
The idea was to go through his words line by line in order to explicate the deepest structure of reality.
Ooof. On the one hand, that would be an amazing project. On the other, I don't think there are enough electrons in existence to really do it justice.
On the gripping hand, it is truly an inexhaustible source of worthy coontemplation...
I like this post, even though it kind of staggers all over the place like a drunken sailor.
The approach of explicating the words of Jesus is problematic as you discovered. Just one sentence leads to a confounding fork in the road regarding the nature of time. And you are back at square one. You can't un-pack the words of Jesus without encountering the unknown.
You can't even unpack your own words without the same happening, let alone those of Jesus.
The determined explorer must somehow bore into, crack open or otherwise breach the hard wall between ourselves and the virgin unknown, if there is to be progress. Even describing the wall is difficult. We come up against something thick in the dark and we can't squeeze past or climb over.
In the post you wrote "Let's face it, infinitude is a big place. How do we tame it, or cut it down to size?"
I suggest this: Don't tame or cut infinitude down. Instead, expand yourself to equal it. Identify yourself with it, become as wild as it is. Blow yourself up to an infinitude and merge.
You have as much right to existence as the trees and rocks; your place in the Cosmos has been vetted and is secured. Now, exploit that fact to your advantage.
You may commence this every eve.
Said the serpent in the garden.
Hi Christina M,8:02AM.
Your comment got clipped or something. The comment reads "said the serpent in the garden." However there is no verbiage as to what the serpent said. Please make corrections as needed.
Thanks
As it happens I have a serpent in my garden. My son looked at it and said it was an Eastern Garter snake.
Although this Garter snake did not speak, it used the tongue to make clever sign language. This snake stated she was a hunter by trade, and specialized in capturing snails, earthworms, and insects, crickets being the favorite. She also divulged she was an expectant mother.
The snake had an interesting philosophy, stating the world was created by Dulag, the giant Turtle.
Serpents are interesting and I'm glad you brought them up.
Well, I too have a garter snake living in my garden. But I’ve become concerned. I’ve had a garden slug problem for years yet only recently commenced on a scorched earth campaign against them. I assume that they’ve been that snake’s primary source of food, but “Hissy” has been going at the slugs far too slowly for my taste. It was time I got involved.
So now I stomp on every slug that I see. No beer, no salt shakers, no soapy water for me. Instead I pick and then stomp on every slug that I see while wearing a pair of dress loafers I bought from a thrift store for this very purpose. The flat soles ensure squashed guts which other slugs will smell and then feed on. So then I stomp on them as well.
As for slug control in general, I believe that as one ages into a tired old cynic that stomping with loafers becomes the preferred method.
Now back to the snake, should I become concerned that Hissy may run out of food? And aside from that, should I also be concerned that in my conversations with Hissy, he or she recently cackled sinisterly and then quietly said “Excellent”. In my own personal experience I’ve found that whenever a snakelike entity, human or reptilian, cackles and then quietly says “Excellent”, that they’re up to no good.
So I’m thinking that Darleen may have a point here.
*cackles sinisterly* "Excellent comment."
Indeed. I once saw a large black woman shopping for shampoo at the Walgreens. Her tight fitting tee shirt stated: “Ample Ass, Ample Sass.“ So maybe I was looking at her just a bit too long, but she blurted out: “Whatchoo lookin at?” I simply cackled and hissed “Excellent.” She smiled and the rest is history. Evil is everywhere, methinks.
Post a Comment