I mentioned in a comment that I've been leisurely alternating between two books, one called Reality, the other called Keys to the Beyond. It's a little like going back and forth between alternate universes -- I was about to say "parallel" universes, but that can't be right, since there can only be one.
Nor is it like choosing a neighborhood to live in -- for example, this one is more expensive but has better schools, while that one is more... vibrant but has more crime.
If one of these cosmic neighborhoods is Reality, the other is Beyond Reality, so they're not really parallel, but rather, perpendicular. Assuming there's something beyond reality.
But wait: how can there be something more real than reality? We'll get to that, but let's start with this:
the deepest joy arises from the activity of man's highest power, namely, his mind, when that power is occupied in contemplating its highest object, which is God, the Supreme Truth, the Supreme Intelligible.
Are we not men? Check. Is not the mind our highest power? Check. Is not God the highest intelligible object? Check. Thomas:
man must immortalize himself, by striving with all his might to live according to what is most excellent in himself. This principle is higher than all the rest. It is the spirit which makes man essentially man.
Immortalizing ourselves by living in accord with what is most excellent in ourselves, whatever the cost... Isn't that what makes a man? Ummm, sure. That and a pair of testicles.
You're joking. But perhaps man is only man when surpassing himself, which would imply that reality too is a descent from something more real. This probably wasn't clear, but soon it will be, perhaps even to me.
The point is that reality is always pregnant with possibilities, and the possibilities are infinite. This being the case, to say reality is to advert to a deeper or higher source, i.e., something paradoxically beyond what we call reality.
Let's remind ourselves that the metacosmos is circular, or a kind of nonlocal spiraling movement that ceaselessly goes out of, and returns to, its source. At the summit of metaphysics is the convergence of essence and existence, AKA God:
This supreme truth is the terminus, the goal, of the ascending road [↑] which rises from the sense world to God, and the point of departure on the descending road [↓], which deduces the attributes of God and determines the relation between God and world.
In reality, it is ↺, since God is the ultimate cause of both movements. The first movement is from effects to cause, while the second is from cause to effects or entailments. Or, we could say many-to-One and One-to-many, or just unity and diversity, bearing in mind that the former is inconceivable in a universe of pure multiplicity. While the two are complementary, Unity is necessarily prior.
Here's where things get a little ambiguous in this cosmic neighborhood. Fr. Reginald points out that
The first cause, being uncaused, must have in itself the reason for its existence. But the reason why it cannot cause itself is that it must be before it can cause. Hence, not having received existence, it must be existence (emphases mine).
True enough. But what if it receives Being from Beyond-Being? "In God alone are essence and existence identified." In other words, God is the the being whose essence is to exist. But who's to say this is the end of the line?
In the next post we'll tour the other cosmic neighborhood.
18 comments:
I favor moderation because the view is always better from the center. But quite obviously, “the center” is not always the place to wind up being at. Various charlatans ranging from Bush to Hillary to Obama to Trump to Biden have claimed the center as their territory, usually with disastrous results for too many other Americans.
I’ve been known to say that everybody projects whatever it is that works for them personally, onto the world at large. All of their interpretations of reality come to revolve around their self-serving cognitive bias. Or maybe bias is a strategy for conserving cognitive resources. Or maybe cognitive closure is a need we all have to avoid the angst of uncertainty, I dunno. I'm just winging it here.
All I know is that Bush, Hillary, Obama, Trump, and Biden have all prospered quite handsomely from their "centrism", even though they haven’t produced hardly anything of material or spiritual value for the rest of us.
But don’t let that stop you from considering moderation as a starting point for perception. Perception is after all, reality.
...perhaps man is only man when surpassing himself
Rings the gong. It's easy to see it in others, for instance when a child is struggling through the challenge of learning a new skill. The skill itself is almost secondary; what matters is seeing how they handle the process of encountering, overcoming and (hopefully) mastering something new.
This is an interesting, thought-provoking post on communism and reality.
From the post and attributed to CPUSA "When we really dig down to the bottom of things, the contradictions of HUMAN NATURE are holding us back. We live in the FREEST society that has ever existed on Earth, *and yet* it results in INEQUALITY."
As you rightly pointed out, freedom and inequality would coexist quite naturally.
Probably the CPUSA writer made an unspoken assumption that free people in a free society would be naturally free of greed and would see to it that all persons on the globe were furnished with an equal share of goods and services, because that would be the right thing to do.
No, no Mr. Communist. People are greedy and they always have been. How could you not know this?
Greed itself has considerable survival value in a world of scarcity. Scarcity has been with humanity since before we came out of Africa. Many of us don't have scarcity now, but that doesn't matter. We are hardwired for scarcity and in fact would remain greedy even if buried in surplus goods and services. The credo "More is better" remains current.
In Neolithic times, if the hunters in a group pulled down a large animal, it was assumed each member of the entire group would get a share. We don't know that for sure, but today's hunter gatherers usually operate that way. Woop dey it is, a functioning communist cadre.
But this can't be scaled up much. The cadre is not going to spontaneously share with another group. It fact they would be more likely to trade with the other group. Viola, capitalismo happens whenever a hide is handed over for a stone ax in return.
In times of increased scarcity, the modus operandi was to drive off or kill the other group and take their stuff.
So you see, nothing much has changed, and there is a long, weary contention among people regarding communism and capitalism as to which is the better system. The truth is, when they are artfully blended (see the USA's codes governing commerce, trade, defense, and social services), that is the best. The middle road. The middle of road. Get to the middle of the road damn ox.
And, when traveling on the road, if you see the Buddha, see if the Buddha has any trade goods.
-Mazel Toff
Oops I re-posted a comment I made in a prior post's comments by mistake. My apologies to the Blog Author and readers. I tried to remove it but apparently anonymous contributors can't do that. MT.
That being said, this new post, "to reality, and beyond" is a treat. What is beyond ordinary reality? This comes up frequently in discussions of what conditions are like for a person after death. Is there a reality? Is it like the one we are in now?
From the post "This supreme truth is the terminus, the goal, of the ascending road [↑] which rises from the sense world to God, and the point of departure on the descending road [↓], which deduces the attributes of God and determines the relation between God and world."
This raises the question, how do we find and travel this ascending road?
People do try to transcend reality using drugs, meditation, contemplation, hypnosis, and introspection. We suspect the road lies within, apparently. Where else could it be? We won't stumble into that here or on Mars.
Anyway, great post, very thought-provoking.
Good discussion between Peterson and Dalrymple.
A reminder that mental health professionals used to be sane, as comedians used to be funny.
Joan is absolutely correct. After New Yorkers kicked out the Jerseys, darker and clearly inferior to the Manhattanites, they should’ve just accepted their place in the Jersey reservation/ghetto and moved on with their lives. Are leather jackets, slicked back hair, and yelling out “Ohhhhh!’ every time somebody says something controversial, such bad things? They should revel in their time.
Speaking of those other losers, the ultra-orthodox Jews infesting NYC, they should try a more materialistic, secular, and especially Zionist lifestyle. It’s the American Way. They'd be far richer and their IQs might even rise.
This is a superb post. However, must kick the tires a little bit.
From the post: "the deepest joy arises from the activity of man's highest power, namely, his mind, when that power is occupied in contemplating its highest object, which is God, the Supreme Truth, the Supreme Intelligible."
I have heard this assertion stated in various ways by respected spiritual leaders of the highest caliber, and so I would tend to think this is true.
However, I question whether the word "deepest" should be used, or just "deep joy arises...."
Any absolute assertion makes a far more sweeping and difficult to support statement than the non-absolute statement.
It has been said in the arena of relationship conflict, one should avoid using the words "always and never" as these form difficult assertions to support and lead to counter-productive bickering.
-"You never listen to me." Really? Never? Now the opposing party has an opening.
- "Oh yeah? How did we end up eating in this lousy restaurant then? You recommended it and I listened to you. You always make terrible choices." Seriously, don't go there.
-"I do? Like choosing to marry you?" Touche.
And on and on like that.
In the arena of philosophy, it could be better to leave things a little fuzzy. That is because an assertion I will make:
"It is possible the Cosmos tends to be very mixed, variable, and plastic."
Now back to the assertion about the deepest joy: There may be people who derive their deepest joy from having enthusiastic sex or drinking spirits, rather than using their mind to contemplate God. They may be unable to bring the needed mental fire-power into the arena. But God provides that all beings have their sources of deepest joy.
There, I made a gentle critique of this most excellent post and now I go on to other things.
Carry on good people.
-Compromised Mole
Why do I find many of the new (and mostly anonymous) commenters so irritating? The pseudo-intellectual vibe? The posturing? The stilted language? It’s so off-putting...
What Julie said.
Why do I find many of the new (and mostly anonymous) commenters so irritating? The pseudo-intellectual vibe? The posturing? The stilted language? It’s so off-putting...
Ohhhhh! You wanna piece of me punk? Any a-youse?
Cancel culture. Shunning. Ethnic cleansing. Dumping Xfinity for Youtube TV despite all the awesomeness. Why is this leftist thing suddenly the latest craze?
What we used to do as remorselessly as a secular Joan Rivers canceling her orthodox Jewish brethren with their tired old “God’s Chosen People” schtick, we now do en masse at the behest of satanic farting leftists. Do some people deserve to be cancelled? Or, should the cancelled even be considered people? Is Soylent Green even people? Discuss.
The blog author is taking on some big subjects and I think that is a good thing. Although more usually discussing the past literature of great minds, the blog author also is showing signs of being an ground-breaker, an original thinker and writer and I see the significance of his posts on the probable existence of meta-reality and how to push human knowledge further in this direction.
From the post: "Is not the mind our highest power? Check." Now, this assertion needs a little tanning before the leather can be made into something. Why? Because of the intuition, the human faculty that knows reality by direct identification rather than by sensory input. Arguably, that is the highest human power.
Is intuition part of the mind, or is it a separate and distinct faculty? To me it would seem a supra-mental process not directly tied to the buzzing and snapping electrochemical synapses. We must get away from the physical basis if we want to plunge into meta-reality.
That is my two cents on the matter.
One commenter wrote "Why do I find many of the new (and mostly anonymous) commenters so irritating? The pseudo-intellectual vibe? The posturing? The stilted language? It’s so off-putting..."
So you are put off, you say. But I'm not a pseudo-intellectual, and I'm not posturing. The language? Refined. I'm the real deal. If you can't handle that, then back away and see how the grown-ups play. Capish?
Anonymous 10:10 commented " Do some people deserve to be cancelled? Or, should the cancelled even be considered people? Is Soylent Green even people? Discuss."
It is interesting you mentioned this, as cannibalism is on the rise globally. People are increasingly being eaten, usually fresh and not processed (no Soylent Green so far).
This is happening even as other sources of protein are abundant, so it cannot be driven by starvation.
Our political leadership has been accused of habitual cannibalism, and while no solid proof has surfaced, there also has been no firm denial from those accused, which I find odd.
How many have partaken? All? Some? None?
Now, if genocide was being plotted, there is no more efficient way to cancel people than eating them. So it could be part of cancel-culture. Who knows, take away the monuments, the flags, the guns, and then feasting cleans up what's left.
Farting Demonic Leftists indeed. I don't buy it, seems very far-fetched, but thanks for bringing up the topic.
To the anon who wondered why most of the other anonymous comments are so off-putting, that is their entire purpose. They know that if they load up the comment section of even so quiet a place as this with inanities, fruitful and interesting discussion between serious commenters becomes extremely difficult. Plain trolls or paid shills, either way, the effect is the same.
If you are a serious commenter, just scroll past the other anons.
Daisy, there is little evidence "fruitful and interesting discussion between serious commenters" occurs here, trolls or no trolls. The most people offer are one-liners or links to some other site. Step up and discuss, if you think you have it in you. I haven't seen anything from you except "yay, I agree." That is not fruitful discussion.
What do you expect from a sheep?
If you don't think the quality of discussion here is up to your high standards, feel free to add something of substance. Agree, disagree, expand on a particular point, show examples and see if they fit. Take the ideas presented here and test them against reality.
Or just throw in the usual inanities and bitchy complaints. That really makes the conversation sparkle.
Discussion does not happen here because disagreement is futile. Where we go one we go all.
If a few antifa double agents push against the police barricades, then we all push against the police barricades. We push and push until the socialist police are screaming and the peoples house is breached. And those who inspired us, like Sidney and Rudy and the great Dr. Steven Turley, can claim that "reasonable people" wouldn't ever believe their election fraud claims because disagreement is futile.
We must not let the children be made into Soylent Green!
And keep your hoofs off me you damn dirty sheep! We conservatives do not disagree with each other because anything "scientific", anything independently secular, anything centrist or moderate is an even more insidious form of satanic farting, a sort of gateway farting drug. Like beans.
Post a Comment