So, man is the rational animal, from which follows the free animal, religious animal, self-aware animal, speaking animal, moral animal, political animal, artistic animal, et al; to put it conversely, remove reason, and man is plunged back into mere animality and worse.
Worse because man cannot actually eliminate reason; rather, he can only misuse it -- which is to say, order it to a bad end.
For example, freedom minus reason = license; religion minus reason = superstition; education minus reason = the looniversity bin; politics minus reason = Democrats; etc.
Man minus reason is just an opinionated animal. A bloviating primate. A tenured ape. A crank with a blog. In a word, Bob. For "Bob cannot take criticism. I mean at all. Not even the slightest little thing. That is not normal. He will never be civil to you again" (A. Nonymous Troll).
In the previous post we touched on the principle of substance, which comes to us through matter but cannot be reduced to it; rather, it
is a formal principle belonging to an order beyond quantity and sensible qualities. A whole entirely in the whole and entirely in each part, this formal principle assures the unity of the whole. The senses cannot grasp it. The intellect alone reaches it (G-L).
This relation works both ways. Which is why they call it a relation, for if A is related to B, then B is thereby related to A. Suffice it to say that knowledge of substances proves the existence of the intellect that knows them, and vice versa.
But this knowledge is only "the first determination of being," i.e., that something is. We grasp that it is something, but what? According to G-L,
the multiple is intelligible only in function of the one, and the transitory only in function of the permanent or the identical.
Which goes back to what we said a couple of posts back about how the unity of the cosmos must be (albeit atemporally) prior to its diversity, both objectively and subjectively. If this weren't the case, then science would be impossible. Yes, the cosmos is divisible, but only because it is indivisible. Absent the latter, then the divisibility ends in an absurd logical atomism with no substantial ground: all discrete particles with no unifying wave, you might say.
Speaking of which, I was a little surprised to see Ratzinger deploy the wave-particle complementarity to the trinitarian Godhead, as this principle is usually misused by woohoo pneumopaths of dopey Oprah-Chopra kind.
But before transitioning over to Ratzinger, a few more words about the indivisible and immutable. Just as we can't coherently deny cosmic unity, nor can we coherently deny the immutable. Those who do merely elevate something less to the immutable (i.e., create a false absolute), and fall into idolatry -- like the frog at the bottom of a well who is sure the sky is a small blue disc.
These folks may be known by their rigidity and closed-ness to Reality. They reduce Reality to ideology and then blame us for escaping from their little matrix! This is
the immutability of narrow minds and tight hearts, the immutability of the obstinate who see only one side of things and wish to make it absolute.... This is the immutability of the fanatic and sectarian...., the egoist who is full of himself and satiated.
Which they can't help but project into us, because what else are they supposed to do with it? We literally become the Taliban -- even while they pretend the actual Taliban aren't so bad if you just give them a chance!
Above this cadaverous immobility that arises from narrowness of receptive capacities and of desire, there is something superior, found only in natures capable of seeing the multiple aspects of things, without, however, being able to bring this multiplicity back to a superior unity.
This describes the skeptic, the mid-level sophist whose mind is like an organism with catabolism (breaking down) but no anabolism (building up, synthesis):
Here, we have inconstancy and agitation, a seeking that does not arrive at a result. This is the state of mind of those who prefer... the search for truth to truth itself.
Above this intermediary and perpetually adolescent state is
the immutability that arises not from the narrowness of capacities, nor from the poverty of desire, but rather, from the perfection of what one possesses, from the value of the realized end.
"This is no longer the immutability of the simplistic person, of the closed mind," but of "the synthetic thinker who knows how... to pass beyond the multiple, to give a unity to his science."
At the far (vertical) end there exists a "superior immutability" that converges on sanctity, of all things, for "the saint is a being who is immutably fixed in God." In other words, there exists an "immutability of beings who have passed beyond the relative and have truly found the Absolute."
Which makes perfect nonsense if we recall that truth and goodness necessarily converge at the toppermost of the poppermost, because the virtue of the intellect is Truth itself, and both share the same substance.
Probably a good place to end, rather than veering into a very different but intimately related subject.
10 comments:
Speaking of rigidly progressive children,
Carlson played clip after clip of prime time media mavens reacting to the election -- i.e., the installation -- of Joe Biden as president. Now at last, they said in unison, one yapper after the next, the “adults are back”: the country had shuffled off the bad orange man dragging it down. Henceforth it was sunlit uplands and responsible, “normal” adults as far as the eye could see. The montage certainly was amusing for the fatuousness it revealed, but Carlson underscored an important, less amusing point: what we saw here were “the most childish people in the county celebrating adulthood.”
I'm reminded again of Kipling's Bandar Log:
"By the rubbish in our wake, and the noble noise we make,
Be sure - be sure, we're going to do some splendid things!"
In this installment, the blog author makes a case for diversity within unity, skillfully using quotes from established metaphysical author G-L to do the heavy lifting.
There's nothing to criticize in this post, so the claim that Bob cannot tolerate dissension is not to be tested this time; however no opportunity will be lost in the future.
Now, besides the assertion of diversity within unity, Bob outlines the stages of understanding people might be clinging to. There is a scale of spiritual acumen as we all know.
This scale starts at the person who adheres to a rigid, chaotic, irrational, or disunified view (in other words, are afflicted by ignorance), up to the saint who not only grasps diversity in unity but embodies it as well. Words like purity, consecration, and sanctity can describe the person at the upper end of the scale, who has shed ignorance and lives in truth.
Why people are on a spectrum of spiritual acumen I can speak to; for the soul of a person is born and does mature. You can observe progress in acumen over the course of a life-time, in both yourself and others. This progress is modulated by adaptation to the shocks and happenstance which strikes the person.
Some people do not progress, or even regress. A large percentage. So how now?
Well, we don't really know what to make of it. We can't be sure all will arrive at truth.
The multiple-lives theory posits the soul may have a large number of classroom opportunities in order to earn their "degree." But this we don't know for sure.
Loved the post, fine work, and I do hope you write your second book.
This describes the skeptic, the mid-level sophist whose mind is like an organism with catabolism (breaking down) but no anabolism (building up, synthesis
Over at Ace’s book thread today was a pithy meme (paraphrased): “I read classical books because I want to understand the minds of those who built civilization, not those who want to tear it down”
^ What Julie said.
Personally, I rather like papal diversity, especially when it competes over political ideologies. Maybe over basic resources, even. My dream has been to get Ratzinger and Francis a room together. Or better yet, it’d be a survivor type show all naked and afraid, maybe with other catholic top officials all stranded together on an island. It’d be mostly amusement, but partly social science.
What would they do? Would they set aside their differences and pray together, after fashioning spears and hunting and cooking lizards? Or would they divide into two opposing camps and fashion spears to hunt and cook each other?
Speaking of lord of the flies, an experiment was actually done which tried to recreate that very storyline. It succeeded in creating tribal division, but took an interesting twist when a major crisis was introduced. The two test boy teams in that experiment chose to drop their differences and wound up cooperating to solve their life-threatening problem.
I now think of the Commanche and Maori tribes of old. I realize they weren't old white men wearing old white robes, but please bear with me. Something caused this inconsequential native American tribe, and that very different group of Polynesians adventurers, to become ruthlessly competitive warriors happy to spear and hunt and cook outsiders. They could’ve cooperated against far greater, and old white men worser, threats to their own ways of life. But both chose instead to keep on keepin on and were easily divided and conquered by the old white men.
I’d think we’d need a science to try and figure this out. But then I realized that such a science already exists. And that most of us are the divided natives, and the old white men are still the old white men.
One sees the beauty in things and the other sees the ugliness. Quite an interesting juxtaposition.
Are you suggesting that we get the beauty-seer together with the ugly-seer, on a deserted island?
Personally, I think we have no choice. The problem with ideologies, as Bob has repeatedly repeated, is that we have to deal with the citizenry we got and not the citizenry we wish we got.
Myself, being the practical one because I stayed at an air bnb once, can perceive both the ugly and the beautiful.
Speaking of MAGAs storming public school principals’ offices over masking mandates, my own practical solution to all would be to gerrymander the school districts as well.
Let me explain. The anti-maskers would get their own school districts and/or specific classrooms divided by a wall of some kind. And then any and all negative results could be easily blamed on the left. Problem solved!
Ivermectin has been declared a class I narcotic. Manufacturing, distribution and sale of Ivermectin for use by humans is now prohibited with hefty prison sentences for violations.
No, no it has not. But it would be a kick if it was. It shows how a chemical substance could be politicized.
This has never happened before, especially not with marihuana. Or alcohol.
What's next? Spray tan?
Post a Comment