A Study in Contrasts, Part 2: Roundblog Day

In the previous post we discussed Nietzsche. Obviously, much more could be said about him, but I have no desire to say it. Nothing against Nietzsche, but life is too short to argue with people whose principles are in -- and give rise to -- another universe. Literally.  

I suppose it's controversial to say it, but there is only one cosmos (just as there is only one One Cosmos). In other words, perception is not reality, rather, reality is reality. If reality isn't reality, then nothing is anything and everything is nothing.

This might sound as if I'm dealing in tautology and anti-tautology, but you'd be surprised. We're starting to veer into a deep tangent, so let's cut ourselves off and just remind ourselves that to say reality is to say principles, and that the former is an effect of the latter. In short, this isn't 'Nam. There are rules!

The point of life -- a point of life, anyway -- is to discern these principles -- whether implicitly or explicitly, mythologically or metaphysically -- and to conform ourselves to them. One such principle -- and just try to actually live your life without it! -- is the principle of identity: that A is A. 

The same idea is expressed in the principle of non-contradiction, which is to say that A is not B, nor any other letter. Mark it A!

Nevertheless, there exist a multitude of learned pests who will tell you that women are men, that the minimum wage isn't zero, that government spending is free, that "equity" can coexist with freedom, etc. Here again, there are rabbit holes and tangents aplenty, but let's focus on Bonaventure.  

If, as I do, you spend enough time wandering around the 13th century, you're bound to bump St. B. While Thomas gets most of the attention these days, Bonaventure serves as a kind of complement; where Thomas is Aristotelian and systematic, Bonaventure is more Platonic and mystical. I would further speculate that where Thomas likely wore briefs, Bonaventure preferred boxers.  

As A is not B, (B)onaventure is not (N)ietzsche, to put it mildly, for they're not just different or even contraries, but rather, absolute contradictions. Thus, we could say: if N, then B, and if B, N. Here again, this cosmos isn't big enough for the both of them, albeit with certain qualifications.

For there is a sense in which Nietzsche speaks the truth, but in order for it to be true, one must eliminate all the upper storeys and inner stories -- myths, parables, revelations, mystical testimonies, etc. -- of the cosmos. 

For example, imagine you live on the bottom floor of a highrise, but don't know it. You've never been outside, and although you have windows, you can only see out of them, not up. Indeed, you can even see people outside gazing upward. What are they looking at? Who knows and who cares. You're happily contemptuous of them in your Nietzschean Supermancave.

In my view, Bonaventure lives in the real world -- the cosmos -- whereas Nietzsche lives in a world of his own making, and I'm not just talking about "after" he went insane. 

For what is insanity, really? It is living in an imaginary world (or sometimes not living in one, but that's another storey). But again, there's only one cosmos; or, to be precise, there are 7.753 billion angles on this one cosmos, but the multiple perceptions are nevertheless of the one reality.

Let's begin with the overall contours of Bonaventure's world. The following passage really caught my third eye, because it reminds me of... you tell me:

the figure of the circle attests to the perfection of bodies both in the macrocosm and microcosm.... But this figure is not complete in the universe. 

Now, if this figure is to be as perfect as possible, the line of the universe must be curved into a circle. Indeed, God is simply the first. And the last among the works of the world is man. Therefore, when God became man, the works of God were brought to perfection. This is why Christ, the God-man, is called Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end.

This passage also reminds me of why my book is circular and had to be circular. The new book, supposing it is ever written, will also be circular, but in a more precise way, because there are good circles and bad circles. 

Come to think of it, Nietzsche himself thought we were consigned to a bad cosmic circle, AKA eternal return, or an absurcular Goroundhog Day without end or escape. 

Well, I was up late last night, so the mind is fuzzy. It's hard to focus on details, so let's end with another big-picture view of Bonaventure's universe, which, unlike Nietzsche's, has a skylight. 

As the previous passage reminded me of O, this one sure reminds me of (⇵) and ultimately of ↺: contemplation is a "twofold moment," or "ascent and descent": 

"This path of ascending and descending in union with Christ is the path to contemplation"; its "interior movement is a continuous deepening within whereby one moves ever more deeply to the center of the soul, and thus, into the image in which the soul is formed."  

Mark it ↺, or you're entering a world of pantheism!