Another brief one...
In a way, everything comes down to whether the cosmos is convergent or divergent (or multi- or polyvergent). I've probably written on this subject before, but in any event, let's try to revisit the place and know it for the first time.
These two words (convergence and divergence) have different meanings in different mathematical, evolutionary, and epistemological contexts, but I suppose what we mean is that 1) existence is a problem, especially for rational and self-conscious beings, and 2) is there a single solution to this conundrum?
There can only be a single solution if the cosmos is one, and this appears to be the case, or at least everyone assumes it to be true. Of note, no one has ever seen this cosmos; rather, it's an ontological assumption, or axiomatic.
Obviously, no mere animal knows anything about a cosmos, or rather, their cosmos is confined to the unconscious order of instinct. Man alone transcends the evolutionary environment and enters the immaterial space of abstract and universal truth.
Although most people just stop with that assumption, the next logical question is Why is the cosmos one?, or What is the source -- the sufficient reason -- of the wholeness, harmony, and unity of the cosmos? Whatever it is, it can't be something "inside" the cosmos, because anything inside is obviously a part, not the whole.
In truth, it isn't possible to think in the absence of this implicit assumption of wholeness. If the latter isn't present, then it's as if we live in a world of disjointed inductive logic, with no possibility of convergence toward truth. The world would exist in bits and pieces, and the best we could do is throw them together into a pile, but with no interior unity.
But everyone either assumes or looks for the missing cosmos. For example, materialism locates the cosmic unity in matter. Everything real is composed of matter, which means that our thoughts about matter aren't real, so this isn't a particularly intellectually satisfying answer. It's frankly an insult to the intellect and a punch in the nous. Besides, nothing can be that simplistic, let alone everything.
Also, matter is the very principle of division: one thing is distinct from another due to its existence in matter. Pretending the principle of division is the principle of unity is a nonstarter.
Man has always understood this, which is why God can never be eliminated, only denied. Even the most primitive concept of God serves as a kind of ontological placeholder for the missing source of the cosmos.
Really, we're dealing with two ultimate mysteries which seem to be complementary: being (and the source of being) at one end, man at the other. Or, we could say Creator <--> Creature, linked by Creation; thus, to say man is to say God, to say God is to say creation, and to say creation is to say being-intelligibility-truth.
To be continued...
11 comments:
In truth, it isn't possible to think in the absence of this implicit assumption of wholeness.
Reminds of the mysterious way in which the brain coordinates sight, sound and touch so that everything is synchronized in our experience; if it didn't, we'd experience reality like a movie where the dubbing is off. Those sensations are all brought into the mind through separate sense organs, essentially divided, but the brain somehow makes them unified again.
Exactly: it's called "common sense" in Thomistic psychology, and it's a quintessentially immaterial power.
But everyone either assumes or looks for the missing cosmos.
It's been interesting seeing how people are reacting to the new cosmic data being shown through the James Webb telescope. One gets the impression scientists were expecting to find data that fits with their assumptions about that missing cosmos, thus making it all a known and understood entity. Oh sure, there's the problem of dark matter, but surely with the right set of math problems that will be cleared up and everything contained within a nice, neat little package. Instead, they are left scratching their heads.
In short, they made a bigger flashlight, and discovered that what they don't know is vastly bigger than what they thought they knew...
If you go to Spitzer's Big Book, Chapter Two: Philosophical Evidence of God, Subsection II: A Lonerganian Proof of God, there's a version of the overall argument:
Step One: All Reality must have at least one uncaused reality that exists through itself.
Recall that if there is not at least one uncaused reality in the whole of reality, then all of reality would be nothing, which is clearly contrary to fact.
Step Two: Any Uncaused Reality Must Be a Final and Sufficient Correct Answer
to All Coherent Questions Making it Completely Intelligible (the complete set of
correct answers to the complete set of questions)
Z man has an interesting post on the mysterious source of convergence of the leftist hive mind:
Spend a week following the main regime media organs and a pattern emerges. On a Monday, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other legacy operations will be running with the same theme. The next day, all of the next tier media operations are running with the Monday theme. By the end of the week, the media narrative has become conventional wisdom, maybe even holy writ....
The further you go up the system, the cultural and ideological diversity thins to the point where it becomes a hive mind. In the media, you cannot survive unless you support the latest things. The selection pressure is for compliance. A process operates across the high ground of the empire.
And today:
We live in a world where a small cadre of lunatics are trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Not only are those beliefs insane, but they keep changing almost as if the point of the religion is to be a nuisance. The Church of the Public Nuisance now controls public life.
That's a really good way of putting it. People on our side often fall into the trap of arguing that we should be trying to hold them to the same standards to which they hold us. It doesn't work because they don't actually have those standards or beliefs, they just bludgeon us with them because it usually works. Meanwhile, they hold themselves accountable for nothing.
Thanks Bob. Grateful if you could unpack the reasoning behind this statement: “Recall that if there is not at least one uncaused reality in the whole of reality, then all of reality would be nothing, which is clearly contrary to fact.” It’s not clear to me why a world comprising only caused entities must, in itself, be considered ‘nothing’ (even though an infinite regress isn’t satisfactory either). My sympathies lie with Spitzer but I’m just wondering whether we can tighten up this argument a little more.
The argument is laid out in detail in the above link to Spitzer. If that's still not enough, try Lonergan's Insight, although I first encountered a version of it in a book called The Restitution of Metaphysics by Errol Harris.
Thank you Bob - I appreciate those suggestions and will follow them up.
Post a Comment