The Case of the Missing Cosmos

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...