I’ve now finished six books by -- and another two about -- the big-brained theologian Bernard Lonergan, most recently one called Understanding and Being.
This one is my favorite so far, and not just because it was the cheapest to obtain, rather, because it had the highest ratio of (!) to (?). In other words, I understood much of it, and there was less glazing of the eyes.
I shall now attempt to translate it to plain Coonglish, because what good does it do anyone if two large-brained primates -- say, Albert Einstein and Kurt Gödel -- conduct private conversations to which no one else has access and few others would understand anyway?
To avoid the difficulty of an Atlantic crossing, the Gödels sailed from Japan to San Francisco, which they reached on March 4, 1940, then crossed the US by train to Princeton. There Gödel accepted a position at the Institute for Advanced Study. Albert Einstein was also living at Princeton during this time.
Gödel and Einstein developed a strong friendship, and were known to take long walks together to and from the IAS. The nature of their conversations was a mystery to the other Institute members. Toward the end of his life Einstein confided that his "own work no longer meant much, that he came to the Institute merely... to have the privilege of walking home with Gödel” (Wiki).
What about the restavus? How are we supposed to march forth into the great unknown? Well, one of the guiding principles of this blog is that normal folks have their rights, and that ultimate reality is not some exclusive private club, but rather, in the words of the Aphorist,
In each moment, each person is capable of possessing the truths that matter.
Indeed, I could write a whole book on that subject, and maybe I already have. Maybe I should even stop, but here we go: let the flipping begin!
In Lecture 1, Lonergan brings up the old paradox that "seeking knowledge is seeking an unknown,” so how do we know what to look for, and how do we know when we've found it?
If we knew what we were looking for when we were seeking knowledge, we would not have to look for it, we would have it already….
But no one just starts out blindly looking for "knowledge." Rather, we begin with a theory, a hypotheses, a paradigm, etc. Moreover, as discussed in yesterday’s post, we ultimately begin with -- whether we acknowledge it or not -- an implicit link between Intelligence and Intelligibility which we (Bob & Co.) call faith.
So, “seeking knowledge” already presupposes a great deal, at the very least that knowledge exists and that seeking it will be fruitful, i.e., that the link between our seeking at one and and the Great Unknown at the other never stops flowing.
In thinking about this yesterday, an image popped into my noggin from the movie Avatar, when the main character, Jake, plugs his hair into that beast and connects to some superior magical nonlocal Gaia wisdom or something.
In James Cameron’s clumsy iconography, I suppose it’s supposed to be analogous to God and Adam, only better this time. In his Manichaean world, "Avatar views tribal people as an honest group, whereas a technologically advanced imperial culture is fundamentally evil.” Okay. No wonder he supports Hillary, despite already having four ex-wives.
Back to our titanesque subject -- literally, since we are hot on the trail of Everything -- “there is a combination, then, of knowledge and ignorance,” and not just the buffoonish ignorance of glitzy but ditsy Hollywood nit-wits, but a systematic and methodical -- AKA critical -- ignorance.
In short, if you’re ignorant and you know it, clap your hands. Conversely, if you’re ignorant and you don’t know it, you don’t have to keep voting Democrat. Rather, there is a cure, but there is some pain involved. Some disassembly is required, followed by reassembly, or what Lonergan describes as
A double movement of analysis and synthesis -- analysis to discover causes, and synthesis to move from causes to the things.
In the past we have symbolized this double movement as (↑↓), bearing in mind that it is actually an endless spiral, or a sort of perpetual notion machine, in that we never stop having generative notions about Being, which generate further notions.
The order of discovery is just the opposite of the order of doctrine. In doctrine you start from the principles and draw the conclusions, but in discovery you discover one conclusion after another and gradually you move on to your principles.
I guess that's it for today. Lecture 2 tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment