An inexcusably rambling post, but what's done is done.
It has probably occurred to you that the problems of time cannot be solved by more of it. Time itself is the problem. No time, no problems. But how and why did it get this way?
We live "in" time and space. But we are not -- or so we have heard from the wise -- of time and space. Or at least some “part” of ourselves is not their product (i.e., evolved in time), but rather, is said to be a special creation, something inserted or added to the already existing one. The human soul seems to be Bonus Material that is both unnecessary and gratuitous, and maybe even a hassle.
In a wide-ranging discussion yesterday, my son asked whether existence is even a good thing. He’s very sensitive to the evil and suffering in this world, and wondered whether the whole existentialada might not be worth the salsa.
I certainly know what he means. Is it worth the bother to exist, or rather, why not create existence minus all the suffering? Or, how about just a floor to the suffering?
If there is an infinite intellect behind it all, he no doubt considered and rejected this idea, and indeed took it on directly with the assumption of human nature. Reminds me of this:
The history of Christianity would be suspiciously human if it were not the adventure of an incarnate God. Christianity assumes the misery of history, as Christ assumes that of man (Davila).
Who would invent such a God? I know I wouldn’t.
The problem of evil is a notoriously difficult one, and without question the strongest argument against the existence of God. However, it seems we cannot have a creation genuinely separate from the Creator and not have Problems. Best we can do.
Rather, we have to look at things from the other way around and wonder why there is all this beauty, truth, and goodness. How did they get here? Obviously they’re not self-explanatory. As to the dark side of our spacetime matrix,
that which is “other than God” could not possess the perfections of God, hence in the final analysis and within the general imperfection of the created, there results that privative and subversive phenomenon which we call evil (Schuon).
Evil “must be” if there is to be anything at all, even though, at the same time, it doesn’t cease being evil: freedom permits any number of things that are against the natural law. Absurdity only enters the picture when the left conflates the possible with the natural and necessary, as with the transgender insanity. In any event,
the “absurd” cannot but be produced somewhere in the economy of the divine Possibility, otherwise the Infinite would not be the Infinite. But strictly speaking, evil or the devil cannot oppose the Divinity, who has no opposite; it opposes man who is the mirror of God and the movement towards the divine (ibid.).
Space has three dimensions: length, width and height; then six subjective dimensions: above, below, right, left, before, behind.
Analogously, time has four objective dimensions -- the four phases of a cycle: morning, day, evening, night; or spring, summer, autumn, winter; or again, childhood, youth, maturity, old age -- and two subjective dimensions: the past and the future; the present being beyond our grasp, as is the center in space.
If you’re like me, you’re no doubt thinking to yourself waitwut? But Schuon is on to something with the distinction between subjective and (merely) objective modes of space and time. You may recall a few weeks back, when we were discussing the nature of objectivity, which is actually a mode of the subject.
What do we mean by “objective”? Ultimately we mean that something is, but this only follows the considered reflection and judgment of a well-informed subject. Obviously, only a subject may know what is objectively true. It’s how we distinguish between a hallucination and the objective world.
Back in the old days of clinical psychology, we used to have a concept called “reality testing.” Part of a routine mental status exam was to assess a patient’s capacity for reality testing, i.e., their ability to distinguish between mental content and objective reality.
The weakness here, of course, is that it presupposes the sanity of the psychologist, and this can no longer be taken for granted, to put it mildly. For the very concept of sanity must be nested in a hierarchy of objective truths from top to bottom. I want to say that your sanity is only as strong as its weakest link. Therefore, for example, it does no good to affirm physics and deny biology, or to affirm biology and deny the human nature that transcends our animality.
But now that perception is reality, reality testing is off the table. For example, if a man claims to be a woman, there is no objective standard outside this subjective claim.
Same with wild claims of "systemic racism" or “patriarchy." Indeed, if you subject the former to scrutiny, then you’re the racist: "Psychologists need to work with individuals to challenge their or others’ denial of structural racism as a means of working toward eradicating it" (APA website). Paranoia, projection, and subjectivism are the new objectivity.
Here’s another doozy from the APA, this one regarding the recent mass shooting in Colorado:
The gunman in the Colorado Springs shooting has been charged with a hate crime. It is clear that violence rooted in hate and racism is all too common.… We need to commit to both eliminating hateful rhetoric and strengthening gun laws.
So, because of this non-binary mental case, normal folks need to give up our first and second amendment rights. I have a better idea: how about if we stop pretending mental illness is normal?
I’m afraid that’s not going to happen in our lifetimes, and probably not ever. What we used to know of as sanity will be limited to a marginalized and persecuted remnant. Humans specialize in adapting to the culture, and if the culture is insane, then abnormality is the new normal. In case you haven’t noticed.
There’s more, but let's give it a rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment