Appearances, Reality, and the Disappearance of Reality

There are really only two options: consciousness is reducible to what is “below” it -- in which case there is no such thing as above or below -- or its ground and principle is anchored in something higher than man. Here again, only the latter preserves any conceivable notion of hierarchy, which is to say, vertical degrees of reality.

Speaking of which, some things are more real than others, but only from the standpoint of a vertical perspective. From a purely horizontal perspective, anything is as real -- or unreal -- as anything else. 

Come to think of it, unreality becomes every bit as real as reality, for who put main charge of determining what’s real? That no one can live this way might be a hint that it is false, but some people can't take a hint, to put it mildly. 

One of man’s most fundamental conceptual bifurcations is appearance <—> reality. This is precisely where any philosophy must begin: just say Appearances and Reality and draw the implications therefrom, and Bʘʘ!, you're a philosopher.

Really? I think so. It just popped into my head, but I’ll bet it holds water, because Petey wouldn’t joke around with a subject so totally lacking in interest. Problem is, everyone thinks they’re unproblematically living in reality, which means their philosophy — such as it is — is implicit and uncritical.

But even -- or especially -- explicit philosophies can be as sunk into appearances as any other. Indeed, one needn’t have much familiarity with philosophy to know why they say it may be defined as error on a grandiose scale. 

Which doesn’t necessarily mean appearances on a grandiose scale, since appearances must be of reality, otherwise they're just dreams, fantasies, delusions, or unhinged fairy tales for the tenured.

The most dangerous of these viral fairy tales do not come spontaneously from below, but from above -- in particular, when they escape academia and merge with the state. Then they become myths that simultaneously legitimize and veil power, i.e., a sinister world of mandatory appearances. Or in other words, Don’t believe in reality, or else.  

There’s not enough time in the world to cite examples, so I’ll just click to the nearest news aggregator and pluck the first one I see.  

Here’s a good one: Newsom Says Republicans to Blame for Imminent Border Chaos. If you think that’s in-your-face, how about this: President Biden to Sign Respect for Marriage Act Flanked by Drag Queen Story Hour Performer. 

That last one contains no fewer than four lies and/or delusions, 1) that Biden is president, 2) that marriage isn’t confined to members of the opposite sex, 3) that pretending otherwise constitutes “respect” for the institution, and 4) that exposing children to mentally ill perverts is a great idea. 

Now, you and I know this is insane, but the insanity is grounded in a denial of any human ability to distinguish between sanity and insanity -- or appearances and reality. Of course, the most effective method to discover the difference is via free speech., And now you know why the party of the insane is so eager to ban it. 

Here’s the difference: we're right, but we want to preserve your freedom to disagree. The left is wrong, and they wish to deny our freedom to disagree. Which again amounts to belief in appearances, or else!

We’ll get back to Lecture 8 in a moment, but I’ve been reading another book called The Lonergan Reader, which has a helpful introduction that situates his overall philosophical, theological, and methodological project, which was partly to answer “the liberal view that all judgments are more or less probable but that nothing is certain.” Even a blogger knows enough to ask, Is that certain? 

“Lonergan saw the twentieth century as marked by an unexpected, bitter, and widespread disillusionment” leading to “the rise of ideologies with their high-minded incoherence,” “totalitarian ambitions,” and “simple-minded opportunism and violence.” 

The Raccoon is tempted to throw up his paws and say “ever thus to deadbeats, especially since Genesis 3,” but it certainly seems there has been an acceleration in the velocity of our fall since World War I. 

Not only have we never recovered from that ontological trainwreck, we are still sorting through its wreckage, even if delusional progressivism has the upper hand, if not a death grip, at the moment. 

I don’t want to end on a pessimistic note, so let’s end on a desperate one:

These meanings and values have yet to be replaced, and the failure to replace them has created a vacuum of meaning and value. The situation is rendered desperate… when its increasing absurdity, unintelligibility, and irrationality come to be regarded not as “mere proof of aberration” but as “evidence in favor of error.”

In a context of civilizational delusion, it is difficult to imagine a more perfect synecdoche than Biden.