If that title doesn't drive away readers, nothing will!
Lecture 8 of Being and Understanding is called A Definition of Metaphysics, but don’t tell me, let me guess. Actually, I like Schuon’s succinct definition:
the science of the Absolute and of the true nature of things.
One question I still wonder about is the degree to which revelation is situated within metaphysics, or vice versa.
Clearly there are aspects of revelation that cannot be contained within metaphysics, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition, for reasons having to do with its historical character. For there is no “science of history,” since it obeys no general law reducible to something other than itself.
As such, one of the scandals of Christianity is its darn particularity. On the upside, this particularity extends to you and I, and is the ground of our individuality and our freedom (and duty) to be who we are.
This particularity goes way back to the beginning, starting with Adam, then Noah, Abraham, Moses, Israel, Judah, David, Mary, etc. Persons -- to the extent that they are individuals and not progressive sheep -- are radically individual, and there can be no science of the unique.
There is also the question of God being a person with his own will, meaning that he too must operate outside any general law that would constrain him.
I’ve suggested before that God must be “constrained” by his own nature, but just yesterday I read an aphorism I hadn’t seen before that disagrees.
Dávila rejects the implication that “God wills the good because it is good, instead of teaching that the good is good because God wills it.” He suggests that the former erects “a subjugated God,” but isn’t this more of an Islamic idea -- that if God wills evil, it isn’t evil, it’s good? I mean, I get it that we can't always see how it's good, but still...
We’ll have to come back to this later. Meanwhile, I do agree with the following, that
Christianity is the interpretation of a particular, irrevocable and unique event as the reason for the universe (ibid.).
Moreover, this event is not a consequence but a cause of reason:
reason does not determine the significance of the facts. To the contrary, there is one fact that determines the significance of reason (ibid.).
In Jesus we have the paradox of “a fact that transcends itself,” such that the universe becomes “the sum of necessary postulates to the existence of Christ manifested in the consciousness of the Church” (ibid.). Therefore, metaphysics is a consequence of Christ. This makes more sense to me than the bad-is-good-if-God-says-so thingy.
Now, speaking of Christ and metaphysics, if God says false is true, would this make it true? Do we constrain or subjugate God by binding him to Truth? Can’t be.
Schuon is raising his hand:
The foundation of metaphysical certitude is the coincidence between truth and our being; a coincidence that no ratiocination could invalidate.
Okay, but what if the foundation of metaphysical certitude is the certitude of the union of truth and being in Christ? In this case, our certitude would have to be a function of being members of his body. And Schuon even suggests something similar:
Christ is the Intellect of microcosms as well as that of the macrocosm. He is then the Intellect in us as well as the Intellect in the Universe and a fortiori in God; in this sense, it can be said that there is no truth nor wisdom that does not come from Christ, and this is evidently independent of all consideration of time and place. Just as "the Light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," so too the Intellect shines in the darkness of passions and illusions.
Enough lecturing. Can we get back to the lecture? Lonergan defines metaphysics as
the department of human knowledge that underlies, penetrates, transforms, and unifies all other departments…. It is conceived in terms of the totality of knowing and the totality of the object of knowing.
Which reminds me of the circles within the Circle described in yesterday’s post: metaphysics is the ultimate circle, the last go-round. Unless -- again -- there’s a Person at the top, not an idea or principle. And not just any person, but an open Circle of them, a meta-perichoresis or something (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis):
3 comments:
Come to think of it, very much like a jazz trio instead of a soloist:
When I was in my 20s, I believed BUD POWELL as God. BILL EVANS felt boring because it was quiet and slow. When I was young, my sensitivity was dull (laughs). I recently purchased COMPLETE VILLAGE VANGUARD RECORDINGS. It's wonderful even if you listen carefully. The performance is still a great word. Even in a murderous room, if you close your eyes there is a vanguard of that day. The mood that the heart has become rich, the folds of the heart are gently shaken and healed. Even if it is told that it is a live before being born, it is not the least old. It's a masterpiece, a masterpiece! This is a CD I would like to bring to the grave.
I guess musical tastes can change over time just as much as our food preferences.
Sadly, even if he takes it to the grave he can't take it with him. On the plus side, though, it's probably already there beyond the veil.
I don't find the perichoresis image as particularly helpful in picturing The Trinity. It kind of reminds me of a kitchen tool for shredding cabbage, or something. The Triune God is a mystery, no doubt, so an image is not necessarily beneficial.
Post a Comment