Let's try to fundamentally describe what's really going on and what's really real: AKA reality2. I realize we've been down this hole recently, but it's a new day and therefore a new new.
I woke up this morning thinking about experience, which is at once so fundamental as to defy definition, but so central as to be the rabbit hole of rabbit holes. For it is literally the cosmic hole without which there are no holes. Am I wrong?!
No, just a hole
Excuse me while I check out Big Oxford for an exact definition. But whatever it turns out to be, I’m sure it will be out of its element and unable to keep itself from assuming what it needs to explain. In other words, tautological.
At any rate, this shouldn’t take long. There’s a lot here, but here's one: the sum total of the conscious events that make up an individual life.
Okay, now define conscious, event, individual, and life, which are almost equally fundamental. You need to be alive to have experiences, but what is life but experiences?
This one is still problematic but a bit more elemental and closer to what we’re looking for: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through. There’s also a list of helpful synonyms such as undergo, sustain, and suffer, each of which, come to think of it, is first hand and first person. Remind me to come back to this, because it's important.
This also reminds me of the “passion” of Christ, which doesn't imply passion in the usual sense, but rather, something passively endured or submitted to -- being acted upon rather than acting.
That’s enough of that. My point is that bestwecando with regard to getting at the essence of experience is to say that it is at once an “opening” and an “openness.” And like any opening, it has two sides, in this case, an exterior and an interior.
Now, to say interiority is very nearly to say experience, or at least it’s impossible to conceive of one without the other. For to have an experience is to have it on the inside, in this world of subjectivity.
Which is another word that is very difficult-if-not-impossible to dig beneath. It is at once a hole -- or the hole -- but also a kind of wall, in that we can never get at it without assuming it. It’s just there (or here, rather), a given.
But check out all the stuff in here! I mean, literally everything and more. For it is a spring that never runs dry, or a burning bush that is never consumed, or a light that is shines in the darkness and is never turned off. Except at death, but what can death be in the deeper context of what even a single experience of I AM is?
As it so happens, my son is taking a class on Western Civilization, or even, one might say, EXTREME CIVILIZATION, which naturally leads to questions of what it even is.
Today they’re going on about the centrality of BEAUTY, and here we go again with the so-fundamental-as-to-defy-definition.
Nevertheless, Thomas took a stab at it, characterizing it as our perception -- or better, apprehension, since any animal can perceive but not see it -- of wholeness (i.e., unity and oneness), harmony (proportion or part-whole relations), and radiance (i.e, the extra-perceptual perception of some x-factor that jumps out of the object, up to and including the blinding glory or divine light discussed at the end of yesterday's post).
So clearly, beauty is something experienced, undergone, and personally encountered. And if no one is there to experience it, then it goes ungnosissed.
Not so fast! Because a big part of beauty -- the experience of beauty -- involves bearing witness to all of the natural beauty that was here for billions of years before we ever got here. Which, the moment you try to think about it, is exceedingly and surpassingly strange, because someone has pretty damn good taste in throw rugs.
For it is strange enough that an inexplicable hole should appear in the center of creation, stranger still that into it should flow all this beauty, from stars above to forests, oceans, storms, animals, and whatnot. What’s going on here?
There is no principle down here that can account for the elemental mysteries discussed above, so stop looking here. Okay. Where else to look?
Insufficient time to do justice to the subject, but this principle of “passive witness to all the glorious beauty” must be situated above: there is an “eternal outpouring,” so to speak, and an "eternal reception,” but that’s only half the story. Or two thirds, rather.
11 comments:
A reminder to come back to "first person" from your second cousin.
Today they’re going on about the centrality of BEAUTY, and here we go again with the so-fundamental-as-to-defy-definition.
Funny, you can tell when a civilization is in something of a golden age by how much importance is granted to public beauty: great architecture and art that stands as a testament to excellence, and tends to outlast the civilization which gave birth to it. Conversely, when a civilization starts to fall, one of the signs is how everything gets ugly and graceless, like a 59-old-man pretending to be a youthful female figure skater. Or a fat, awkward teenage boy being lauded as the height of feminine pulchritude in New Hampshire.
Beauty may surpass definition, but we know it when we see it. We know its opposite, as well.
Also, in our day -- or end of days -- there is a total inversion, or race to the bottom, of ugliness in all its guises: in-your-face lies, depravity, and transgressive "art." The gaslighting never stops with regard to counterfeit truth, beauty, or virtue.
Even fake comedy to go with the fake news and fake beauty.
Speaking of projection, and western civilization perhaps, I have noticed how all the best cathedrals and mosques and pagan temples tended to be built during times of ‘haute civilization’. My favorites are the pendentive style domes with rocket ship minarets.
But then I remember that these were built by the bad guys. Middle eastern civilization. Full of angry men wearing ugly hats. Should we narrow down our definition of public beauty, just a bit?
The existence of art is not proof of the greatness of man, but of the commiseration of the Divine with his impotence.
Speaking of art and beauty, just having a discussion with the kids about what angels actually looked like (as described in the Bible) vs. how they are usually represented in art. The boy made the astute observation that since angels literally dwell in a different dimension from our own, looking at one from our perspective is akin to looking at things through a kaleidoscope. We simply aren't equipped to comprehend their actual appearance, anymore than a 2D creature could understand a sphere.
Just picked up this book I've been reading & it says:
"My form gives subjectivity to my body so that I can experience my body from the first-person perspective."
And each Person of the Trinity "makes himself manifest through the others, and gives content to the others."
This must mean something.
Note to myself: a person is "bounded interiority." Analogously, the Divine Persons must be forms of the formless.
I, Thou, We. A bit like the Trinity.
Well, if you can't find the precise English word to express a concept you could always try Deutschsprechen. They have neat words like Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachung- saufgabenübertragungsgesetz which means "law for the delegation of monitoring beef labelling". The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) comprises 26 volumes. The German equivalent requires a separate wing on the library.
Or, you can accept that we understand far less about the world than we think we do. Which is why we struggle to explain it. The modern mind is distracted by parlor tricks - machines & TV & computers &c. - into thinking we are smarter, more sophisticated, than our forbears. The fact is there are 7 billion minds out there that create their own worlds at the speed of thought. We are fortunate in life to find someone, anyone, with whom we can share our world.
"You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks they really found you"
Post a Comment