The Presence of Truth and Truth of Presence

I read an essay this morning about an unrelated subject, but that doesn’t mean we can’t twist it to our ends and put it to good use. The author notes that human beings

are rational animals. And if rational, then logical. And if logical, then it follows that if we accept a certain premise or set of premises, we are logically bound to accept all the conclusions that follow.

This gives rise to a kind of paradox, in that we ought to be rational, unless we begin with an irrational or absurd premise, in which case we ought not be. Rather, spare us. Go back and start over. 

Angels, of course, since they don't have bodies mediating reality, apprehend essences directly and don’t need to reason about them. Nor are they vulnerable to rationalization, even the naughty angels. Rather, these latter are as bold and shameless in their twisted assertions as any gaslighting Democrat politician or journalist (but I repeat myself).

Now, irrespective of whether or not you acknowledge the existence of angels, you will have noticed that some intellects are markedly more angelic than others. Importantly, it doesn’t necessarily make them correct, rather, just angelic. For "Some of us bear a resemblance to the angels,"

but very, very few, a minute fraction of the human race. These few become either great mathematicians (e.g., Isaac Newton), or makers of scientific revolutions (Newton or Einstein), or grandmasters at chess, or (less happily) paranoid schizophrenics who draw logical conclusions from absurd premises (ibid.).

Logical conclusions from absurd premises, AKA Garbage In, Tenure Out.  

An additional layer of paradox or something is introduced by the need to begin with correct premises that cannot be justified by logic per se (see Gödel for details). Which implies that we must possess some power analogous to angels in order to “see” and know where to begin. Am I missing something? Sincere question. Or “sincere” at any rate.

Now, to tie this into the current subject, -- and only subject, come to think of it -- which is the nature of Ultimate Reality, i.e., what is Really Real and how we can know it.

In other words, we want to know the most important and consequential stuff, but we also want to know how it is that we are capable of knowing it. These are distinct but related questions, ultimately going to ontology and epistemology, respectively.

If I go back and forth between using O and God to signify the same reality, it is partly because God is a problematic word to use in thinking about these things. 

For example, if we begin with “God,” this is loaded with conclusions about reality that -- from the perspective of logic -- need to be justified. Otherwise we can be as easily dismissed as one of those "paranoid schizophrenics who draw logical conclusions from absurd premises."

Okay, but what about those angelic intelligences referenced above? For clearly, there are some people who just see or know or feel God directly, with no need for some egghead to explain it to them -- or worse, for some condescending assoul to assure them that God cannot exist and that that they're delusional.

But note the trick: to say that God doesn’t exist is literally an angelic inversion, or the opposite of what an angelic intelligence does. For it pretends to peer into the core of reality and declares with omniscient stupidity, Nothing to see here, move along. 

At any rate, as Señor D. says, Proofs for the existence of God abound for those who do not need them. For these intelligences, proving the existence of God is analogous to proving the existence of sight to one who sees. After all, if we couldn't see, we couldn't even conceive of sight. 

This also reminds me of something Schuon says to the effect that God appears as Truth and/or Presence. These words would seem to imply objective and subjective, respectively. But since these two are not bifurcated in the Godhead, we might say that Truth has its own Presence, and vice versa. For when God is present, we know it is True. And when we truly understand truth -- not such and such a truth but Truth as such -- then we’re in the presence of God. 

About this mysterious presence, the good Señor has a few other juicy ones, for example,

The sole proof of the existence of God is his existence.

bOOm. I’ve written before of how the existence of proof itself proves the existence of God, just as any truth is a testimony of Truth itself. 

God is not an invention, but a finding.

Look what I found!

Especially for the more angelic among us, 

The existence of God is indemonstrable, because with a person the only thing we can do is bump into him.

Put conversely, no one would go around trying to prove the existence of other people if he hadn’t met or seen one -- as if we come into the world as sealed in solipsistic narcissism as an Obama. 

This goes back to the question of where to begin our reasoning. It is perfectly acceptable to begin with Presence. Which is, in the end, true of any and all reasoning about anything. No one begins by proving the existence of logic. It can of course, be perfected, but it’s just part of the standard package installed at the slacktory.  

If God were the conclusion of a rational argument I would feel no need to worship him.

Of course, this doesn't mean we should worship the irrational, as do our hissin’ cousins to the leftavus.

One last zinger:

In certain moments of abundance, God overflows into the world like a spring gushing into the peace of the midday.

Which comes very close to what we were saying the other day about Ekhart, the flow, and the bubbling-over of the divine Ground. I do intend to return to this subject, just as I intend to return to the dozen or so other books sitting here open on my desk. It's just that, uh,