The State of the Cosmos

The state of the cosmos is... fallen, I guess, so, same as it ever was: We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 

As for my microcosmos, i.e., the disordered order of Bob, you’ve probably noticed the annoying uptick in productivity or blowhardity since I was baptized and confirmed last April. Not only do I have more to say, every day I fall further behind in saying it. 

Moreover, used to be the posts spontaneously structured themselves into a beginning, middle, and end, whereas nowadays they end in the middle or sometimes even the beginning. Could this simply be due to age and its inevitable wooliness? Grangag's never-ending stories? State of the cosmos or state of the onion?

I count about 250 posts since taking the plunge, so if we continue at this rate, it may end up being the most productive 12 month period in the blog's existence, although even I don't care about the quantity, rather, the immortality, i.e., deluding myself that if I write enough, it will be as if I cheated death. You know, like Joyce:  

I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of insuring one's immortality.

There must be literally thousands of gags in here that no one will ever get. But hold on… If no one laughs, did the joke ever happen? You call that immortality? 

Let’s get back to our subject, or at least try to gain some ground on it and close the gap between (¶) and O.  

As I recall, we were talking about limitations on divine omnipotence, at least in a manner of speaking. We’re not presuming to tell God what he can or can't do, rather, only trying to make him a tad more intelligible. We get it:

Wisdom comes down to not instructing God on how things should be done.

And

Man calls "absurd" what escapes his secret pretensions to omnipotence.

Understood. I give up already! 

Nownow, don't get carried away. For

God does not  ask for the submission of the intelligence, but rather an intelligent submission. 

Indeed, Raccoon Science is just like any other science or ology -- in this case, logology, or Oology. 

Note that the Logos as such is, among other things, the Reason of the cosmos. Thus logology, our reasoning about the Divine Reason (or perhaps vice versa).  

Either way, the cosmos is a surprisingly reasonable place despite its many enigmas and puzzles that will keep us busy for centuries arguing over what it all means.

Focus!

Okay! No need to yell.

Let’s get to what this is all leading to, which is the “relationship” between Relative and Absolute. 

The reason I put "relationship" in quotes is because it is already an attribute or entailment of the Relative as such. And the "reason" I capitalize Relative is because I think there is an aspect of it, or a way of thinking about it, that puts it on the same lofty plane as the Absolute. I would even argue suggest that the two -- Absolute and Relative -- may possibly be the Mother of all complementarities.  

And the reason I capitalize Mother is because… 

We’ll get to that?, but it has to do with the mega-complementarity of them all, which I suspect will come back to Mother, Father, and Child -- or, more abstractly, Beyond-Being, Being, and Logos, in what amounts to an intrinsic and eternally fertile tri-complementarity which is reflected down here, and come to think of it, may go back to Paul’s wise crack in the first paragraph about the the whole darn creation trying to give birth to something. 

Certainly Meister Eckhart thought in these maternal terms, and right there you see the problem, as I could easily jump down that hole and bring back a whole drove of hares. 

What, like Hare Krishna?

Shut up, Donny.

Let’s sketch out the possibilities: Absolute Absolute, Relative Absolute, and Absolute Relative. I don’t think we need to posit a “Relative Relative,” since that seems redundant, or at least not immediately intelligible. Let me think about it for a sec….

Hold on, I think it might make sense, in that it goes to the relations that exist in the cosmic harearchy, in which everything is relative to something above and below. For example, man is relative to animals below and angels above. In turn, there are hierarchies of animals and angels. It's a fractal cosmos.

Now, this scheme of Absolute Absolute / Relative Absolute / Absolute Relative / Relative Relative — how does it relate to Everything? Or is it the very scheme, skeleton, and framework itself?

I suspect the latter. That’s a solid lead. We’ll follow up on it tomorrow.

Meanwhile, our prayer: