Sweeping Causality Under the Rug

Funny how Hume keeps popping into my awareness like a bad case of Baader-Meinhof. 

Of course, he would say it's just a coincidence, like everything else. The sun came up and it's light outside, but who knows why, and tomorrow may be different. The relationship between, say, heat and light, "is not causal, it is merely an association of ideas in our minds." But 

The fallacy of Hume's argument is obvious: in explaining what produced the notion of causality in our mind, he is effectively trying to ascertain the cause of causality. In other words, he must have taken causality for granted to have been prompted to explain its cause in our mind (Bina & Ziarani).

And if that passage caused us to understand it, poof, no Hume, and my Baader-Meinhof has been cured. But what is the cause of causality? There's a footnote:

We find the notion of causality in us because it is a universal reality that is necessarily present in our deepest being.

That's true. To say "human" is to say "a being who looks for causes in things." Causality

is a more fundamental reality than logic: the latter is merely the reflection of the former on the plane of the human mind. To accept an effect without a cause, then, is as absurd as to accept an inconsistent thesis. He who does not accept causality should best remain silent, for he would find himself in refutation of himself as soon as he expresses an opinion. 

Granted, sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. And unless we flip the rug and look at the other side, we can't see the connections between this and that. 

On our (phenomenal) side of the rug things might appear spatially separated, but look underneath and you see the connecting threads. Just as an effect without a cause is absurd, so too is a rug with a top and no bottom.

More generally, on our side of the rug things are more or less discontinuous. It's pretty much the first thing noticed by consciousness:

When we look around us, what do we see? Firstly, existence; secondly, differences; thirdly, movements, modifications, transformations; fourthly, disappearances (Schuon).

I think you could boil this down to forms, changes, and adiós, outta here. Now, adiós literally means "go with God," but that's just a coincidence. 

It seems to me that discontinuity is a left-brain specialty. In a way, it superimposes a discontinuity on the underlying continuity, because obviously, looked at another way, there are no literal boundaries between things, for All is One and Can I Buy Some Pot From You? 

This is an argument that goes all the way back to the pre-Socratics: many or one? Change or permanence? Beatles or Stones?

You could bring the debate right up to the present, as in "wave or particle?" Turns out it's always both, like a wavicle or something. But it dovetails nicely with our own Ultimate Category, which is to say, personal substance-in-relation. which is like particles-in-waves. Or perhaps ice cubes in water: different but the same.

It makes me think this is a debate between right and left hemispheres, but I'm still waiting for The Matter with Things in the mail, so we'll see. 

I want to say that science describes one side of the rug, but there are two sides to every story, not to mention multiple storeys in a vertical cosmos, and each storey with multiple mansions. 

Let's sober up for a moment and let Schuon explain what we're talking about. When we get into these deep waters, he's our designated diver:

Modern science, which is rationalist as to its subject and material as to its object, can describe our situation physically and approximately, but it can tell us nothing about our extra-spatial situation in the total and real Universe. 

Yes, literally NOTHING, unless you flip the rug and examine the other side, or better, consider both sides at once, as complementarities that necessitate or at least imply one another. In other words, there is a bit more slack on the underside, whereas necessity rules the topside. Only in God are freedom and necessity one, but God knows how.

Every truth is a tension between contradictory evidences that claim our simultaneous allegiance. 

Two contradictory philosophical theses complete each other, but only God knows how. 

This reminds me of a little tweet by Eve Keneinan that got stuck in my head, something to the effect that many distinctions that are intuitively obvious may be difficult explain -- for example, what I just said: it is intuitively obvious that many if not most of the really important things are more seen than proved. There are so many aphorisms that touch on this, that I'll limit myself to three:

Proofs for the existence of God abound for those who do not need them.

God is not an invention, but a finding.

There is evidence that disappears along with those who deserve to perceive it.

Now, I see a rug, and again, the rug has two sides, which reminds me of this: 

The natural and supernatural are not overlapping planes, but intertwined threads. 

Which is why denial of the wonderside always ends in catastrophe, for 

Any straight line leads straight to hell.

Unless you're a Humean being who think progressivism has no effects.