Commenter Randy made a point that is worth belaboring, that the whole of modern philosophy made a wrong turn in "placing epistemology before metaphysics."
Certainly there is nothing wrong with a disinterested investigation of what knowledge is and how we can know it. But a little perspective, please. And let's not arbitrarily limit or close our minds before we even know what the mind is.
Unfortunately, that ship sailed on horseback out of the barn long ago, such that the situation is analogous to a Supreme Court decision that everyone is forced to obey even if it is unconstitutional -- most recently, granting congress the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance from a private company by pretending it's a tax.
Analogously, in presuming to limit what the mind may know, Kant engages in the Worst. Humblebrag. Ever.
Who gave him the authority? It can't be reason, since no logical operation furnishes the premises of the operation, or, in a word, Gödel.
But I don't think we needed to wait until 1929 to understand the soph-evident truth that any system devised by man contains axioms, assumptions, or principles that cannot be generated from within the system. We transcend both the physical world and any manmode ideology, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. We just have to learn to live with the good news.
Again, this doesn't mean our minds are literally unlimited, but it does raise the interesting paradox that whoever presumes to limit the mind has thereby transcended the limit, since he is presuming what lies on the other side.
Like anyone could even know that!
Thaaaat's right, Petey.
Now, as alluded to yesterday, if one is going to engage in philosophy, one must begin somewhere. Come to think of it, I touched on this problem waaay back in the beginning of the Book, just after the explosive prose starts to cool down and become a bit intelligible. It's a little embarrassing to quote my former Bob, but it's a good introduction to where this post seems to be headed:
What the... How in God's... But why... Who would have thought... I mean, really... Where in the world do we begin?
is torn between shame and aggressive self-satisfaction, conscious of himself both as a bug [earwig] and as a man.... Worm before God and giant among men, he is a living, aching arena of cosmic dissonance, torturted by all the cuts and thrusts of guilt and conscience (Campbell & Robinson).
Now, these brainiacs such as Descartes, Kant, and Hume like to pretend they're the first thinkers ever to be critical of thinking, but let's be real: it doesn't get more critical than original sin.
Do we have any right to assume that the universe is intelligible? If not, you can stop reading right now and do something else, something that actually has a purpose.
Bear in mind, however, that if the universe has no purpose, then neither will anything you do instead of reading the book. Therefore, you might as well read the book.
Blah blah yada yada,
Of course we should start our enquiry with the "facts," but what exactly is a fact? Which end is up? In other words, do we start with the objects of thought or the subject that apprehends them?
just what is the relationship between apparently "external" objects and the consciousness that is able to cognize them? Indeed, any fact we consider presupposes a subject who has selected the fact in question out of an infinite sea of possibilities, so any conceivable fact is bound up with the knowing subject.
I could go on, but that's a good enough set-up for the punchline Schuon is about to deliver in an essay I rereread yesterday, called Consequences Flowing from the Mystery of Subjectivity.
I only bring it up because I agree with every last syllable of it, or in other words, he's not telling me something I don't know, rather, reminding me of something I've always known and can't help knowing.
The technical term is anamnesis.
Whatever, and my term is common nonsense, because it is simultaneously transcendent and invisible while being the most experience-near bobservational experience I can imagine:
The first ascertainment which should impose itself upon man when he reflects on the nature of the Universe is the primacy of that miracle that is intelligence -- or consciousness or subjectivity -- and consequently the incommensurability between these and material objects, be it a question of a grain of sand or of the sun, or of any creature whatever as an object of the senses.
Boom: we've arrived at our First Principle, or even F-F-First... whatever, since it's not yet bifurcated into any distinct subject and object, rather, just IS.
We might say Being Is, but that's already the first consequence. But in any event, this neither seals us in solipsism nor artificially encloses us in some Kantian membrain, but is simply the most objective description conceivable.
As we always say, much of revelation is but metaphysical poetry, or Cosmic Truth rendered via mythopoiesis, and it doesn't get more true than what truly amounts to the ULTIMATE humblebrag (or Good News / Bad News, Woo Hoo! / D'oh!), which is that 1) we are in the image and likeness of the Creator, BUT 2) are f-f-fallen or something, just like HCE.
I'd like to continue with Schuon's essay, but I suspect that's enough stammering for one morning. And if it's all too complicated for you, here's a visual aid:
6 comments:
Coincidence. I haven't even read it yet, but The First Metaphysical Poet.
"In each line, a word of humble flesh is paired with a word expressive of transcendent divinity. We see in each individual line the union of humanity and divinity."
Poetry, even well-translated, often doesn't quite translate. Especially in that example, the English just deosn't bring the reader into the same universe of ideas, try though it might.
In the immortal words of Ace of Spades, "Poetry is just gay sentences."
Another Japanese review of Duke Ellington:
"Duqueryton listened to his acquaintance with his manager, but I was not familiar with him. This time I tried listening to this CD as a rechallenge. It will be tastier and tastier. Listen to the big band is correct. Listen to this. I am amazed by the power of the big band."
Some elaboration: the observation that the key modernist mistake was placing epistemology before metaphysics is gleaned from Peter Kreeft's book Socrates Meets Kant. And of course after reading that I have also had to read Socrates Meets Descartes and Socrates Meets Hume in order to get the full picture of the whole frickin train wreck.
Post a Comment