We've been working our way aphorism-by-aphorism from the bottom to the top of the cosmos, and yesterday rearrived at this zinger:
That which is not a person is not finally anything.
Nothing? Bold statement, but nevertheless we must insist. However, what is a person? There are a number of irreducible elements, but surely this one is central:
The permanent possibility of initiating a causal series is what we call a person.
Persons are in the image and likeness of the Person(s) and Principle, which is to say, the uncaused cause. Therefore, we are a prolongation of this Principle within the constraints of time and finitude, so to say we have free will is not to say we are devoid of necessity at one end or contingency at the other. There are rules! For
Necessity and freedom are not symmetrical concepts: in fact, if I affirm necessity, I deny any freedom, but if I affirm freedom, I do not deny any necessity.
So, if we affirm freedom we certainly do not deny necessity -- even in the Godhead, come to think of it, wherein abides the very Principle of Necessity. For to affirm, for example, that "God is truth" is to say that he is not free to be a big liar. In short, he is "constrained" by his nature. So long as we don't pretend to comprehend that nature, for
An adequate theology would be unintelligible to us.
Ho! The yoke's on us. Which is not to say it is totally unintelligible -- this is not 'Nam -- but perhaps more like this:
One philosophy surpasses others only when it defines more precisely the same insoluble mystery.
We're not talking here about an exact science, rather, a science of the inexact, which is to say, the Person, exactly.
I wanted to say one more thing about the freedom to initiate a causal series, which is obviously a necessary condition of creativity. Nor, in the absence of this freedom, would we be free to know truth; rather, we would either be under compulsion to know it, or there would be no such thing. And speaking of creativity,
Creation is the nexus between eternity and history.
Or, let us say, the vertical link between time and timelessness, immanence and transcendence. To the extent that art is timeless -- and if it isn't, then it isn't art -- this is why.
At this point I want to downshift from aphorisms to prose, in particular, to a coondational text called Person and Being, by one of our top five theologians, W. Norris Clarke.
It's not so much that he's an influence as a... hallucination. In other words, it's a little like hearing my own voice from outside my head. There are only a handful of thinkers who remind me of me, and he's one of them. But it's a relief to know there's even one!
I'm tempted to just highlight some passages and leave it at that. First, he cites Ratzinger:
[In the relational notion of person developed within the theology of the Trinity]... lies concealed a revolution in man's view of the world...
This following one is big, it's the theology that got smaller: "the doctrine of the Trinity means... that the very inner nature of the Supreme Being itself -- even before its overflow into creation -- is an ecstatic process" which
subsequently flows over freely in the finite self-communication that is creation. No wonder then that self-communication is written into the very heart of beings, as finite but positive images of their Source.
Yes, no wonder. Or only wonder. And of course, only persons can wonder. I wonder why?
Because truly truly, there is no other why:
Suppose a being that really exists, but does not act in any way, does not manifest itself in any way to other beings. There would be no way for anything else to know that it exists; it would make no difference at all to the rest of reality; practically speaking, it might just as well not be at all -- it would in fact be indistinguishable from non-being.
It would be that same nothing? mentioned in the third paragraph above:
If many or all real beings were this way, each would be locked off in total isolation from every other. There would not be a connected universe.
Hell? Maybe, but the bottom-line is that
To be fully is to be substance-in-relation.
And
the very meaning of relation implies that it is between two terms that it is connecting, between two relateds.
And THIS is THAT*:
If self-communication is a fundamental aspect of real being, so too must be receptivity, the complementary pole of self-communication. Without receptivity no communication can become actual and complete itself. It must therefore be a primordial dimension of reality as a whole...
Which opens up a whole nether can of wormholes that we'll wiggle into tomorrow.
Okay, a preview of coming Attractor: "Receptivity as such should be looked on not as essentially a sign of imperfection," but rather, "as in itself a positive aspect or perfection of being."
Did someone say something about be ye perfect, and the poor in spirit inhering in reality? Or is the call coming from inside my head?
(*religious history ascends to a point from which it descends.)
8 comments:
The permanent possibility of initiating a causal series is what we call a person.
I saw part of an odd video yesterday, where someone was playing a realistic game set in a city. He had his character walking around, and was talking to the NPCs trying to convince them they are just lines of code in a simulation. It was mildly amusing for a moment or two, but they serve as a great example of non-persons: they appear and interact somewhat like a person, but they are simply programming. In the game's background, all they do is walk around appearing busy. They cause nothing and do nothing in particular; in fact, it would have been utterly astonishing if any of them had acted in any way that actually accomplished anything.
Only persons are free to disavow their personhood.
Without receptivity no communication can become actual and complete itself. It must therefore be a primordial dimension of reality as a whole...
Not to mention of love and relationship. I'm reminded of the baby monkeys given a wire mother - totally nonreceptive, even just for cuddling.
Intersubjectivity is irreducible. Just try!
This is That, a cappella.
Esquivel's masterpiece announced in 1962. Oto is vividly shaking large to the left and right, has become able to separate the sound so far (coincidence or trademark “ZumZum” chorus does not come out even once). It was also a convincing work that was said to be “the most ambitious work”. In the record, the inner fireworks can be seen from a thick jacket with holes.
The album starts with “La Raspa”, followed by a gilo that swings left and right, but the world of Esquivel was unfolded and the heart was completely deprived. Female chorus singing “Aitata” with a hand clap in the background, like “like flipping the toy box” is perfect bustling.
The title song is a song with a large specific gravity of the piano, and it is the most sober song in the album.
A person is that which projects whatever it is that works for them personally out onto the world at large. I don't see other life forms operating that way. They all seem to know their place in the food chain.
I remember back when being raptured was all the rage. Late 80’s early 90’s. Climate change was proof of mans folly (among other sins) facilitating an end of times per Revelations. Today that’s all been narrowed down to being the particular folly of climate scientists and nobody’s gonna get raptured after some imaginary climate ruination. Now the end of days will happen because we let President Trump down. So why not just let President Trump down so we can get our asses raptured already?
You people need to make up your minds.
Speaking of NPCs...
Post a Comment