Turn Around and Do the Raccoon!

Speaking of Whitehead's definition of metaphysics as A coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted, he also wrote that "God is not to be treated as an exception to all metaphysical principles," but rather, "their chief exemplification."

I don't know about that one. It may be going too far, or it may not go far enough, depending on one's metaphysic. 

For to say that God is the chief exemplification of our metaphysic would seem to enclose God in our categories, which would be one of those philosophical non-starters we've been discussing.

But so long as God is the chief exemplification of his own metaphysic, then we'll allow it. The question is, do we have access to this metaphysic? Our answer must be NO, unless it is revealed to us. 

Now, Whitehead was a much smarter guy than I am, and perhaps this is why he was by no means immune to Cosmic Blunders. The same could be said of, for example, the Big Brained Stephen Hawking, or other scientistic luminaries. 

Perhaps their minds are so godlike that they are more vulnerable to the temptation of thinking their thinking goes all the way to the top floor -- straight to the penthouse, skipping past the repenthouse. But no human thinking -- none of our maps or models or logical schemes-- can do this because Gödel.  

Rather, it can only be done supposing God does it. We have to first posit God in order to discover what or who he is. Which is why for such purposes I prefer to call this metacosmic variable O -- which stands for what Voegelin calls by various names, for example, the agathon, "A term for the transcendental pole of the tension of existence"; or the apeiron, which is 

Unlimited, indefinite, unbounded.... the "unlimited" source of all particular things. Because it transcends all limits, it is in principle undefinable (Webb). 

He also uses the term aphtharsia to characterize its "imperishability," and "the Beyond," which "is ultimate and in itself indefinable because it surpasses all categories of understanding." Then there's the (divine) "ground," which is

the supreme, undefinable transcendent reality which may be considered either as the source or origin of both the world and the metaxy [the great In Between] or as "the Beyond" that forms existence by drawing it into participation.

All of the above predicates go to what we mean by O: transcendent, unlimited, indefinite, unbounded, imperishable, source, ground, beyond. And yet, these are simply different human vertices -- perspectives -- of the oneness that is prior to them.

Voegelin also hints at another important quality, the power of "drawing," which is what we mean when we call O the Great Attractor in the nonlocal phase space of verticality. Voegelin, who is partial to Greek terms, calls it helkein, which is

To draw, drag, pull. In Voegelin, the tension of existence when it is experienced as the power of attraction exercised by the transcendental.

A related term is zetesis, "that aspect of the tension of existence in which it is experienced as a seeking or striving toward the transcendental pole of the tension."

In other words, our non-stop seeking toward the transcendental pole -- which defines the scientific endeavor as much as the spiritual/religious -- is already a function of the Great Attractor. It has no other possible explanation. It is why both the heart and head -- or RCH and LCH -- are restless until they rest in O.

But there's a reason why a genius like Voegelin will never be popular, what with all the obscure Greek terms. Not to say I'll ever be popular, but I like to think my list of meta-cosmic variables is more readily grasped by the average subgenius. For we are just humble spoudaios, a "serious, earnest person[s].... capable of intelligent thought and responsible decision and action."

If we're not at least spoudaios, then to hell with it.

But here again, I don't like that word. Rather, why not just posit another cosmic variable called (¶)? Man qua man is the mysterious being who always lives in the tension between O and  (¶) -- or better, (¶) is that conscious entity that exists between the poles of immanence and transcendence. 

Not only can we all agree on this definition, I don't believe it is possible to not agree with it. For it is The Way It Is, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it except live it. 

Well, to be Perfectly Accurate -- as always -- there are a number of things we can do about it, but this would introduce a host of other Greek terms such as amathia, scotosis, doxa, philodoxy, and libido dominandi, which, in plain English simply mean various forms of CLOSURE or CLOSED EXISTENCE.

How do we avoid the latter? Easy: periagoge: "Turning around, conversion. Plato's term for the cognitive and moral reorientation toward the True and the Good as such." In other words, get out of the cave more often -- the cave of pure immanence.

Long story short, the cosmos is an open system, and we use the symbols (↓) and (↑) to characterize the openness, bearing in mind that the latter arrow is just the former in disguise -- that our seeking is already a finding -- boo! -- and that it takes a spiroidal form, more like this:

Come to think of it, it's much like a dance between two very unequal partners. What shall we call this dance? I know!

College men, knowledge men, / Do a dance called the raccoon. / Buy a coat and try it / I'll bet you'll be a riot / High brow, low brow, intermediate, / Make believe they're all collegiate / Rough guys, tough guys, men of dignity, / Join the raccoon coat fraternity, soon, / To do the raccoon!

Which leads directly to our next subject, perichoresis, the divine dance to which we are all invited.