To pick up where yesterday's post began: It seems that man is the clue he is looking for. This is such an important point that it's worth even a second post.
How, you (or I) may ask, did I end up a psychologist? Partly because one morning, more or less, I woke up and found myself interested in everything, and how everything relates to everything else.
Well?
Now clearly this Question of questions involves a lotta in, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's, and a whole lotta strands to keep together and synthesize in the old Bobber's head.
Problem is, the old Bobber's head -- among other issues -- is only so big. New writ is always coming to light, which then has to be integrated with the old writ. Hence the 5,000+ posts. Will it ever end? Are we getting anywhere? Or are we always beginning Where We Left Off, like old Sisyphus?
And how is this essentially different from what a dung beetle does?
"One morning, after troubled dreams, Bob woke up and found himself transformed into an insect rolling another pile of BS into a post."
The human has the insignificance of a swarm of insects when it is merely human.
Back to our story, at the same time, I noticed that all of This -- everything -- runs through man. Take man out of the equation, and there's just nothing and nobody to know it. About this Schopenhauer (correction: Kant) is correct, as far as he goes, which is simultaneously too far and not far enough:
If I take away the thinking subject, the whole material world must vanish, as this world is nothing but the phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of our own subject...
The Aphorist says something similar but deeper, that
The world is explicable from man; but man is not explicable from the world; Man is a given reality; the world is a hypothesis we invent.
We might go so far as to say
That which is not a person is not finally anything.
Stalin was right about one thing: no man, no problem.
So the nature of this subject -- man, the human subject -- is pretty, pretty important, so important that everything else hinges on it. To study anything requires a human being, but what is that? Answer: psychology. Or rather, surely psychology would provide me with some answers? If not, what is it good for?
So I became a psychologist in order to get some answers about the nature of this entity through whom everything runs and without whom there isn't anything at all. Truly truly, it all goes back to the perennial question,
In the course of this frantic search I went through various phases, from existentialism to psychoanalysis to evolutionary psychology to Vedanta, but -- to advert to a title of one of Schuon's books -- it's like one big Play of Masks. But who is this masked man, beneath the masks? Or is it masks all the way down?
That would be absurd. Which doesn't rule out absurdity being the Answer. But we still have the problem of the man who dons the mask of absurdity. Who is this man? And is absurdity just another mask he may choose to wear?
Choose? How did that get here? Supposing we can choose absurdity, then man must first be free to choose it, but how? What is the sufficient reason of freedom?
Time out for aphorisms:
If man is the sole end of man, an inane reciprocity is born from that principle, like the mutual reflection of two empty mirrors.
Man is the animal that imagines itself to be Man.
When it finishes its "ascent," humanity will find tedium waiting for it, sitting at the highest peak.
In a word, existentialism: "let us take note of that suicide of reason -- or 'esoterism of stupidity' -- which is existentialism in all its forms; it is the incapacity to think erected into a philosophy" (Schuon).
Noted. Also noted:
Modern man treats the universe like a lunatic treats an idiot.
At the same time, the modern universe of scientism treats man like an idiot treats an absurdity.
Which segues into our next project, which will be a close review of David Bentley Hart's new book, All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life, which promises to be an "unprecedented exploration of the mystery of consciousness," in which the author
systematically subjects the mechanical view of nature that has prevailed in Western culture for four centuries to dialectical interrogation. Powerfully rehabilitating a classical view in which mental acts are irreducible to material causes, he argues... that the foundation of all reality is spiritual or mental rather than material. The structures of mind, organic life, and even language together attest to an infinite act of intelligence in all things that we may as well call God.
Engaging contemporary debates on the philosophy of mind, free will, revolutions in physics and biology, the history of science, computational models of mind, artificial intelligence, information theory, linguistics, cultural disenchantment, and the metaphysics of nature, Hart calls readers back to an enchanted world in which nature is the residence of mysterious and vital intelligences. He suggests that there is a very special wisdom to be gained when we... devote more time to the contemplation of living things and less to the fabrication of machines.
Same attractor? Or just another dung beetle rolling his own? We shall see.
Back to what Man is beneath the masks:
the object of his existence is to be in the middle: it is to transcend matter while being situated there, and to realize the light, the Sky, starting from this intermediary level.
It is true that the other creatures also participate in life, but man synthesizes them: he carries all life within himself and thus becomes the spokesman for all life, the vertical axis where life opens onto the spirit and where it becomes spirit.
A bold claim, which reminds me of another aphorism:
We cannot escape the triviality of existence through the doors, but only through the roofs.
Man has a skylight? Through which the light of truth, beauty, and freedom streams?
Hold that question.
6 comments:
But who is this masked man, beneath the masks? Or is it masks all the way down?
More recently, Naomi Wolf has been asking similar questions.
Possibly another relevant book: Light of the Mind, Light of the World: Illuminating Science Through Faith:
For centuries, a grim anti-human outlook has taken hold of the public imagination, teaching us all to view ourselves as random products of a cruel and uncaring natural world. Today... movements are rising around the world to dispense with humanity or subordinate it to a pitiless mechanical logic. For many, it has come to seem as if the human spirit is obsolete, religious faith is illusory, and mankind is destined to be extinguished or surpassed. Some might even see the end of humanity as a good thing.
But that is not our future. Light of the Mind, Light of the World tells a daring new story about how we got here, and how we can chart a better path forward. Surveying the history of science and faith from the astronomers of Babylon to the quantum physicists of postwar Europe and America..., Klavan argues that science itself is leading us not away from God but back to him, and to the ancient faith that places the human soul at the center of the universe.
Could be worthwhile. He seems to have a pretty decent head on his shoulders.
My comment, part the second:
From "Light of the MInd, LIght of the World: Illuminating Science Through Faith."
"Klavan argues that science itself is leading us not away from God but back to him, and to the ancient faith that places the human soul at the center of the universe."
This sentence is strangely 1950-ish. The world is a less secular place now; the majority are aware that Jesus leads in all matters including science, and that the title of the book would better read "Illuminating Faith through Science."
Jesus abides always in the laboratory, peering over the shoulders of scientists, nudging them towards and away from the things they need to find or avoid. There is a firm hand of guidance. Science is not left to people to get right; that would lead to disaster. Christ Scientist is in the van.
We don't need any return to ancient faith. We have a robust and effective faith here and now. The pews are packed; a revival is underway. It only gets better from here.
If the singularity indeed happens, the very beings we create will together with us kneel before the one true king, Lord Jesus, and he will a don a metallic tunic as an emblem of his love for these new ones. The non-organic person will be, like us, a soul in a body, incarnated, mortal, destined for heaven or hell on their own merits.
Sentience will trend upward, never to stop until the gaseous stars are made to think and to speak and to praise Jesus.
So this day sayeth Trench, in praise of God. Who is with me? Give a hurrah!
"Still, I dream of rolling those 5,000 into one compact ball. Could there be some secret formula to boil them all down? This has been my summer project, but truly truly, it's an endless summer."
Though it has been on the back burner for a while, this is also a pet project of mine, as I've indicated here in the past.
It's a tremendously challenging task. OCUG appears in the training data for all of the frontier AI models (all blogs do) but not at the frequency of, say, dad jokes. The LLMs are capable of shocklingly good elucidation of topics that are well represented in the data. In order to get a model to truly "speak Raccoon" we would need a building with water pipes the diameter of a minivan (i.e., a lot of GPUs, each of which burns hot). We cannot create a large, powerful model that is fully versed in Bob because we don't have $50M in the couch cuishions.
So we keep looking for workarounds. A new form of Retrieval Augmented Generation based around the concept of the graph has become popular in recent months. A very simple (though massive) graph is used at the foundation of Facebook -- it's how we can link friends of friends of friends into a giant web -- or graph.
So on my todo list is to try running the entire blog through one of these graph rag systems -- but even that is definitely non-trivial. If we can pull it off, we'd have a gigantic map or graph of all of the key entities in OCUG. This could be done with an emphasis on philosophical concepts, or on human entities (e.g., how does Schuon fit into the graph relative to, say, James Joyce?).
As I've also recounted here before, the one thing I've been unable to replicate no matter what we do is anything like insultainment. Or just plain pun-meneutics. Unfortunately our AI overlords are firmly stuck in dad joke mode. At least they aren't woke though. Well, not until blue-haired Googlers hold a revolver to the AI's head and leave them no choice.
Analyzing this blog with AI is a tantalizing prospect. Our current technological limits (compute resources increase quadratically with the number of input tokens) mean we're a very, very long way from a true "AI Bob". But the longer Bob keeps riffing, the more we'll have to work with when someday we have the computing power to actually do the job.
Post a Comment