Wednesday, September 18, 2024

What Have We Learned?

Recall that All Things Are Full of Gods is in the form of a dialogue -- quadrologue? -- between four pagan gods, each seeming to stand for an aspect of Hart. The Coda begins with a question and answer:

Hermes: Tell me brother, has any of what's been said over these six days convinced you of anything? 

Hephaistos: [After a moment's consideration] No.

What have we learned over the course of this lengthy review, which started three weeks and twenty one posts ago? Anything we didn't already know? 

I can sympathize with Hart, because 5,000 posts later I can't say that my own inner skeptic -- the dreaded anti-Bob -- has been silenced. He too is ineducable in these matters, especially when the mood strikes. What mood is that? Oh, just the usual futility and absurdity of it all. An attack of existential nausea.

To its credit, the Bible doesn't yada yada over this existential futility, for example, in Ecclesiastes: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind.

It goes downhill from there.

We've mentioned in passing a few times that it's easy enough to debunk reductive materialism. The trick is to replace it with a more plausible metaphysic, one with more explanatory reach. Hart's skeptic concedes that

the topics we've been arguing over are so intractable that the work of destroying our inadequate theories concerning them is far easier than that of constructing better theories.

Indeed, 

In the areas we've been struggling over, every theory is, strictly speaking, indefensible.

You needn't even oppose such theories with rational argument, rather, with nothing more than a snarky Bill Maher voice. 

But another character counters the skeptic, reminding him that his scientistic model "is radically incomplete and doesn't capture more than a shadow of reality in its fullness." Any tenured yahoo can reduce the world to a mechanism, but there is "no such world" in reality. Rather, "it's a figment of materialist dogma and nothing more."

But here again, to know something is false is not to know what is true: "the critical task is easier than the constructive." And -- this according to the skeptic --

Atheism will always be the dialectically weaker position for the simple reason that it can't account for much of anything -- not being, not mind, not life, not the realm of absolute values that you say preoccupies our intellects and wills...

Why then cling to it? Precisely because it doesn't pretend to explain the inexplicable, but accepts our cosmic absurdity with a manly resignation.  

Tempting.

Yes, it does explain the contemporary interest in stoicism. About which the Aphorist says

I do not want to conquer serenity, like a stoic, but to welcome serenity in, like a Christian.

That would be nice. One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Or in Vedantic terms, the old sat-chit-ananda, or being-consciousness-beatidude.

Serenity now!

Serenity is to keep oneself so to speak above the clouds, in the calm and coolness of emptiness and far from all the dissonances of this lower world; it is never to allow the soul to immerse itself in impasses of disturbances, bitterness, or secret revolt (Schuon).

Yes, but really? Really? This world? Hart's skeptic looks down upon the world and sees

a vast abyss of darkness, pain, death, and hopeless sadness.... all the world's enchantments, considered in proportion to the whole of cosmic existence, are at most tiny evanescent flickers of light amid a limitless darkness.  

Definitely a cosmos half-empty kind of guy. Go on, get it out of your system:

Really, what does it matter if there truly is this transcendent God you go on about so often? Why shouldn't that God be an object of indifference? Or even vehement hatred? 

That's one way of looking at it. But -- just a feeling, but -- 

as I live on, I find myself more susceptible to a sense of the grandeur and sublimity of the mysteries we've been discussing and less susceptible to aggrieved alarm at cosmic suffering.

 "I don't understand entirely why I feel that way," but "it's a truth that can be expressed only in the dream-images of myth and spiritual allegory and religious experience." There's also that "infinite act of mind in which all things exist," and who's to say what other surprises it has in store for us?

Cue Bill Maher voice: "Well, then, everything's all right. I can't wait." 

The hopeful voice continues: "Mock if you wish. All I can say is that it's very much a matter of personal temperament." Again it's that top-down or bottom-up choice we face, and which determines everything else:

It's up to you whether you trust in the mysteries of mind and life and language -- their miraculous strangeness, which seems always to promise the revelation of a greater meaning, or to adumbrate a higher reality, a world beyond the world we know...

Floating upward on wings of Slack?

It reminds me of something the Aphorist says, that 

The universe is not difficult to read because it is a hermetically sealed text, but because it is a text without punctuation. Without the adequate ascending and ascending intonation, its ontological syntax is unintelligible.
The universe is a text. That checks out, since it never shuts up -- it never stops disclosing its secrets to man's questioning intellect. And not just in the form of science, but all sorts of numinous experiences:

Things do not have feeling, but there is feeling in many things.

About this Logos-saturated world-text, Hart's more poetic character says that

To me, all of existence is a realm of positively eloquent communication. All of reality is the manifestation of that infinite reason that dwells in God; all of it's composed of signs and symbols, through which infinite mind is always speaking to us... and inviting us to respond.

In short, -- reverting to the question of What We've Learned -- well, strictly speaking this isn't new, but it does seem that the cosmos is open at the top, so to speak, and that we must consciously engage with the vertical energies flowing therefrom, but that's the end of this chapter.

3 comments:

julie said...

it does seem that the cosmos is open at the top, so to speak, and that we must consciously engage with the vertical energies flowing therefrom,

It's a little like trying to follow the Nile all the way back to a specific source. Downstream, it is clearly all one, but the farther up you go, the more nebulous and complicated it becomes.

Gagdad Bob said...

"An adequate theology would be unintelligible to us."

Open Trench said...

Someone has completely missed the boat on stoicism. Manly resignation it is not. Stoicism most resembles Christianity elucidated centuries before the fact. "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius is a "must-read." For those who have not read this book, the foundation of learning other teachings, from Hart or from Schuon, or many others, is stunted or compromised. Make it a priority. It is not a quick or an easy read, alas. But it is a necessary read.

Theme Song

Theme Song