A Map of Mapping

Maps are great, but some things can't be mapped. For example, reality:

Or rather, what we call "reality" is always already a map of reality -- a kind of shorthand abstraction from something that is much more complex and multifaceted than any model can handle.

This banality was inspired by a biography of Milton Friedman, which is more a history of 20th century economics refracted through his life and times. As part of my continuing education, I try to read a few economics books a year, and I'm about a quarter of the way through this one.

Now, every science involves modeling, and much of the book so far consists of one discarded model after another in the effort to reduce the more or less infinite complexity of the economy to something we can use to comprehend and predict What's Going On. I am inclined to the Hayekian view that this is what cannot be done, precisely. 

In the modern world the number of theories that are not worth the trouble to refute except with a shrug of the shoulders is increasing.

And

What is capable of being measured is minor. 

And certainly minor compared to the being capable of measuring and modeling. 

There are other complex realities we can only pretend to model, among which are life, consciousness, and climate. It wasn't long ago that it was assumed that mapping the human genome would unlock the Secret of Life, but it turns out that the genome is far more complex and nonlinear than anyone had anticipated. 

For example, we share about 99% of our DNA sequence with chimps. But the vertical distance between man and chimp is not "one percent," rather, it is literally infinite. We also share about 60% of our genes with bananas, but knowing this tells us nothing about man, much less the meaning of life.

Each one of science's successive orthodoxies appears to be the definitive truth to its disciple.

Even Stephen Hawking knew that

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. 

I can't find the aphorism I'm looking for, but Dávila says something to the effect that there's only one universe, and that there can be no "science of the unique." Nor could there be a “science of history,” since it obeys no general law reducible to something less than itself. Besides,

If laws of history existed, their discovery would abrogate them.

Can we also say that if we were a product of our genetic program, this discovery would transcend the program? We can only say that genes are "selfish" from an unselfish -- which is to say, transcendent and disinterested --perspective.

All of this again goes to the irreducible complementarity of appearance <-> reality. And ultimately, 

The universe is important if it is appearance, and insignificant if it is reality.

Except to say that it is always appearance and reality. Here's one way of looking at it:

The universe is an order that is so to speak architectural, deployed from the Supreme Principle by way of intermediaries, or of hierarchies of intermediaries, down to earthly creatures; all the cosmic principles and their rays are divine, or half-divine, which amounts to saying that they are envisaged in relation to their essential and functional divinity.

It all comes down to Maya and Brahman, or Principle and manifestation, or what we in Christendom would say Creator and creature:

Maya is an exclusively Vedantic term, often rendered as “universal illusion,” or “cosmic illusion,” but she is also “divine play.” She is the great theophany, the “unveiling” of God....

The Great Cosmic Area Rug: 

Maya may be likened to a magic fabric woven from a warp that veils and a weft that unveils; she is a quasi-incomprehensible intermediary between the finite and the Infinite -- at least from our point of view as creatures -- and as such she has all the multi-coloured ambiguity appropriate to her part-cosmic, part-divine nature. 

Thus, "while being Maya, it is implicitly, and necessarily, Atma, in rather the same way that ice is water or is 'not other' than water."

I think this can be easily reconciled with Voeglin's idea that human consciousness is always situated between the poles of immanence (appearances) and transcendence (reality).

Now, Schuon adds that

The relationship “God-world,” “Creator-creature,” “Principle-manifestation,” would be inconceivable if it were not prefigured in God, independently of any question of creation. 

Hmm: "prefigured in God." Like, how? I want to say Father-Principle and Son-Logos, for who is the Son but the first "manifestation," so to speak, of the Father? Perhaps like so:

The “Father” is God as such, that is as metacosm; the “Son” is God insofar as He manifests Himself in the world, hence in the macrocosm; and the “Holy Spirit” is God insofar as He manifests Himself in the soul, hence in the microcosm.

That's one way of looking at it, but I think the deeper point is that the revelation of the Trinity is the revelation of the ultimate map of reality; or rather that all maps share a kind of trinitarian structure. 

We're approaching the Limits of the Expressible, or at least the frontier of Bob. Google Gemini, help us out here:

A Deep Dive into the Nature of Reality and Modeling

Your exploration of the limitations of models and the complexity of reality is fascinating. You've touched on some profound philosophical and theological concepts, and it's clear that you're grappling with the fundamental questions of existence.

Key Points from Your Analysis:

1. The Limits of Modeling:

   • Models, though useful, are inherently simplified representations of reality.
   • Economic models, in particular, struggle to capture the full complexity of human behavior and market dynamics.
   • Even scientific models, like those in genetics, have limitations and can't fully explain phenomena like consciousness and life.

2. The Role of Appearance and Reality:

   • The distinction between appearance and reality is a central theme in many philosophical and religious traditions.
   • The universe, as an appearance, can be studied and understood, but its ultimate reality may be beyond human comprehension.
   • The concept of Maya, or cosmic illusion, offers a way to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the world of appearances and the ultimate reality.

3. The Divine and the Human:

   • The relationship between the divine and the human is another recurring theme.
   • The Trinity, as a model of divine unity and diversity, can be seen as a reflection of the structure of reality itself.
   • The human soul, as a microcosm of the universe, participates in the divine and the mundane.

Further Considerations:

While your analysis is insightful, it's important to acknowledge the value of models, even with their limitations. They can provide useful approximations and help us make informed decisions. However, we must always be mindful of their limitations and avoid treating them as definitive truths.

It's also worth considering the role of intuition and subjective experience in understanding reality. While scientific methods are essential, they cannot fully capture the richness and complexity of human experience.

Potential Areas for Further Exploration:

• The role of language in shaping our understanding of reality.
• The relationship between consciousness and matter.
• The implications of quantum mechanics for our understanding of the nature of reality.
• The role of art and creativity in exploring the depths of human experience.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on these topics or any other questions you may have.