That's more or less where man lives -- in that mysterious Between between immanent science and transcendent reality. So, it's not really a between -- which implies two -- rather, more of a "betreble," since there are three terms involved.
It would be preferable to use abstract and unsaturated symbols to designate the three, since we don't know what any of them truly are, which is to say "God," "self," and "matter." Each is a kind of fathomless -- but fruitful -- mystery. In any event. our two little mysteries -- self and world -- are relative to the Big Mystery of Celestial Central.
If God and man are O and (•), what shall we call the world? How about ⬤, because it implies an inverse image of O, and its circularity (or sphericality) connotes earth or cosmos; it is God seen through a glass darkly, to coin a phrase. The heavens declare the glory of God, and all that.
But this relationship is only revealed in (•); or rather, (•) explicates the implicit intelligibility of ⬤. The intelligibility is always there, but it requires us to bring it out.
The goal is as distant from any point that we reach as it is from our starting point.
Happily, the world is inexplicable. (What kind of world would it be if it could be explained by man?)
It would be the little world of academia, which tries to enclose the world in the patriarchy, or white supremacism, or transphobia, or the 1619 project, or some other Narrative of Power.
[I]f we do not begin with faith and hope in reason itself, we will not begin to philosophize, for we will not trust our instrument (Kreeft).
"Our fashionable intellectuals" -- in particular, the tenured kind referenced above --
are skeptical of all "metanarratives" or "worldviews," and of "logocentrism," or faith in any "reason" broader than computer calculation, or "analytics" (ibid.).
Which, of course, is a logocentric metanarrative and worldview, only it encloses us in language instead of liberating us thereby. Instead of the truth setting us free, the truth is that our narrative myths are really about power, which necessarily brings Satan into the discussion, or at least someone like him. We need another unsaturated symbol for this perennial temptation, which in the book I called Ø.
Probably the Worst Idea Ever is to reduce O to Ø, which is what I think Genesis 3 is all about.
Turns out that philosophical arguments are "weapons in the intellectual dimension of spiritual warfare," which is worth saying twice: the intellectual dimension of spiritual warfare. Are we at war? Obviously. What are we fighting about? The same thing Socrates was fighting in his battle against the Sophists.
It is not so much that men change their ideas, as that the ideas change their disguises. In the discourse of the centuries, the same voices are in dialogue.
The New Atheists are just the Old Sophists with tenure or a podcast. "Today's battlefield continues to host the same battles and many of the same essential arguments, pitting Socrates' children against the children of the Sophists." And "Most of the issues in modern philosophy are critiques or forgettings of common sense" (Kreeft).
Common sense is the father's house to which philosophy returns, every so often, feeble and emaciated.
Above we alluded to Gödel's ceiling, which is at once a limit and a liberation:
Philosophy has as its object above all to prevent the follies of the day from blocking the windows and walling up the doors.
But the windows are translucent and the door is unlocked. We have only to look through the former and walk through the latter. Ah, but someone is trying to dirty the windows and bar the door, hence the intellectual -- or pneumacognitive -- warfare.
All truths converge upon the one truth, but the routes have been barricaded.
It is not so much that man is entitled to free speech, as that speech is the means to the transcendent freedom to which we are entitled. Which now brings the Logos into the drama. We might say that this is at antipodes to Ø, or that Ø is the "anti-Logos."
As Kreeft describes it, "there is more than just a 'connection' between the essence of Christianity... and the essence of philosophy," since they are one and the same Logos. Back to Bérard, "Let us recall that" the "vertical axis of the world is Christ," i.e., the Logos that "resolves the transcendence-immanence paradox."
Being all in all, the Word is the divine Hologram throughout all Creation.... A hologram is only a three-dimensional image, but with the particularity that the whole (holos) is inscribed (graphein) in each part.
Or on plain unglish,
You haven't perceived the hologram to your private particle? Come in, open His presence and report for karmic duty. What in carnation?! Why, it's a Tree of Life for those whose wood beleaf.
I wonder what Gemini makes of this queer passage?
Your query is a fascinating blend of esoteric symbolism and playful wordplay. It seems to reference a mystical or spiritual context, perhaps alluding to a higher power or divine knowledge.
The phrase "Tree of Life" is a potent symbol found in various religious and mythological traditions, often representing the interconnectedness of all things, the source of life, or spiritual enlightenment.
The phrase "those whose wood beleaf" is a clever pun, suggesting a belief in the power of nature and the cyclical nature of life and death.
Well, not any immanent power of nature, rather, a transcendent power that facilitates exit from the absurcular cycle of Ø.
Common sense is the father's house to which philosophy returns, every so often, feeble and emaciated.
ReplyDeleteAnd in one pithy phrase, a new dimension is added to the parable of the Prodigal.
Good evening, Dr. Godwin, Julie, Gemini, Ted, and Van. May you all be at peaceful repose.
ReplyDeleteToday is a momentous day, as the Good Dr. has made a stride forward in our understanding of the human condition.
From the post: "Are we at war? Obviously. What are we fighting about? The same thing Socrates was fighting in his battle against the Sophists...the New Atheists are just the Old Sophists with tenure or a podcast."
Whether it be metaphysicians fighting Sophists, or New Atheists, the take-away is that all persons are fundamentally always on war footing. Understanding this is key.
Beyond this one can only speculate further, which our speculators are more than willing to do. They get paid for it.
What has been floated:
Taking our situation of chronic warfare as a signpost, we arrive at the idea that the cosmos was created specifically as a place for war; there being no other place for war. For where else is possible for war to take place?
The supposition is that Heaven, and all other realms of God, by and large, are well-governed and there is no strife or even possibility of strife. War is impossible.
We reason that since war is not possible in Heaven, Milton non-withstanding, an "arena" of sorts would have to built to accommodate it. A grand Colosseum of sorts, where gladiatorial contests could be staged.
In summary, in order to for there to be war, and for no other reason but that, our cosmos was created and set into motion.
Working outwards from this chain of reasoning, we all arrive to the same conclusion, individually, and feel it deeply "Life is a war. I am a soldier."
Take it one step further, and one must figure what army one is in, who are comrades and who are foes, and who is supreme leader of each side. Good people realize they are in God's army, that Jesus is a major general, and that one had best find and follow appropriate orders from Jesus or other general officer, or from Vishnu, or form God the Father Himself.
This so-called "Martial Metaphysic" snaps things into focus very smartly. There is much to be said for it.
The deep thinkers push even further into telos, and reason that war serves only one sure purpose: to banish ennui and provide deep and thrilling engrossment for God.
The key realization is that God's flight from ennui has precipitated the need for this cosmos and our individual parts in it. We thus assign boredom a key role in the observed universe. Thus the the ubiquitous saying among the wise: "Sh*t must happen."
Now others go one step further, if that is even possible, and conceptualize a war between multiple Gods, each with their own Cosmos, locked in conflict. This throws monotheism partway under a bus and this begins to smell suspicious. Nonetheless, there it is. Our God is the creator of our cosmos, but unfortunately has to contend with others.
And it does not end there.
Because the Big Bang was an explosive event, still other thinkers call our universe "The Cosmic Munition." They theorize our cosmos started as a very small casing stuffed with unimaginably dense "Satchitananda explosive," or SCA. The nascent cosmic munition, laden with highly compressed SCA, was towed or launched into position and then detonated. This was the primordial "Big Bang."
The blast spewed shrapnel in all directions, matter and dark matter and energy and dark energy, eventually forming all galaxies and dust clouds and black holes as seen today. These splinters include ourselves; we can be seen as exotic sub-munitions or cluster bomblets. In aggregate the cosmic weapon most resembles an area-denial munition. Because our cosmos is here, a competing cosmos was theoretically crowded out or destroyed by the deployment of our cosmos. We rubbed them out.
Now we are confronted with Gemini and the AI cadres. Do we know on whose team they play? Should we be keen to find out?
There's the two cents from the Trench. Keeping it real.