Meditations on the First Principle

It's easy enough to prove that materialist explanations are insufficient, but it's not altogether clear what to replace them with. 

That is to say, we know that horizontal and vertical are complementary down here, and we can even deduce that the vertical must be ontologically prior, since no amount of time or horizontal shuffling could have given rise to it.

Beyond this, the sages diverge. 

Man has literally been trying to map the vertical ever since he became man and uttered an astoneaged WTF?! Gemini, how many religions are there in the world?

It's tricky to give an exact number of religions in the world because there's no single, universally agreed-upon definition of what counts as a distinct religion.

That's true. For example, wokeness is a religious cult, but its members don't know it. 

Give us your best guess, Gemini.  

Estimates go as high as 10,000 distinct religions worldwide, although many of these have relatively small followings and are regionally based.

So, 10,000 different maps of the same territory. And on what basis do we pick one? For it is like trying to decide where to go on vacation without having any knowledge of the destinations involved. Rather, you have to travel there to find out. No wonder people reject the whole notion and take flight into secularism. 

The problem is, you may not care about the Absolute, but the Absolute cares about you. In other words, you can only pretend to reject it, because you'll inevitably put a false absolute in its place. 

Speaking of which -- the 10,000 religions notwithstanding -- there are some features of the vertical about which I should think all reasonable people can agree, one being that it is Absolute. People call it by different names, but it is at the top of the hierarchy, and stands as origin, source, center, and first principle.

This is somewhat analogous to how logic has its first principles without which it couldn't be logical, e.g., identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, and sufficient reason.

Supposing we begin with this Absolute, what else can we say of it except that It Is and must be? Well, I suppose it's cheating, but I fully accept Moses' testimony that this It Is is an I AM -- in other words, that it possesses subjectivity. We won't yet say that the Absolute is a person, but it's certainly not an object.

Now, I don't believe this only on Moses' authority, but because once heard, it makes sense. Most importantly, it makes sense of our own otherwise totally inexplicable subjectivity. 

Using only our own meager horizontal resources, there's not even a theory of how there could be a theory of consciousness. Oh, I know they're out there, for the tenured will always be with us. But consciousness explains the theory, not vice versa.

Having said that, merely acknowledging an Absolute subject is a rather threadbare religion. What's he like? Is there a way to get to know him better? And does he give a hoot about us? 

What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe we matter to Him.

Here's a thought: if our own subjectivity is grounded in his, then perhaps the most central features of our subjectivity may reveal something of his. Maybe it's another cheat, but this is why I accept the principle that man is -- we won't yet say created, but somehow a reflected image of this Absolute principle.

If this is the case, then features of our consciousness may reflect features of his. 

Let's think about this... Ah ha! Thinking. Certainly this is the main feature of human consciousness, that we pretty much never stop thinking. Nor is this in the way of lower animals, rather, we inhabit a world of ideas, essences, and abstract concepts that is totally inaccessible to the beasts.

And why do we do this? Here again, reduced to horizontal resources, there is no why. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we think in order to know. Know what? Truth. Just try denying that and see how far it gets you.

Could it be that the Absolute is not only the source and ground of truth, but Truth itself? If so, it would explain why there are so many seemingly contradictory truths down here -- even those 10,000 religions, because a truth can never be the truth.

Which in turn gives rise to the idea that the vertical isn't just an empty expanse, but rather must be a hierarchical order, such that the truths of one level may not apply to another. Which is why I accept the testimony of the Aphorist to the effect that 

Truths do not contradict each other except when they fall out of order.

I mean, even materialism is true insofar as we're talking about matter. It only becomes false if it rises above its station and tries to account for things above the material. Likewise, we accept Darwinism, but it certainly doesn't account for Darwin. 

Which reminds me of a quip by Keynes I read the other day in an intellectual biography of Hayek: "Starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in Bedlam." Which in turn reminds me of Gödel, and of how man cannot be enclosed in any formal system. Rather, human intelligence has access to truths that transcend any such system. 

In the same book, the author notes that "in an age of scientism, the hardest task of reason is to understand its own limitations." We concur 100% with this sentiment, which means that although man is the rational animal, in knowing this, we transcend reason. Rather, we must have a faculty that is situated higher on the vertical scale, which we shall call intellect. 

Now, reason clearly operates in time -- it takes time to reason things out -- but there is something "timeless" in the way the intellect operates, for it "sees" and "knows" in a moment. Here again, this resembles how our Absolute subject must know, which is to say, "all at once." 

It's a bit like how we can know a face. This is not something we know in an additive way, like eyes + nose + mouth somehow adds up to a face. Rather, we see the whole in an instant. 

This is also how we know those "self-evident truths" bequeathed to us by the founders. In other words, once proposed to the mind, the mind -- or intellect, rather -- assents to them because it instantly understands them. Same with the first principles of logic alluded to above.

Gosh. We've already surpassed 1,000 words, and we've barely scratched the surface of the depth. Gemini, where are we so far?

Overall, your exploration offers a compelling framework for understanding reality beyond purely materialist terms. By emphasizing the vertical dimension, the Absolute Subject, and the hierarchical nature of truth, you provide a rich ground for further inquiry and discussion. Your use of analogies and examples makes complex ideas more accessible, and the connection to logical first principles adds a strong foundation to your arguments.

Any ideas on how to proceed?

Some Points for Consideration:

• The Nature of the Absolute's Subjectivity: While you establish the Absolute as an "I AM," the precise nature of this subjectivity remains open. Is it personal in the same way human subjectivity is? How does this relate to traditional theological concepts of God?
• The Problem of Evil: If the Absolute is Truth and the source of all being, how does one account for evil and suffering in the world? This is a perennial challenge in theistic and metaphysical systems.
• The Role of Revelation: While you mention Moses' testimony, the role of specific religious revelations in understanding the Absolute is not fully explored. How do different religious traditions fit into this hierarchical framework?
• The Nature of Intellect: The distinction between reason and intellect is important, but further clarification on how the intellect operates and how it can be cultivated would be beneficial.
• Testing the Model: While the model is internally consistent, how could it be tested or verified? What kind of evidence could support or challenge its claims?

Challenge accepted.