Science and Other Leaps of Faith

This is a very partial -- and not fully cooked -- post that ends in the middle, because I have to take the wife to a medical appointment. She's having sciatica, which makes it difficult to drive.

We left off yesterday's post with a comment by Heisenberg, that The same organizing forces that have created nature in all its forms, are responsible for the structure of our soul, and likewise our capacity to think.

Bold statement. But just what are these Organizing Forces (OF) responsible for the creation of nature, the structure of the soul, and our capacity to think? I don't have time this morning to check out the full context, but maybe it's too good to check anyway. Gemini, whaddya got?

Heisenberg's statement reflects a holistic perspective, suggesting that there's an underlying unity to all of existence. He was expressing that the same fundamental principles that govern the formation of physical structures also govern the formation of our minds. This implies that the universe is not a collection of separate, isolated entities, but rather an interconnected whole.

Bada-bingo.

Heisenberg's statement transcends pure science, hinting at a more profound, perhaps even metaphysical, level of organization. This opens the door to interpretations that resonate with philosophical and even spiritual traditions.

The statement emphasizes the intrinsic connection between the human mind and the natural world. It suggests that our capacity for thought is not something separate from nature, but rather an expression of it.

Okay, now we're really on to something -- a true paradigm shift in our approach to reality. This is the vision I've been attempting to articulate lo these past three or four decades, going all the way back to my doctoral dissertation in 1988.

The problem is, this vision is quite distinct from the usual new age quantum woo woo, but it is also distinct from a wholly traditionalist view, and equally distinct from revisions of that view. 

In short, it seems we're out here all alone. No one I think is quite in my tree, which implies that someone might be out of his tree. Could it be me? Is there something I just don't get? Am I just oppositional, engaged in a protracted adolescent rebellion? Why can't I play well with the others? How could I be right and everyone else wrong? Supposing this were true, it would be one of the most unlikely developments in all of intellectual history.

No argument here.

To be sure, I have my influences, but none of them align perfectly with the Raccoon sensibility. In many ways Dávila comes closest; Schuon is a pervasive influence, and yet, one suspects he would take great umbrage at my abuse of his ideas; Norris Clarke is certainly top three; can't forget Polanyi, even though I don't mention him as much as the others. Can't forget Thomas.

Speaking of the OFs referenced above, what are they? Put another way, where is the bottom? Where do we start? For it seems that we must begin with a principle that is entailed by no deeper principle, but from which all other principles flow. On what basis do we "choose" this principle, or do we have no choice in the matter?  

In other words, is the first principle truly self-evident and necessary, such that denial of it is self-refuting? Or must we appeal to authority, faith, intuition, custom, probability, etc.?

What is the first truth we can know about reality? Descartes famously tried to get to the bottom of the cosmos, with the undeniable truth that I think therefore I am. 

But why is it undeniable? True, it is obvious, even trivial, but it is not self-standing, for it turns out that it requires a deeper principle, that of noncontradiction, otherwise it would be equally true to say I think therefore I am not, or I don't think therefore I am. 

You get the idea: one's first principle must not rely on any deeper principle. Rather, it must be number one, all other principles being number two or lower. In this case noncontradiction trumps the cogito in terms of ontological priority.

Except some people think the principle of noncontradiction is only epistemological and not ontological, but they are asses. For they are in effect saying that our minds are bound by noncontradiction, but not reality, which can simultaneously be what it is and the opposite of what it is.

But there is a reason why

Because ricin isn't red phosphorous or pseudoephedrine. If you add ricin to your blue meth recipe, you'll only kill your customers, every time. The point is, reality is consistent. It doesn't contradict itself.

In fact, no coherent thought or speech is possible in the absence of noncontradiction, otherwise every statement and its contrary would be true. And if everything is true, everything is false, or at least we have no means of distinguishing which from which.

Another fundamental principle is sufficient reason, which simply means that things have causes, and that your cause better damn well be sufficient to account for the effect. For example, can randomness really be the cause of order? How can it give what it doesn't have? 

Which goes to yesterday's post, in that metaphysical naturalists substitute the Principle of Yada Yada for that of sufficient reason, to hide the fact that their causes in no way account for the effects. Unless the principle that the lesser cannot account for the greater has been repealed.

Which of course many of our tenured primates believe has been repealed, so the greater can indeed emerge from enough yada yada. And besides, in a postmodern world, who's to say what's greater and lesser? Cockroaches will be here long after man exits the stage, so maybe they're the greater.

The truth of the matter is that no one has any idea how life springs from chemistry or subjects from objects. They know these things happen, but can they honestly say they understand how? How even does anatomy result from chemistry?

Says Andrew Klavan, "If you read Jonathan Haidt or Iain McGilchrist -- or simply live life with your eyes open -- you know that much of what we know we know by intuition, then supply the 'reasons' afterward."

So, let's not do that. Certainly we don't want to make a crude appeal to the God of the gaps, whereby God is invoked to account for what we haven't yet discovered. Rather, let's stick with principles, and follow where they lead. Or, let's intuit the reasons, but then reason about the intuitions, not just rationalize them.

I don't begin with God, rather, end with God and then return to the beginning in order to know it for the first time. Which is one reason why the end of my book circles back to the beginning. 

It even alludes to this on p. 264-65, where it says I know this place. Been here before. Where we started. No it this time, "no it" alluding to the fact that the cosmos is not composed of radically individual and atomistic "its," rather, has an I and a We woven into it: it is substance-in-relation.

Be honest.

You're right. I was mainly trying to be funny. But not just funny. Rather, hoping to provoke a guffah-HA!

Is it a contradiction to say God is simultaneously one and three? Again, not if we see these as qualities and not quantities. They are resolved with recourse to a deeper principle, which is to say, irreducible substance-in-relation, our leading candidate for #1 principle.  

A thought is popping into my head: the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, so non-contradiction starts at the top. And the Father is the cause or sufficient reason of the Son, even though this cause is eternal. And God's essence is to exist, whereas other essences exist contingently, i.e., they can exist or not exist. I have an essence, but I apparently don't need to be here.

One hesitates to quote the Koran, but it begins with the statement There is no God but God, i.e., the principle of identity or noncontradiction. Genesis begins with In the beginning God created, so, God is the sufficient reason or cause of everything else. The Isha Upanishad says The Lord alone is the reality, i.e., the essence of existence. These are all different views of the First Principle, or the Principle of principles.

Is it possible to chuck this Principle of principles and go it alone? Well, the serpent thought so, and Eve took the bait. 

I suppose it's a question of banking. Everyone spends money with the implicit knowledge that it is a symbol for real wealth that has to exist somewhere. Of course, when the money detaches from the wealth we have inflation, but it's the same with philosophy. When words are detached from reality, we have postmodernism, which is to say, torrents of words with no actual value.

Who was it that said this defines the very crisis of modernity?

George Steiner?

Bingo: "It is this break of the covenant between word and world which constitutes one of the very few revolutions of spirit in Western history and which defines modernity itself."

Steiner maintained that until the late 19th century, "even the most radical of skeptics remained committed to language, to a belief in intelligibility" (Gunton). 

Interesting words there, covenant and commitment, adverting to something sacred, almost like a marriage.

Almost?

That's about it for now. The post has raised a lot of questions, which we will address in the sequel, as they say.