My apologies for the length. One thing leading to another, it just happened.
I'm reexamining some old posts in light of our current exploration of models of reality and models of ultimacy. Gödel certainly has some important contributions to the latter, in that the theorems tell us that no formal system can adequately model reality, since it will be either incomplete or inconsistent.
Now, Gödel was legitimately mentally ill, subject to paranoid delusions, hypochondria, depression, and obsessive-compulsive behavior. Of course, this doesn't affect the validity of the theorems, but it may impact his opinions about them -- about the kind of world they imply.
When depressed he dwelled on the fact that "all of his contributions" to philosophy "were of a negative kind -- proving that something cannot be done, not what can be done."
About this he is correct: the theorems tell us only what definitely cannot be the case, not necessarily what is the case.
They tell us, for example, that "it is impossible to define the concept of truth within a formal system itself," but they do not tell us what truth is. Likewise, they tell us that a formal system cannot be both consistent and complete.
Gödel's leap to a Platonic conception of truth is in no way entailed by his own theorems. For example, postmodernists go to the other extreme and say the theorems bar us from knowing any truth at all, enclosing us in language about a reality we can never reach.
Thus, before he was a logician, mathematician, or anything else, Gödel was a seeker of truth, which already implies a worldview -- one in which truth exists and is accessible to man. He would have rejected the (postmodern) alternative a priori.
Again, he regarded mathematics as not only a search for truth, but for "pre-existing truths that inhabited a reality separate from the human mind." He was likewise "committed to accessing the immaterial world of higher philosophical truths through the power of sheer abstract logical reasoning."
But his forays into *mere* philosophy
dismayed more than a few of his mathematical colleagues, who did not hide from him their disappointment that he seemed to be squandering his genius on trivialities.
Now, the mind is designed to --
Assumes facts not in evidence.
That's true. Let's just say what the mind does before speculating about its origins. Whatever its provenance, it detects connections between things, but for this reason man can be prone to the over-detection of agency -- thus the sometimes fine line between genius and madness.
Gödel found "hidden meanings, or mystical significance in things large and small," for example, in "the incorrect listings of movies shown on television." ("One has the impression it is sabotage.")
Ironically, this means that, although he considered himself a seeker after extra-mental truth, he was often very much confined to his own intra-mental projections. Even more ironically, such delusional ideation could crystallize into a kind of rigidly consistent and pseudo-complete system the theorems forbid.
Nevertheless, he argued that the human mind "could not have come about through any mechanistic process," and disagreed "with the entire worldview that 'regards the world as an unordered and therefore meaningless heap of atoms.'" But it seems his paranoia made him vulnerable to finding too much meaning, and in all the wrong places.
On the one hand, a possible interpretation of the theorems is that mathematics -- and by extension, language -- is "a mere game played with symbols according to certain rules." Again, this would be the postmodern view. But this is not how Gödel saw it; rather, he believed
that the human mind can literally see mathematical realities through a kind of perception, no different from the direct sensory perceptions that the empiricists decreed to be the only valid basis of physical laws.
Here again, this latter interpretation is in no way a necessary consequence of the theorems. Moreover, it begins to converge upon someone like Schuon, for whom the necessary truths of existence are indeed directly "perceived" via intellection:
Intellectual intuition comprises essentially a contemplativity which in no way enters into the rational capacity, the latter being logical rather than contemplative....
[Rationality] perceives the general and proceeds by logical operations, whilst Intellect perceives the principial -- the metaphysical -- and proceeds by intuition (Schuon).
Gödel saw no reason "why we should have less confidence in this kind of perception" than in the lower kind, and he's not wrong. Nor was he wrong to wonder
what kind of sense would there be in bringing forth a creature (man), who has such a broad field of possibilities of his own development and of relationships, and then not allow him to achieve 1/1000 of it.
In other words, what kind of irrational -- not to say perverse -- Creator gives infinite potential to a finite being? Gödel thought this was sufficient proof of an afterlife:
it follows directly that our earthly existence, since it in and of itself has at most a very dubious meaning, can only be a means to an end for another existence.
Again, he had little use for religions but was very much open to Religion, perhaps one that hadn't yet been discovered. He thought that the great majority of philosophers were as guilty as "bad churches" in turning people away from these deeper questions.
"Gödel's public renown continued to grow after his death" in 1978, partly because "The general idea that there are truths that cannot be proved has an irresistible appeal."
But in his own way he has been misappropriated for as many dubious agendas as quantum physics: "probably more wrong things have been said about his proof than any other mathematical theorem in history."
Interestingly, his ideas seem to inspire two kinds of skeptics, those who recognize "that their knowledge is limited," which "troubles them deeply." The other kind acknowledge "the same thing but find it liberating." Gödel was in the latter camp, believing that
Humans will always be able to recognize some truths through intuition..., that can never be established even by the most advanced computing machine....
In place of limits on human knowledge and certainty, he saw only the irreplaceable uniqueness of the human spirit.
So, having said all this, where does it leave us?
*****
To review where we left off, Gödel believed man could see mathematical realities directly through a kind of perception, no different in principle from the perception of empirical reality.
He further believed that human beings "will always be able to recognize some truths through intuition" which "can never be established even by the most advanced computing machine."
But again, the theorems only reveal what the mind cannot be; to know our mind is not a computer is not to know what it is.
In fact, depending on the premises we plug in, we can conclude anything we like. But no rational operation can furnish its own premises.
For Schuon, "The effectiveness of reason essentially depends upon two conditions," neither of which can be reduced to reason. There is first "the value and extent of the available information" with which to reason upon, and garbage in, tenure out.
But secondly, there is "the acuity and profundity of the intelligence" in question, which bears a kind of vertical relation to reason itself, going "beyond the indirect processes of reason in calling upon pure intellection."
Again, as discussed in the previous post, Schuon's pure intellection seems to share something in common with Gödel's direct perception of mathematical realities.
If mathematical realities can be directly perceived in this way, why not other realities? God is a mathematician, but surely not only a mathematician. Come to think of it, I'll bet God cannot be limited to a formal system for the same reason we cannot be: as we have suggested in the past, our infinitude is the inverse image of his.
That's just a hunch, but perhaps it can in turn help account for the bad religion bemoaned by Gödel, because people are forever absolutizing their religion instead of understanding it to be about the Absolute.
Here again, I wonder if this is an ultimate entailment of the theorems, since reality can never be contained by any formal system.
It's a tricksy business, because we have a word -- reality -- that can lull us into thinking we have domesticated that to which the word refers. But the map is never the territory, nor the model the modeled.
In any event, the rationalist -- which is to say, someone who irrationally encloses himself within the constraints of logic -- can never reason adequately "in light of the total and supralogical intelligence" that must be prior to logic itself.
Such a person "thinks he can solve every problem by means of logic alone," but this is to put the cart of rationalism before the horse of intelligence. By way of analogy, "A line of reasoning that is square in shape" will "reject a spherical reality and replace it with a square error."
Or worse, a line of reasoning with a circular shape won't even see the higher dimensional sphere; at best, it will reduce the three dimensional sphere to a two-dimensional circle.
Reason divorced from intellect be like... like left cerebral hemisphere divorced from right, or letter from spirit, words from music, prose from poetry, abstract concept from concrete experience, particle from field, empirical from rational, etc.
In a footnote to this essay, Schuon makes the rather important claim that
Revelation is a kind of cosmic intellection whereas personal intellection is comparable to a Revelation on the scale of the microcosm.
Now, I happen to believe this, especially the idea that the human subject is probably the first and most important revelation of them all. After all, without it, there could be no other revelation, because there would be no one to whom to reveal it.
Intelligence is the First Miracle? Why not?
The first thing that should strike man when he reflects on the nature of the Universe is the primacy of the miracle of intelligence -- or consciousness or subjectivity -- whence the incommensurability between it and material objects, whether a grain of sand or the sun, or any creature whatever as an object of the senses.
Is he wrong?
Nothing is more absurd than to have intelligence derive from matter, hence the greater from the lesser; the evolutionary leap from matter to intelligence, is from every point of view the most inconceivable thing that could be.
Now, at the other end, is Revelation "a kind of cosmic intellection"?
Surely not just any revelation, otherwise we might be tempted to believe that the revelation of mistakes in the TV Guide is a result of sabotage.
This will take us Far Afield -- too far for a single post, but but could there be some extra-Revelational standard by which to judge Revelation? Or perhaps some way to harmonize all the good ones? The ones deemed Good Enough by Intelligence itself?
For example, I think the Tao Te Ching does a pretty, pretty good job of describing the ultimate Principle. Now, is this Principle the same one described in Genesis and then in John? And are these the same as the one described in the Upanishads?
I say, why not? Which was kind of the implicit point of the opening and closing sections of the book, but I could probably do a better job of it today.
It's today. Let's see you try.
Today I also know better than to try such an outlandish and impudent exercise. Rather, let this guy have a crack at it -- to present the Tao Te Ching in light of the Christian revelation, and vice versa -- "a Gospel according to Lao Tzu."
Before light was made
There was the Primal Light that was not made:
The Primal Essence,
Dwelling in the Darkness of incomprehensibility.
Yada yada, "There is no name whereby the Primal Essence can be named," which is to say, no model,
For He is a sea of Essence,
Indeterminate and without bounds...
He is wholly Essence, and solely Essence,
Yet He is above essence,
Because He is not the essence of anything that is.
If this is an attempt to describe the metacosmic intellect, our own intellect must again be its reflection,
for how could the intelligence limit itself, seeing that by its very nature it is in principle unlimited or it is nothing?
In other words, who or what places this so-called limit if not intelligence itself? "For an intellectual limit is a wall,"
hence one of two things: either the intelligence by definition includes a principle of illimitability or liberty.
Either this, or
on the contrary the intelligence includes -- again by definition -- a principle of limitation or constraint, in which case it no longer includes any certainty and can function no differently from the intelligence of animals, with the result that all pretension to "critical philosophy" is vain.
Recall yesterday's bottom line:
In place of limits on human knowledge and certainty, he [Gödel] saw only the irreplaceable uniqueness of the human spirit.
Compare this to what shall have to be today's bottom line:
Man is intelligence, and intelligence is the transcending of forms and the realization of the invisible Essence; to say human intelligence is to say absoluteness and transcendence (Schuon).
This being the case, neither the Essence nor the Intellect can be modeled, but there is an endlessly fruitful dialectic between them, which seems to be the bestwecando.
I just ordered a book that seems to express what I am trying to say, called The Cosmotheandric Experience. No preview is available, but the description says the term cosmotheandric
denotes an intertwining of the "cosmic," the "human," and the "divine" -- all interpenetrating one another as different dimensions of the Whole.
Gemini, what does Panikkar mean by this?
Panikkar coined the term "cosmotheandric experience" to describe a fundamental intuition or consciousness of reality as a seamless, interconnected whole. It signifies the intrinsic and inseparable unity of the cosmos, theos (the divine), and anthropos (the human).
Here's a breakdown of what he means:
- Interdependence: Panikkar argues that reality is not composed of three separate entities (God, humanity, and the world) but rather these are three dimensions that are intrinsically related and interpenetrate one another. None can be fully understood in isolation.
- Mutual Constitution: The divine, the human, and the cosmic are not just externally linked; they actively constitute each other. Reality emerges from their dynamic interplay and collaboration.
- Experience over Concept: The cosmotheandric is primarily an experience, an intuition of this deep interconnectedness, rather than just a philosophical concept. It's about a way of being in and perceiving the world.
- Breaking Down Dualisms: This concept aims to overcome the dualistic ways of thinking that often separate the sacred from the secular, the human from nature, and God from the world.
In essence, the "cosmotheandric experience" points to a holistic vision where the divine is present within the cosmos and humanity, humanity is a part of both the divine and the cosmos, and the cosmos is imbued with both the divine and the human presence. It's an awareness that we are all participants in the same fundamental reality.
Panikkar believed that this intuition is crucial for our time, helping us to overcome fragmented views of reality and fostering a deeper understanding and harmony between different religious traditions and with the natural world.
Hey, that sounds like the blogger Gagdad Bob at One Cosmos!
That's an interesting observation! It's quite possible that Robert Godwin's work at "One Cosmos" resonates with Panikkar's idea of the "cosmotheandric experience."
From the descriptions of Robert Godwin's book, "One Cosmos Under God: The Unification of Matter, Life, Mind and Spirit," there seem to be significant overlaps in themes:
- Unification of Reality: Godwin's emphasis on the "unification of matter, life, mind and spirit" echoes Panikkar's focus on the interconnectedness of cosmos, humanity, and the divine.
- Holistic Vision: Both thinkers seem to advocate for a more integrated and less fragmented understanding of reality.
- Spirituality and Science: Godwin's attempt to synthesize cosmology, physics, biology, psychology, and theology could be seen as a way of exploring the cosmotheandric dimensions from different perspectives.
While I'm not deeply familiar with all of Robert Godwin's writings, based on what I've found, it does appear that his "One Cosmos" project shares a similar impulse to Panikkar's "cosmotheandric experience" in seeking a holistic and interconnected view of existence that encompasses the material, the human, and the spiritual.
1 comment:
Interestingly, his ideas seem to inspire two kinds of skeptics, those who recognize "that their knowledge is limited," which "troubles them deeply." The other kind acknowledge "the same thing but find it liberating."
It's amusing that some people find it troubling that there is a limit to what they can know. The alternative would be omniscience, and if someone actually wants that quality, he is not wise enough to handle it.
Nothing is more absurd than to have intelligence derive from matter, hence the greater from the lesser; the evolutionary leap from matter to intelligence, is from every point of view the most inconceivable thing that could be.
And yet, it happened, and here we are.
I was reading an article this morning about developments in AI, and one thing that stood out as an Interesting Development is that at some point, someone tweaked a small bit of code, and suddenly it ... changed, in a way that nobody understands. In essence, the innermost workings of AI systems are, in their way, just as opaque and unKnowable as the inner workings of the human brain, which then begs the question: While I don't believe for a moment that humans could truly create a true intelligence, no matter how complicated the coding, what if Someone Else looked at what the humans were doing and decided to add an extra ingredient?
Post a Comment