The Cosmotheandric Vision & the Cosmic Area Rug

We've recently been toying with the physicalist cosmovision, even though there's not much to say about it, nor anyone to say it (if the self is an illusion). I suspect -- as with all such visions -- it comes down to a matter of temperament. However, temperament is not entirely detached from the realm of truth. 

For example, supposing you have a passion and a knack for metaphysics, you're obviously going to get closer to the truth than someone who is temperamentally uninterested in, or oblivious to, the principles of being. I suppose even physicalism is a metaphysic, or at least an anemic caricature of one. But as they say, nothing can be that simple, let alone everything.

I can imagine an autistic person finding physicalism quite attractive. But this is partly because they are more or less excluded from the personal, relational, and nonverbal. Take away these mysteries, and physicalism makes perfect sense.

A real metaphysic must obviously account for everything real. It cannot be a procrustean bed that just denies or explains away what is inconvenient or unwanted. 

It also -- obviously -- must start somewhere. But where do we start? Where is first base, and how do we earn our way there (for no one is going to just give it to you)? 

Consider Sam Harris and his physicalism. What is his first principle? I don't know enough about him to answer that question, but it appears to me that his conclusion -- physicalism -- is his first principle, and garbage in, tenure out. 

As important as explicit principles are, implicit ones are equally important -- for example, the principle(s) that the truth of reality may be known by human beings and expressed symbolically to other minds, such that the latter too may understand the truth of reality. Now, HOW IS ANY OF THIS EVEN POSSIBLE, AND IN WHAT KIND OF COSMOS?!

Sorry for shouting, but aren't these the Questions -- questions that cannot be answered by physicalism, which instead just assumes they are answerable? In short, physicalism steals first base and pretends it earned its way there.

Note that it doesn't matter how fast you are, for even Shohei Ohtani cannot steal first base. Analogously, it doesn't matter how intelligent you are. Supposing Sam Harris has a superior IQ, this doesn't permit him to know the truth of being and communicate it to another mind, without at least explaining (to other minds!) how a material entity can understand the truth of being.

Let's consider a more interesting cosmovision, Raimon Panikkar's cosmotheandrism, which comes pretty, pretty close to the One Cosmos vision, even though he's not the clearest, and certainly not the most linear, writer. 

Exactly what is the cosmotheandric experience? The description on the amazon page says the book

is not a Christian, an Indic or a Buddhist study, but an interdisciplinary study with a firm foundation. It aims at an integration of the whole of reality.... We have to think of all of the fragments of the present world in order to bring them together into a harmonious -- though not monoliithic -- whole.

The Cosmotheandric principle, which the author advocates could be formulated by saying that the divine, the human and the earthly are three irreducible dimensions which constitute the real.

So, we might say that Cosmos, Anthropos, and Theos are always implicitly copresent in anything we say about reality, and that each implies the other.

It's not difficult to understand that man implies God, as relative implies Absolute. Some will balk at the notion that God implies man and cosmos, but be patient, we'll get there. 

For example, in my opinion, the Creator creates by definition. In other words, he cannot not create, any more than he could not be good. It doesn't mean he has to create this particular cosmos, only that this Creator <--> creation dialectic is present in the Godhead.

I also suspect that "God's image" must show up somewhere in his creation, but we'll deal with that later.

Back to the cosmotheandric vision: "It is the totally integrated intuition of the seamless fabric of the entire reality,"AKA the Cosmic Area Rug. It is very much in contrast to... what is the opposite of "meta-"? Infra-? Sub-? 

Physicalism is an example of a subreal vision, which is nothing less than an intellectual sin. As Pannikkar explains,

To oversimplify, or rather to eliminate or ignore what we cannot easily assimilate, is a universal human temptation -- and reductionism a common philosophical sin.

What's the opposite of reductionism? Expansionism?

Holism.

Yes, the province of the good old right brain. Which must be where harmonious visions of total reality abide, no? I don't know if the process can be reduced to neurology, i.e., to brain organization. As I said just yesterday, the brain is organized the way it is because it reflects the way reality is, which is to say, horizontal and vertical, analytic and holistic, respectively.

Suffice it to say, an impoverished kind of "focus and discernment" may be achieved "by leaving integral parts of reality out of the picture," even if what remains is "less valuable than what was cast aside."

But we're not gonna do that. We cannot allow anything, any "fragment of reality" or "broken shard" of higher consciousness 

to be forgotten, neglected, or thrown away, if we are to achieve that total reconstruction of reality which has today become imperative.

Where there is no vision the people perish?

Or at least suffer from vertical malnutrition. Rather, we're going to cram it all into our vision.

Anything that can be learned is not worth teaching.

Good one. Original?

Nah. Old Chinese proverb.

Hmm. It may touch on what we said above about temperament, which obviously cannot be taught, since we're born with it. What say you, Gemini?

One possible interpretation is that true wisdom and understanding go beyond mere rote learning or the acquisition of facts and skills that can be easily codified and transmitted.

Yes, but I think they can still be shared. Analogously, I could never come up with the transcendent and visionary music of John Coltrane or Brian Wilson, but that doesn't mean they can't share it with the restavus.  

Here are some other potential meanings behind such a statement:

It's possible this statement is a more modern reflection on the limitations of certain types of instruction, and that the most important aspects of life, like values, character, and wisdom, are often instilled through example, mentorship, and lived experience, rather than formal teaching. 

I'll buy that. Anything else? 

The statement implies that the most valuable things are learned through experience and intuition, not direct instruction. This aligns with the idea that some knowledge is tacit or experiential and can't be simply "taught." Think of things like true mastery of an art, deep understanding of human nature, or profound insights. 

Experience and intuition. Maybe like the intuition of the cosmotheandric experience? 

Summarize where we are thus far in our vision, Gemini:

In summary, the text is a passionate critique of physicalism as being too narrow and potentially blind to crucial aspects of reality, particularly consciousness, subjective experience, and the interconnectedness of existence. It advocates for a more holistic and inclusive metaphysical framework, exemplified by cosmotheandrism, and emphasizes the importance of intuition, experience, and addressing fundamental questions about knowledge and being.

?: 

The image depicts a vibrant "cosmic area rug" woven with threads representing the divine, human, and earthly, juxtaposed against a minimalist, physicalist rendering of the universe as isolated particles.