Ultimate Models and Models of Ultimacy

We are still contemplating the preliminaries of any talk of "models of ultimate reality," e.g., what is a model, what is ultimate reality, and how something determinate could ever map the indeterminate. 

Yesterday we suggested that man may or may not be able to model ultimate reality, but he can model "ultimacy": in other words, he can make valid statements about the ultimate terms of our existence, for example, that man is uniquely situated between the poles of immanence and transcendence, even if we could never exhaustively model the latter.

In another sense, if creation is the "book of God," then it is already a kind of model. And if man is the image and likeness, then he's an even better model. 

Don't forget the Incarnation.

Yes, in that case, Christ isn't just the model but the thing itself, at least in his divine nature. 

But by definition, everything real speaks to -- or of rather -- reality. Thus,

In order to speak of the eternal, it is sufficient to speak with talent of the things of the day.

But the relationship between time and eternity is asymmetrical, and

He who is not resigned to the fundamental asymmetry of the world ends up falsifying his measurements.

This being the case, we mustn't pretend our model can do more than it can do, as is the case with models of climate change, literally none of which accurately model the climate.

This is because the climate is a complex and nonlinear system in which we neither know all the variables nor how they interact.

But God is simple.

Or so we have heard from the wise. Ironically, God should be easier to model than the climate, since he supposedly has no parts, moving or otherwise.

And yet, a trinitarian model is quite different from an utterly static monist model of God. In the former there is indeed something analogous to "parts" and "movement," even to time, e.g., the timeless time it takes for the Father to beget the Son and for the Spirit to proceed from them.

I suggest that we don't start with the Creator or with creation -- or Principle and manifestation -- but rather, with their complementary relationship. In other words, Creator entails creation and creation implies Creator. This would be an example of "ultimacy," i.e., of the most we can say about our situation absent some direct revelation from God.

Now supposing God is the pure act of To Be, then anything that is partakes of God insofar as it is. In our world, any determinate being is a function of indeterminate being, hence the asymmetrical relation between them.

But I'm thinking that this indeterminate/determinate complementarity is present even in God, for who is the Son -- and what is the Logos -- but the eternal self-determination of the Father? 

While I think some more about this subject, here's an old post that is not irrelevant to our discussion: 

Supposing we argue, any argument presupposes the truth, otherwise why argue? Argument is a means to truth.

No it isn't.

That's not an argument, it's just a contradiction.

Not at all.

Enough of this. 

"The classical proofs of God," writes Schuon, are situated between "direct intellection" at one end and "materialistic rationalism" at the other. No form of rationalism can ever reach -- i.e., model -- its object, while intellection bypasses reason altogether and proceeds straight to the transphysical object. 

I suppose the problem with direct intellection is that it only works on a retail basis. The experience of God is limited to the person having the experience. Which is ineffable, i.e., not transferable via speech.

Schuon notes that "in the spiritual order a proof is of assistance only to the man who wishes to understand, and who, by virtue of this wish, has already in some measure understood; it is of no practical use to one who, deep in his heart, does not want to change his position, and whose philosophy merely expresses this desire."

Schuon's point of departure is that metaphysical ideas are innate to the intellect. Denying this principle "is equivalent to the destruction of the very notion of intelligence," for "our intelligence could never prove anything at all."

Way back in the early days of the blog I wrote a post entitled Proof of Proof is Proof of God. I just looked it up to see if I was serious, and its bottom line is as follows:

In a certain sense, proof itself is proof of the supernatural, being that it obviously exists in a realm above matter. The metaphysical transparency of the world is all the proof the Raccoon requires, but all men are not Raccoons, and I do not write for the wider non-Raccoon world....

There is a translogical component to the acceptance of any truth. We are not merely "logic machines." In other words, we must make a free act of assent to truth, and this cannot be reduced to the principles of logic. For example, there is no logical proof that one should abide by logic. What if I want to live a life a life guided by absolute spontaneity and transgression of logic, like people who live in San Francisco? 

Our point, I suppose, is that if the intellect knows the truth -- any truth -- then this has vast implications. For example, Schuon takes the view that

The Intellect "is divine," first because it is a knower -- or because it is not a non-knower – and secondly because it reduces all phenomena to their Principle; because it sees the Cause in every effect, and thus surmounts, at a certain level, the vertiginous and devouring multiplicity of the phenomenal world.

Call it the Argument from Intellect.

Intellectual intuition comprises essentially a contemplativity which in no way enters into the rational capacity, the latter being logical rather than contemplative; it is contemplative power, receptivity in respect of the Uncreated Light, the opening of the Eye of the Heart, which distinguishes transcendent intelligence from reason.

I think I see the problem here, for the average secular man is not just in need of evidence of God, but rather, evidence of a whole outlook or paradigm [or model] by which they could be moved by the evidence, otherwise all the evidence in the world proves nothing. The Aphorist essentially says the same thing with his customary pithiness:

Today we require a methodical introduction to that vision [read: model] of the world outside of which religious vocabulary is meaningless. We do not talk of God with those who do not judge talk about the gods as plausible.

This being the case, what is needed is proof of a certain vision [model] of the world before proof itself can be efficacious or operative. Now, what world could this be, and how do we prove its existence?

That's a big question to spring on a fellow in the middle of a post. What in the world is the world? That phrase sounds familiar, and sure enough it was the title of a post last year. Let's see if it provides any answers. 

It has a good point made by Voegelin about "the meaning of the term world. It presents extraordinary difficulties to philosophical analysis," hence the title of the post.

Before we answer this difficult question -- what is the world? -- a few cautionary aphorisms:

As long as we can respond without hesitating we do not know the subject.

Whoever is curious to measure his stupidity should count the number of things that seem obvious to him. 

Only the fool knows clearly why he believes or why he doubts. 

Yada yada, for Voegelin, "the order of the world is not of 'this world' alone but also of the 'world beyond.'" Or in other words, immanence and transcendence respectively, such that any definition of this (immanent) world must include the world beyond that is its transcendent ground.

And we're back to our Model of Ultimacy alluded to above.

Is there a more cutandry way to express this, and to tie it in with the title of this post? Hmm. Proof of the world is proof of God? 

No it isn't.

Is!

We'll think on it some more and get back to you tomorrow. Meanwhile,

In summary, the text explores the challenges and possibilities of understanding ultimate reality through models. It navigates concepts like creation, incarnation, the relationship between time and eternity, the limitations of human reason, and the necessity of a foundational worldview for religious understanding. It doesn't offer definitive answers but rather engages in a thoughtful and layered inquiry into these profound questions.

Really? 

Yes, really. The image attempts to visually represent some of the abstract concepts discussed in the text you provided. Here's a possible interpretation:

• The Central Figure: The elegant, somewhat ethereal figure could symbolize a "model" -- something distinct and formed that tries to represent something larger. Its white color might suggest purity or an attempt to capture truth.
• The Abstract, Flowing Background: The dynamic and colorful swirls behind the figure could represent "ultimate reality" or the "indeterminate." Their fluid and less defined nature contrasts with the more structured figure in the foreground.
• The Interplay: The way the figure emerges from or is intertwined with the abstract background suggests the relationship between a model and what it tries to represent. The model is part of, yet distinct from, the underlying reality.
• The Contrast: The sharp lines of the figure against the more organic shapes of the background highlight the tension between the determinate (the model) and the indeterminate (ultimate reality), a key point in your text.

Essentially, the image tries to capture the idea of something finite (the figure/model) attempting to relate to or emerge from something infinite and less defined (the abstract background/ultimate reality).