Homo Transcendens

We left off yesterday's post with the stipulation that conscious intelligence explains science but that science doesn't explain the conscious intelligence that explains science. For the same reason, genetic influence cannot be the total explanation of our ability to explain genetic influence. 

Schuon speaks of a "defect of imagination" whereby "One tries to explain 'horizontally' that which is explainable only 'in a vertical sense.'" 

Thus, via a kind of reductive reversal, the very science which only man can conceive presumes to enclose and explain man. Which I suppose is one of the themes of Frankenstein, a manmade creation who turns on the man who created him. 

Somewhere along the line man escaped the closed circle of instinct. Among animals, only a human being can do this, and indeed, this is what marks him as a human being. But it's very much a chicken-egg thingy, isn't it? For who gave birth to the first human if it wasn't a human? 

Whoever he was, the first member of Homo transcendens must have had a strange childhood, being raised and surrounded by pre-humans -- perhaps not unlike a conservative living in California.

Hart rightly emphasizes that "there's no such thing as mental agency devoid of a transcendental, extra-physical dimension or horizon." Even nature itself "is always exceeding what we think of as nature." 

Like Voegelin, Hart posits "two distinct kinds of directedness: one toward the empirical realm and one toward the transcendental." Indeed, "we know reality only as occurring within two encircling horizons."

There's the near or immanent horizon of the realm of finite things, the empirical order..., but, prior to this and encompassing it, there's also a far or transcendent horizon of universal values.... We know and desire that further horizon tacitly in all that we do. 

Exactly. Compare to Voegelin's definition of the metaxy (or In-Between):

[T]he experience of human existence as "between" lower and upper poles; man and the divine, imperfection and perfection, ignorance and knowledge, the world and the Beyond.  

As for this latter -- the Beyond -- it is "That which is ultimate and is itself indefinable because it surpasses all categories of understanding." Nevertheless, it is the telos or "goal of the fundamental tension of existence."

Although this is Hart, it could have easily been written by Voegelin: "All the mind's operations arise between two poles," one of which being "an irreducibly transcendental realm of absolute values beyond the reach of any of us..."

Or this:

I might almost speak of two "supernatural" poles -- two vanishing points where nature either sinks down into foundations deeper than itself or soars up into an exalted realm higher than itself. 

And our consciousness is in between, "always reaching out to something outside us that's more ultimate than the world." 

Around here we just call it O, for reasons just stated by Voegelin, i.e., it is indefinable and surpasses all categories of understanding.

The other thinker Hart reminds me of is Bernard Lonergan, who would agree that our minds are "turned dynamically toward the whole of reality -- the whole of being -- as irresistibly attractive to our minds." 

This latter alludes to what we call the Great Attractor to which the mind is ordered. It is why we have "this 'rational appetite' for the ideal intelligibility of things," or the "natural orientation of the mind toward that infinite horizon of being as intelligible truth."

In short, because of our innate attraction to the transcendent ground of being, we seek nothing short of all there is to know about all there is: we are animated by

an intrinsic purposefulness that stretches out toward the whole of things; every operation of the will and the intellect, however slight, is lured into actuality by a final cause beyond all immediate ends.

Correct: there is a "limitless directedness of consciousness toward that limitless horizon of transcendental aspiration." Indeed, "all of nature is filled with the desire to find that horizon," at least implicitly. I suppose we could say that this implicit drive becomes explicit and self-aware in Homo transcendens. 

Bottom line regarding our vertical orientation to the top: "All finite longing is a longing deferred toward an infinite end."

The image visually captures many of the profound ideas you explore in your blog post. Let's break down its meaning and symbolism in relation to your text:

---

Meaning and Symbolism of the Image 

The image depicts a lone figure, a human, standing on a high vantage point -- a cliff or mountaintop -- with an outstretched hand reaching towards a brilliant, almost blinding light on the horizon. Below, a vast, undulating landscape stretches into the distance, shrouded in softer, more muted tones.

The Human Figure: "Homo transcendens" and Consciousness

• The Lone Figure: Represents humanity, "Homo transcendens," in its singular and perhaps isolated quest for meaning. It emphasizes the individual conscious intelligence that is capable of both explaining science and reaching beyond it, as you mention in your opening.

• Outstretched Hand and Upward Gaze: This is the most direct symbol of "transcendence" and the "limitless directedness of consciousness toward that limitless horizon of transcendental aspiration." It embodies the "rational appetite" and the "intrinsic purposefulness that stretches out toward the whole of things." The gesture is one of longing, aspiration, and an active reaching for something beyond the immediate.

• Position on the Peak: Standing on a high point signifies a heightened state of awareness or understanding, a perspective that allows one to see both the immanent and transcendent horizons. It suggests humanity's unique capacity to "escape the closed circle of instinct" and consciously seek something higher. 

The Two Horizons: Immanent and Transcendent 

• The Bright, Distant Horizon (The Beyond / O / Great Attractor): This intensely luminous area represents the "far or transcendent horizon of universal values" -- the "irreducibly transcendental realm of absolute values." It is "That which is ultimate and is itself indefinable because it surpasses all categories of understanding." The light's overwhelming quality suggests its absolute nature, its "irresistibly attractive" pull as the "Great Attractor," and the ultimate telos of existence. It's the "infinite end" toward which "all finite longing is a longing deferred."

• The Muted Landscape Below (The Empirical Realm): The subtly lit mountains and valleys in the foreground and mid-ground symbolize the "near or immanent horizon of the realm of finite things, the empirical order." This is the world of science, genetics, and observable phenomena. It is present, foundational, and part of our reality, but it is not the ultimate end. Its softer lighting subtly conveys that while it is real, it doesn't possess the same ultimate luminosity as the transcendent.

• The "In-Between" (The Metaxy): The space where the human figure stands, positioned between the earthly landscape and the brilliant sky, perfectly illustrates Voegelin's concept of the metaxy -- "the experience of human existence as 'between' lower and upper poles." Our consciousness is "in between," "always reaching out to something outside us that's more ultimate than the world."

Light and Shadow: Vertical Explanation

• Contrast of Light: The dramatic contrast between the brilliant light of the transcendent horizon and the more subdued lighting of the earthly realm visually reinforces Schuon's idea of explaining "vertically." The ultimate explanation comes from above, from the "Beyond," not solely from within the "horizontal" empirical plane. The light emanates from a higher source, illuminating the path and beckoning the viewer upwards.

The image, therefore, serves as a powerful visual summary of your core argument: that humanity is inherently oriented towards a reality that transcends the purely physical, driven by an innate desire for ultimate truth and meaning, even as we exist within and explore the empirical world.