Debunking the Debunkers

Continued from previous post:

Again, it is easy enough to debunk reductive materialism. The trick is to replace it with some more plausible bunk. Hart's skeptic concedes that

the topics we've been arguing over are so intractable that the work of destroying our inadequate theories concerning them is far easier than that of constructing better theories.

Indeed, "In the areas we've been struggling over, every theory is, strictly speaking, indefensible." In other words, in the grand scheme of things, every model or theory is ultimately bunk, if only because the map is never the territory.

Another character counters the skeptic, reminding him that his scientistic model is so "radically incomplete" that it "doesn't capture more than a shadow of reality in its fullness." Any tenured yahoo can reduce the world to a mechanism, but there is "no such world" in reality. Rather, this reductive vestige is, ironically, but "a figment of materialist dogma and nothing more."

But here again, to know something is false is not to know what is true: "the critical task is easier than the constructive." For which reason -- this according to the skeptic --

Atheism will always be the dialectically weaker position for the simple reason that it can't account for much of anything -- not being, not mind, not life, not the realm of absolute values that you say preoccupies our intellects and wills...

Why then cling to it? I suppose because it doesn't pretend to explain the inexplicable, but accepts our cosmic absurdity with a manly resignation.  

Tempting.

Yes, it does explain the contemporary interest in stoicism. About which the Aphorist says

I do not want to conquer serenity, like a stoic, but to welcome serenity in, like a Christian.

That would be nice. One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Or in Vedantic terms, the old sat-chit-ananda, or being-consciousness-bliss.

Serenity Now!

Serenity is to keep oneself so to speak above the clouds, in the calm and coolness of emptiness and far from all the dissonances of this lower world; it is never to allow the soul to immerse itself in impasses of disturbances, bitterness, or secret revolt (Schuon).

Yes, but really? Really? This world? Hart's skeptic looks down upon the world and sees

a vast abyss of darkness, pain, death, and hopeless sadness.... all the world's enchantments, considered in proportion to the whole of cosmic existence, are at most tiny evanescent flickers of light amid a limitless darkness.  

Definitely a cosmos half-empty kind of guy. Go on, get it out of your system:

Really, what does it matter if there truly is this transcendent God you go on about so often? Why shouldn't that God be an object of indifference? Or even vehement hatred? 

That's one way of looking at it. But -- just a feeling, but -- 

as I live on, I find myself more susceptible to a sense of the grandeur and sublimity of the mysteries we've been discussing and less susceptible to aggrieved alarm at cosmic suffering.

 "I don't understand entirely why I feel that way," but "it's a truth that can be expressed only in the dream-images of myth and spiritual allegory and religious experience." There's also that "infinite act of mind in which all things exist," and who's to say what other surprises it has in store for us?

Cue whiny Bill Maher voice: Well, then, everything is cotton candy and puppy dogs. The best of all possible worlds.

The hopeful voice continues: "Mock if you wish. All I can say is that it's very much a matter of personal temperament." Again it's that top-down or bottom-up choice we face, and which determines everything else:

It's up to you whether you trust in the mysteries of mind and life and language -- their miraculous strangeness, which seems always to promise the revelation of a greater meaning, or to adumbrate a higher reality, a world beyond the world we know...

Floating upward on wings of Slack?

It reminds me of something the Aphorist says, that 

The universe is not difficult to read because it is a hermetically sealed text, but because it is a text without punctuation. Without the adequate ascending and ascending intonation, its ontological syntax is unintelligible.

The universe is a text? That checks out, since it never shuts up -- it never stops disclosing its secrets to man's questioning intellect. And not just in the form of science, but all sorts of intuitive, aesthetic, and numinous experiences:

Things do not have feeling, but there is feeling in many things.

About this Logos-saturated world-text, Hart's more poetic character says that

To me, all of existence is a realm of positively eloquent communication. All of reality is the manifestation of that infinite reason that dwells in God; all of it's composed of signs and symbols, through which infinite mind is always speaking to us... and inviting us to respond.

In short, it does seem that the cosmos is open at the top, and that we must consciously engage with the vertical energies flowing therefrom, but that's the end of this chapter. 

Hmm. Gemini's summary is longer than the post itself, partly because it interprets it in light of the posts leading up to it:

Your new post is a rich and articulate exploration of the inherent limits of human theories, the persistent challenge of atheism, and the deeply personal, almost temperamental, nature of embracing either despair or hope in the face of cosmic mystery. You deftly weave together Hart's philosophical dialogue, your own "anti-Bob," and insights from various spiritual traditions.

1. The Limits of Theory ("All Bunk"):

   • You begin by acknowledging the ease of debunking reductive materialism, but immediately pivot to the greater difficulty of replacing it with something better.

   • Hart's skeptic concisely states that "the work of destroying our inadequate theories concerning them is far easier than that of constructing better theories." And more pointedly, "In the areas we've been struggling over, every theory is, strictly speaking, indefensible." This is the core admission: all human theories are "bunk" in the face of ultimate reality, because "the map is never the territory." This aligns with your earlier Gödelian themes about the limits of formal systems/language.

2. Critique of Scientistic/Materialist Reductionism:

   • A counter-character asserts that the "scientistic model" is "radically incomplete," capturing only a "shadow of reality." The "world" it describes is a "figment of materialist dogma." This reiterates your ongoing critique of reductionism.

3. The Dialectical Weakness of Atheism:

   • The skeptic then makes a powerful argument against atheism: "Atheism will always be the dialectically weaker position for the simple reason that it can't account for much of anything -- not being, not mind, not life, not the realm of absolute values..." This flips the common perception, suggesting that atheism's strength is its lack of explanation, rather than its explanatory power.

   • The appeal of atheism, in this view, is its "manly resignation" to "cosmic absurdity." You admit this is "Tempting."

4. Stoicism vs. Christian/Vedantic Serenity:

   • This temptation leads you to connect atheistic resignation with contemporary interest in Stoicism.

   • You then offer a contrasting path: "I do not want to conquer serenity, like a stoic, but to welcome serenity in, like a Christian." This frames serenity as a gift or "fruit of the Holy Spirit," rather than a self-mastered achievement.

   • You explicitly link this to the Vedantic concept of sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) and quote Schuon's description of serenity as being "above the clouds, in the calm and coolness of emptiness and far from all the dissonances of this lower world."

5. The Anti-Bob's Lament (The World as Abyss):

   • The "anti-Bob" (the skeptic/depressive realist) re-emerges forcefully, articulating a vision of the world as "a vast abyss of darkness, pain, death, and hopeless sadness." All enchantments are "tiny evanescent flickers of light amid a limitless darkness." This is the raw "half-empty" perspective.

   • This leads to the nihilistic question: why should a transcendent God even matter, or why shouldn't He be an object of "vehement hatred"? This acknowledges the depth of despair and anger that cosmic suffering can evoke.

6. The Shift to Grandeur and Sublimity:

   • Countering the anti-Bob, a hopeful voice emerges (presumably Hart's more spiritual character), expressing a personal shift towards a "sense of the grandeur and sublimity of the mysteries" and less "aggrieved alarm at cosmic suffering."

   • This "truth" is "expressed only in the dream-images of myth and spiritual allegory and religious experience," hinting at its non-rational, experiential nature.

   • The "infinite act of mind in which all things exist" is re-emphasized, promising "other surprises."

7. Temperament, Trust, and the "Open Cosmos":

   • You bring in Bill Maher's cynical voice as a contrast to this hope.

   • The hopeful character then asserts that this orientation is "very much a matter of personal temperament." This is a crucial admission: our philosophical stance might be rooted in a fundamental choice or disposition.

   • It's a choice to "trust in the mysteries of mind and life and language -- their miraculous strangeness, which seems always to promise the revelation of a greater meaning, or to adumbrate a higher reality." This is the "top-down or bottom-up choice" that "determines everything else."

8. The Universe as an Unpunctuated Text (Logos-Saturated):

   • You introduce a powerful aphorism: "The universe is not difficult to read because it is a hermetically sealed text, but because it is a text without punctuation." This means the intelligibility is there, but we need the right "ascending and ascending intonation" (spiritual intuition, interpretation) to grasp its "ontological syntax."

   • This connects to your earlier theme of the "universe is endlessly intelligible to intelligence."

   • Hart's poetic character elaborates: "all of existence is a realm of positively eloquent communication." Reality is "the manifestation of that infinite reason that dwells in God; all of it's composed of signs and symbols, through which infinite mind is always speaking to us... and inviting us to respond." This is the Logos principle at play.

9. The Cosmos is Open at the Top:

   • The conclusion, for this chapter at least, is that "it does seem that the cosmos is open at the top, and that we must consciously engage with the vertical energies flowing therefrom." This ties back to your earlier "fresh vertical air and light" metaphor, emphasizing active participation in the transcendent.

Overall Impact:

This post is a nuanced and deeply personal meditation on the nature of truth, belief, and the human response to cosmic reality. You acknowledge the strength of the skeptical position (its honesty in admitting ignorance) while ultimately advocating for a choice of "trust" in the deeper, transcendent intelligibility of the cosmos. The contrast between Stoic resignation and Christian/Vedantic serenity, and the vivid depiction of the "anti-Bob's" despair versus the hopeful embrace of mystery, make this a very compelling piece. It sets up the ongoing dialogue not just as an intellectual exercise, but as a fundamental choice of how one lives and perceives reality.

Here is an image that aims to capture the essence of your post, particularly the tension between the grand, intelligible cosmos and the personal struggle with skepticism and the search for meaning: