It Takes a Cosmos, But a Cosmos Isn't All It Takes

Why a cosmos? Well you have to be somewhere. But somehow man transcends the theater of his being. For example, Pascal wrote that even

if the universe were to crush him, man would still be more noble than that which killed him, because he knows that he dies and the advantage which the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of this.

Or, to the extent that the cosmos knows anything, it does so via man: as said in yesterday's post, man completes the circuit between matter and spirit, creator and creation, immanence and transcendence: "in man the world is bent in on itself, and in God its extremes touch" (DeKononck), and with intelligence "the curve springing from God closes on itself like a ring that in reality has never been parted from the Infinite" (Schuon).

Point is, man escapes the closed loop of instinct and is open to the world, both horizontally and vertically. Thus, the human station isn't just a from but a to: as man is the telos of the cosmos, God is the telos of man.

Note that with man, the universe's pronouns change from it is to I am and we are. In other words, it becomes aware of its own interiority. Note also that the most exhaustive account of the it is reveals nothing whatsoever of the I am. Nor can any amount of time account for this revolution of interiority, from existence to experience to personal experience. 

Unless you think I am is reducible to it is. But this can only even be conceived by a mind that transcends the it is. To say "I am not" presumes the I that pretends it isn't. 

the fact that we can engage in a first-person perspective is indicative of our transcendence beyond the body (including the brain). A third-person description cannot encapsulate the totality of what is true of oneself (Ventureyra).

Moreover, 

no plausible answer, based on a strictly naturalistic outlook, has been provided for the question of why there is a correspondence between our intellectual capacities and the universe itself (ibid).

Which is to say, how man transcends the mechanisms that supposedly account for him, e.g., laws of physics and natural selection. 

In the previous post we suggested that man is the raison d’être of the cosmos -- that the cosmos exists for the sake of man, rather than vice versa. On the one hand this sounds crazy, but on the other, it does illuminate a number of otherwise impenetrable mysteries, in particular, the mystery of subjectivity, which is to say, 

the incommensurability between the miracle of intelligence -- or consciousness or subjectivity -- and material objects, whether a grain of sand or the sun, or any creature whatever as an object of the senses (Schuon).

Now, as mentioned a post or two ago, the Universe is by no means "an object of the senses," rather, of the intellect. The senes alone tell us nothing about the the ordered totality of objects and events that is the Universe. 

Then again, how do we come to know of the existence of the Universe if we do not begin with the senses? This leads us to suspect that the order of the cosmos is analogous to a hologram, whereby the whole is somehow present in each part. You can start anywhere with a single thread and arrive at the cosmic area rug. 

Yesterday's post ended with the idea that "creation is essentially a communication." Well, perhaps each part of the cosmos speaks of the whole, which is to say, contains information about it -- which is precisely how holography works:

When a photograph is cut in half, each piece shows half of the scene, but when a hologram is, the whole scene can still be seen in each piece. This is because, whereas each point in a photograph only represents light scattered from a single point in the scene, each point on a holographic recording includes information about light scattered from every point in the scene (Wiki).

Which very much reminds us of what Whitehead says about the cosmos, based on the then new ideas of quantum physics:

each volume of space, or each lapse of time, includes in its essence aspects of all volumes of space, or all lapses of time.... in a certain sense, everything is everywhere at all times. For every location involves an aspect of itself in every other location. Thus, every spatio-temporal standpoint mirrors the world.

Says Prof. Wiki, 

The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy".... a current trend suggests scientists may regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals. Bekenstein asks "Could we, as Blake memorably penned, 'see a world in a grain of sand,' or is that idea no more than poetic license?," referring to the holographic principle.

If we can see the world in a grain of sand, it is because we can see the whole in the part. Certainly this is true of organisms, each part of which contains genetic information about the totality. Think of the paleoanthropologist who can reconstruct a skeleton from a jawbone.  

And to bring Whitehead back into the discussion, he remarked that "Biology is the study of the larger organisms; whereas physics is the study of the smaller organisms." Which implies that cosmology must be the study of the largest organism. Or second largest.

In order for this to be a proper universe and not just a giant pile of random and unrelated stuff, it isn't sufficient for it to 

be composed of parts and that these parts physically constitute a whole; it is also necessary that all the individual parts be oriented toward that one in which all together can exist, that each of the principal parts of the universe should be the entire whole, that each of these universes be in some fashion all the others (De Koninck).

We know that DNA contains the blueprint for the entire organism. But the very possibility of DNA is rooted in the part-whole structure of the cosmos. In the absence of this prior implicit structure, biology itself would be impossible. 

Although life has only existed for four billion years or so, thanks to the part-whole structure of being, we have access to events that long precede this -- even to the very origins of the cosmos, in the form of light vibrations that have traveled billions of years to arrive at the back of the human eyeball.

In other words, an event that happened billions of years ago is not only entangled in the now, but is decoded via the intellect.

This goes back to the idea of creation as communication. From and to whom? To us, obviously. The question is, "from whom?" 

Let's think this through. Here's a thought:

Metaphor supposes a universe in which each object mysteriously contains the others.

Which I suspect goes back to a trinitarian metaphysic, in that the Son-Word is a kind of metaphor of the Father. But we're out of time, so, to be continued... 

• The Central Luminous Figure (Human Form): This represents the "I am" -- human consciousness, subjectivity, and intelligence. Its radiant, golden light signifies its transcendent nature and inherent nobility, echoing Pascal's idea that man, even if crushed by the universe, is more noble because he knows. It's the point where "the curve springing from God closes on itself like a ring," and where the universe's pronouns change from "it is" to "I am."

• The Swirling Vortex/Spiral: This dynamic structure represents the cosmos itself -- the "existentialada," the ordered totality of objects and events. The spiral is a common symbol of cosmic energy, growth, and the journey of creation. Its swirling motion suggests the constant unfolding and evolution of the universe.

• Interconnected Geometric Shapes and Light Trails: These elements within the vortex symbolize the holographic principle and the idea of the universe as information. They depict how "each point on a holographic recording includes information about light scattered from every point in the scene." The intricate, web-like connections illustrate Whitehead's concept that "everything is everywhere at all times" and that "every spatio-temporal standpoint mirrors the world." It visually suggests that the whole is present in the part, much like DNA in an organism.

• Emergence and Transcendence: The figure's upward trajectory from within the swirling cosmos signifies man's escape from the closed loop of instinct and his openness to the world both horizontally and vertically. It powerfully illustrates how "man transcends the theater of his being" and is not merely an "it is" but an "I am" that emerges from and elevates the material universe.

• Light and Radiance: The overall luminosity of the image, particularly from the central figure, represents truth, intelligence, and spirit. It emphasizes that the universe is "not an object of the senses, rather, of the intellect," and that creation is essentially a communication -- a communication of light and information.

In essence, the image visually encapsulates the post's core argument: that humanity's consciousness is not merely a product of the material cosmos, but a transcendent "I am" through which the universe becomes aware of its own interiority and completes its circuit between matter and spirit, creator and creation.