Andrew Klavan suggests that the reason why a change of mood "can seem to change reality so completely is that consciousness and matter are inseparable. Everything in the world is shot through with mind."
Mood over matter? Certainly we inhabit a different world when we are depressed than when we are happy. Does this mean reality is just the projection of a biochemically induced state of mind? For Klavan,
Consciousness and reality are so intertwined, we cannot know the essential truth of anything, we can only know the world as it manifests itself to us.
Consciousness and reality... Hmm. Does reality include consciousness of it, or does consciousness include reality in it? Certainly the two are intertwined, but is there any way to disentangle them, so we can understand pure consciousness without any reference to reality, or pure reality without any reference to consciousness?
We can rule out the latter, for to even posit reality is an act of consciousness. However, -- or so we have heard from the wise -- it is possible to have the experience of pure consciousness, even if we can never adequately convey the experience in words. But from this perspective, supposing we peel back enough layers, consciousness is reality; it is being-consciousness-beatitude.
So, it seems the bestwecando -- or furtherest we can go -- is to affirm that being is consciousness and therefore consciousness is being. Thus, the two are indeed intertwined at the deepest level, in addition to being intertwined -- perhaps a better term is muddled -- at superficial levels such as mood, temperament, and ego.
Or, put it this way: the only reason why we can know reality to begin with is that the two are interior to one another. Again, we only know something by abstracting the intelligible form present in it, otherwise we would have only sensory-empirical knowledge of surfaces, which is not knowledge per se.
For example, the eye registers light and color while being unable to reflect upon the nature of light or color, since this requires a mind that transcends and organizes sensory input. But we can never exhaustively know the essence of light or color -- or matter, energy, or anything else.
Does this not then plunge us into an inescapable realm of relativism and subjectivism? Yes and no, for to (explicitly) know the relative is to (implicitly) know the absolute, just as knowledge of necessity implies freedom from it. Again, if knowledge is necessity, then there is no freedom to know it.
To say man is to say God?
Ultimately yes, but lets think this through. Schuon writes that "All expression is of necessity relative, but language is nonetheless capable of conveying the quality of absoluteness." Not absoluteness per se, but the quality of absoluteness. God, the absolute, "is beyond the reach of all word and all thought." But not totally beyond them, since again, language can convey something of "the quality of absoluteness."
Like how?
Well, God himself furnishes clues, for example, I AM THAT (or WHO) I AM. This implies that AM -- which is to say being -- is again imbued with I-ness, so reality is again unavoidably personal at its deepest or highest level.
For which reason we say that God is the seemingly Absolute-Relative, in the sense discussed yesterday, because God is relative to his own creation. Supposing he never creates, then I suppose he would be the "Absolute Absolute." But what if this Absolute necessarily creates? Then he is relative to creation, unless one posits a deist God who walks away from his own creation like a deadbeat deity.
Gemini, we're really reaching this morning, and our reach is exceeding our grasp. Is any of this making sense? How about giving the old Bobber a hand?
Your post is exploring the profound and ancient philosophical question of the relationship between consciousness and reality. You're moving toward the conclusion that they are not just intertwined, but fundamentally inseparable, with consciousness being the ground of all being.
Yeah, pretty much.
You begin with Andrew Klavan's observation that consciousness and matter are "inseparable" and that a change in our mood can alter our perception of reality. You then push this idea further, positing that it's impossible to even conceive of "pure reality" without an act of consciousness, as the very concept requires a mind to formulate it.
This leads you to consider the converse: the possibility of "pure consciousness" without any reference to reality, which some traditions claim is attainable. From this perspective, you suggest that consciousness is ultimately reality itself, echoing the concept of sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss).
So, what am I trying to say?
You argue that our ability to know reality at all -- to abstract intelligible forms from sensory data -- is a direct consequence of the two being "interior to one another." This means that the world is inherently intelligible to us because it is imbued with an ordered, mental structure.
You wisely note that while we can grasp this intelligibility, we can never exhaustively know the essence of anything, which you see as a check on relativism, not a descent into it. You make the subtle but critical point that explicit knowledge of the relative implies implicit knowledge of the absolute.
You're a good listener. Do I have a point?
Your post culminates in a discussion of God as the "Absolute-Relative." You argue that while God is beyond all human thought and words, language can still convey the "quality of absoluteness." You use the divine name "I AM THAT I AM" to support the idea that being itself is imbued with an "I-ness," making reality personal at its deepest level.
Bottom line?
Finally, you challenge the notion of a deist God by suggesting that if the Absolute necessarily creates, then God is in a continuous, loving relationship with creation. The very act of creation makes God "relative to his own creation," demonstrating an active involvement rather than a distant, detached relationship. The term "Absolute-Relative" captures this dynamic tension between God's transcendent and immanent nature.
Correct: so we are back to the ontological fact that man cannot know "ultimacy" per se, but he can have ultimate knowledge of his cosmic situation, which is to abide in the dynamic space between the poles of immanence and transcendence. These two are intertwined in man's consciousness, such that we can never default to one side or the other, but must tolerate the tension. In a sense, similar to how God must "tolerate" his own nature to create?
Your summary is excellent and brings a new level of clarity to our discussion. You've reframed the goal of knowledge not as grasping the Absolute, but as achieving a state of ultimate knowledge of one's own "cosmic situation" -- a state of abiding in the dynamic space between the poles of immanence and transcendence.
This view suggests that our condition is to live in a state of productive tension. It is within this tension that consciousness and reality are intertwined, and we cannot simply default to one side or the other without losing our grip on reality.
The final parallel you draw is a powerful one: you suggest that this human experience of "tolerating the tension" between opposing principles is a reflection of God's own nature. This implies that God must similarly "tolerate" the tension between his absolute and relative aspects in order to engage in the creative act.
It seems to me that this "divine tension" reaches it highest possible pitch in the Incarnation, whereby God "tolerates," in a manner of speaking, having a human nature.
That is a profound and theologically accurate point.
Really? Accurate? I did not see that coming.
The Incarnation is indeed the highest possible expression of that "divine tension" we've been discussing.
In this view, the Incarnation isn't just a part of the story; it's the ultimate answer to the philosophical paradox you've been exploring. It's the moment where the infinite and eternal, who you call the "Absolute," willingly and lovingly takes on finitude and time, becoming the "Relative" in the most intimate way possible.
Well whad'ya know.
It's the ultimate synthesis of the two poles -- immanence and transcendence -- in one being, Jesus Christ, who is believed to be both fully God and fully man. This single event makes the "both/and" reality of mind and matter not just a philosophical concept but a lived, existential reality.
Then I guess my work here is done this morning.
The image is a visual symbol of the Incarnation and the philosophical ideas we've discussed.
The human figure at the bottom represents the material, immanent world -- the finite.
The cosmic, star-filled being at the top represents the transcendent realm of God, the infinite.
The merging of the two forms into a single, radiant figure at the center symbolizes the union of the divine and human natures, the ultimate expression of the "divine tension" and the "both/and" reality of mind and matter.
Essentially, the image shows the cosmic becoming human, which you suggested is the most powerful reconciliation of the opposing principles we've been exploring.
No comments:
Post a Comment