Yesterday's post left off with the stipulation that the cosmos is dependent upon, and therefore open to, a deeper reality in the absence of which it wouldn't be a cosmos but a chaos.
Wait -- a stipulation is an agreement, and exactly who consented to this one?
Only everybody ever. It's pretty much the first thing man noticed when he became one: every culture has a story about how the cosmos came into being, which of course presupposes the existence of this total world order. Our current myth is the "big bang," but when push comes to shove, this doesn't in any way account for the origins of the cosmos.
Rather, it just traces the physics back in time until the trail goes utterly dark. Certainly it contributes nothing to the question of whether the cosmos is dependent upon a higher principle, but then again, the whole durn thing seems so suspiciously ordered to the eventual emergence of conscious intelligences capable of understanding it, that it makes a fella' wonder.
In the first paragraph of Cosmos and Creator, Jaki quotes the eminent physicist Arthur Eddington to the effect that
The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory; at least it is in harmony with it.
Having said that, there is nothing from the world of physics that can tell us anything about the nature of this universal mind, for it "might equally be turned into an argument for the devil" (ibid.).
I don't know about that, since there can be good without evil but not evil without good. But this Eddington fellow was an interesting guy. For example, he argued -- based only upon the physics, not any traditional religiosity -- that
It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference.
Sounds enticing, but our judges are going to have to call BS on that one, because the world is the first and most direct thing in our experience (CS#1), the mind that reflects upon it being CS#2. However, as CS2 investigates CS1, it can't help noticing its "mental character," in that it is loaded with intelligible information that could only be the product of a vastly superior mind.
For his part, Einstein wrote in a letter that
I have never found a better expression than the expression "religious" for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind.... Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.
To which Jaki asks if there could "be a more telling recognition that nothing could remedy the predicament in which saying cosmos truthfully had to be followed by saying Creator as well?"
Truly truly, Cosmos and Creator go together like Absolute and Infinite, man and God, transcendence and immanence.
Remind us, Mr. Schuon -- what makes a man?
What defines man is that of which he alone is capable: namely total intelligence -- endowed with objectivity and transcendence -- free will, and generous character; or quite simply objectivity, hence adequation of the will and of sentiment as well as of intelligence....
The animal cannot leave his state, whereas man can; strictly speaking, only he who is fully man can leave the closed system of the individuality, through participation in the one and universal Selfhood.
So, what are we to do with our total intelligence and free will?
Of man it may also be said that he is essentially capable of knowing the True, whether it be absolute or relative; he is capable of willing the Good, whether it be essential or secondary, and of loving the Beautiful, whether it be interior or exterior. In other words: the human being is substantially capable of knowing, willing and loving the Sovereign Good.
And other animals?
It is true that the other creatures also participate in life, but man synthesizes them: he carries all life within himself and thus becomes the spokesman for all life, the vertical axis where life opens onto the spirit and where it becomes spirit. In all terrestrial creatures the cold inertia of matter becomes heat, but in man alone does heat become light
Sounds good, but what went wrong? Like, back in Eden or whatever?
Primordial man knew by himself that God is; fallen man does not know it; he must learn it. Primordial man was always aware of God; fallen man, while having learned that God is, must force himself to be aware of it always. Primordial man loved God more than the world; fallen man loves the world more than God...
Bottom lyin'?
Once man makes of himself a measure, while refusing to be measured in turn, or once he makes definitions while refusing to be defined by what transcends him and gives him all his meaning, all human reference points disappear; cut off from the Divine, the human collapses.
The left side represents the philosophical idea of a unified cosmos, a world with a coherent hierarchy of being.
The Primordial Man: The radiant, idealized human figure represents "primordial man" who is fully connected to his divine source. He is a "vertical axis" synthesizing all of life, with "heat" becoming "light."
The Harmonious Cosmos: The orderly, harmonious cosmos with interlocking gears and planetary orbits symbolizes the rational and purposeful nature of the universe that is accessible to the human mind.
The Divine Light: The brilliant, multifaceted light source at the top symbolizes God, the "universal Mind or Logos" that is the origin and sustainer of this cosmic order.
The right side represents the consequences of "fallen man," who has made himself his own measure.
The Falling Figure: This figure is in a state of chaos and despair, tumbling into a void. It symbolizes the human being who has rejected his divine connection and attempted to "go it alone," leading to a collapse of his own meaning and wholeness.
The Chaotic Void: The swirling vortex is filled with shattered, disconnected symbols and theories. This represents the fragmented knowledge and lack of a unifying paradigm that results from a worldview cut off from its transcendent source.
Good evening Dr. Godwin. Good evening, all readers.
ReplyDeleteThese last two posts have driven home the certainty that the cosmos exists, and that men are in it but not of it, because of the ability to step back from it and see it from the outside looking in, as it were.
It has been said by several respected mystics that there is another posture that can be taken, that is, inside looking out. This has been described as a sudden and dramatic shift in consciousness. These mystics state they themselves have had it, and in this shift of consciousness "ordinary" reality seems unreal and conversely a new internal territory opens up that seems more concrete as it were.
These reports are tantalizing. But this dramatic conversion seems elusive to this writer. Those who have undergone it have said no special preparation or effort was made and the decisive change arrived in a split second, sometimes during banal activities such as morning ablutions or chopping vegetables. One writer indicated the sound of his walking staff clinking on a shard of broken pottery initiated the conversion.
All have said the conversion was permanent and durable, and all have said it resulted in instant knowledge of reality by direct identification rather than by reasoning.
Whatever this is, if it is a real thing, I would wish to have it.
What say ye all? Have you heard these reports? Could this thing be possible?
Regards, le Trenche