Or, at least affirming that that the cosmos is everything is a gratuitous assumption that is not warranted by any scientific discovery, for science is necessarily silent on the question of whether the cosmos itself is open to something transcending it.
In other words, just because the cosmos is an ordered totality, this does not imply that it is a closed system.
Analogously, an organism is an ordered whole, but there can be no such thing as a "closed organism." Indeed, an organism only is one because it is a dynamically ordered system that exchanges matter, energy, and information with the environment.
Which reminds me of a comment by Schuon -- of how
We shall be told that only existence is absolutely certain. But is not this certainty precisely something other than existence? The certainty exists, and existence is certain. If existence is a content of the certainty, the certainty has priority over existence...
Are you sure about that?
Sure I'm sure, and the surety is is as real as what it is sure about, this being another instance of the cosmos paradoxically containing a being that transcends its container. Or, expressed colloquially, man is in but not of the cosmos, for if we were only in it, how could we even know of it?
Take a fish, for example. Supposing it could possess abstract knowledge, it could affirm that it is indeed in water. But it could never know about realities beyond the water, e.g., mountains, trees, or even the earth itself.
It reminds me of a frog at the bottom of a well, for whom the sky is a little disc at the top. Perhaps for us the cosmos is analogous to a circle -- or sphere, rather -- of light that is part of a much larger system. We just have to pop our heads up and out in order to see it.
In any event, the claim that "man can never rise above human subjectivity is the most gratuitous and contradictory of hypotheses," for "one cannot seek to enclose the Universe within 'human subjectivity' while at the same time allowing for a point of view beyond this subjectivity" (ibid.).
So, the recognition that there is a cosmos transcends the cosmos. Jaki brings in Gödel to seal the deal, for logically speaking,
no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics goes.
In the absence of such consistency, all cosmological models, all theories of elementary particles... fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else.
Rather, reality always surpasses and escapes our models of it, and we (ought to) know this:
Logic, it is well to remember, is impotent to put one in contact with reality, let alone with the reality of the cosmos and its supremely rational [and transcendent!] beauty.
The doctrine of creation is really a metaphysical statement to the effect that the cosmos is dependent upon, and therefore open to, a deeper reality in the absence of which there could be no cosmos to begin with.
Here is a symbolic image for your post, representing the core ideas of transcendence and the cosmos as an open system:
The Human Figure in the Well
The human figure standing in a well symbolizes our existence within the physical cosmos. The well itself is a confined space, representing our limited perspective and containment within the material world.
The golden light filling the well symbolizes the ordered reality and intelligence of the cosmos that we can perceive. It is the "circle of light" or "sphere" of which we are a part.
The figure's head and hand reaching upward and extending beyond the cosmic sphere are the central symbols of transcendence. They represent humanity's intellect and spirit, which can know and contemplate a reality beyond the physical universe. This visually reinforces the argument that we are in the cosmos but not of it.
The cosmic sphere floating above the well represents the cosmos as an orderly, beautiful, and knowable whole. However, its incomplete, open top symbolizes the core argument that the cosmos is not a closed system and is dependent on something beyond itself.
The brilliant white light streaming down from above the open cosmos represents the transcendent source -- the deeper reality, or God, that the cosmos is dependent upon. This light connects the divine to the universe and to the human figure, illustrating the "doctrine of creation."
The mountains and trees in the background, visible but distant and obscured, represent the larger reality that we can intuit but cannot fully grasp from our limited position in the well. They are a visual parallel to your analogy of the fish who cannot know about the earth outside the water, symbolizing a reality that "always surpasses and escapes our models."
No comments:
Post a Comment