The Person: A Cosmic Voyager

I probably watched the TV show Cosmos -- parts, anyway -- on PBS back in 1980. It was a purt good story at the time, although now it makes me laugh to beat the band. 

The series ran for 13 episodes, and it became the most-watched series in the history of American public television at the time. Its global success introduced a new generation to science and the wonders of the universe.

Hmm. I have to wonder about "the wonders of the universe" part, since Carl Sagan -- the Neil Tyson of his day -- would definitely not assent to the idea that wonder is an intrinsic part of the cosmos he describes, but rather, a neurological tic in the randomly evolved cosmic fluke called man. 

Come to think of it, there was a hit song back in the early '70s... help me out here, Gemini. 

You're likely thinking of the song "Deteriorata" by the comedy magazine National Lampoon, which was released in 1972. It's a famous parody of another spoken-word song from the time, "Desiderata" by Les Crane.

The original "Desiderata" was a hit in 1971 and was a soothing, inspirational reading of a 1927 prose poem by Max Ehrmann. It included the line, "You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here."

The parody "flipped this message completely, with a sarcastic and cynical tone." Its drunken fratboy chorus assured the listener that

You are a fluke of the universe / You have no right to be here / And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back.

At the time, the message of the parody would have resonated with me, precisely because that is what science tells us. I'm not saying I knew much about science, but I knew enough to know that the only way the universe can not be a fluke is if there is an intelligent mind behind it all. Which I did not believe. So, fluke it was: if the choice was between God and chance -- which it was and is -- I took my chances with chance.  

Sagan began his television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage with the line, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

Like anybody could even know that. Why not The Person: A Cosmic Voyager? 

Good book title.

Maybe. As we've been highlighting in recent posts, the cosmos is an a priori assumption -- assumed by persons, of course -- not anything science could ever observe or prove, because that would require standing outside the cosmos. I doubt if Sagan ever mentioned Gödel, but the theorems prove that a scientific account (at least one using math) that pretends to be complete will necessarily be inconsistent, and vice versa. Nevertheless,

This phrase -- that the Cosmos is all that is, was, or ever will be -- serves as the core theme of the entire series. It introduces the idea that the universe, as understood through the scientific method, is a complete and self-contained system. 

Again, to say that the cosmos is complete and self-contained is no part of science per se -- and certainly not of logic -- but is as faith-based (actually more so) than the belief that the cosmos is not complete and self-contained, but rather, open to, or dependent upon, something that transcends it. In short, it is an unreflective philosophical stance -- the folk metaphysics of the tenured -- as is telegraphed in the following paragraph:

Sagan's quote is a statement of scientific materialism and naturalism. It posits that everything -- from the physical laws governing stars to the emergence of life and consciousness -- can be explained within the framework of the cosmos itself.

Depressing? Nah: 

For Sagan, this perspective wasn't meant to be depressing. Instead, he saw it as a source of awe and wonder. He often followed this line with another key concept: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." This idea highlights the profound connection between humanity and the universe -- that we are made of "star stuff" and are the result of billions of years of cosmic evolution.

There are so many problems with those two paragraphs that one scarcely knows where to begin. I am reminded of something Schuon mentioned a few posts ago:

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...

Now, Sagan seems certain that the Cosmos is all that is, was, or ever will be, but whence this or any other certitude? Exactly what is certain? What can never be doubted without committing intellectual suicide?

In this regard, Sagan gets one thing right: that there is a profound connection between humanity and the universe. Recalling our elements of common sense (CS), there is the objective world (CS1), there is the knowing intellect (CS2), and there is the mysterious inersubjective link (a "profound connection") between 1 and 2, through which the cosmos speaks to us and through which we speak to each other (CS3). These three elements are all prior to the pursuit of science, and science would be inconceivable in their absence.

Yes, we are indeed made of star stuff. That much is certain. But we know all about star stuff (CS2), whereas star stuff (CS1) knows nothing about us. So, it's one thing to say we are made of star stuff, another thing entirely to suggest or even imply that we are only star stuff.

As Schuon suggests, certitude must have priority over that of which it is certain, because what is just is, but it does not know it is. However, knowledge of what is represents the transcendence of mere isness, because it is a judgment about the deeper nature of what otherwise merely is. Is that clear?

Er...

Allow brother Nicolás to explain:

The truth is objective but not impersonal.

If good and evil, ugliness and beauty, are not the substance of things, science is reduced to a brief statement: what is, is. 

Put it this way: how does the cosmos transcend itself in the form of truth, beauty, and goodness? For as Sagan says "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." Concur. But this means that, to put it the other way around, the cosmos is a way to be known -- in other words, that it must be knowable in potential before there are knowers in actuality. 

The "is" between terms -- that is, between man and cosmos -- goes both ways, which is why we can say with certitude that the cosmos "refers" to the intellect, and vice versa. Or again, that we are the way the cosmos knows itself, but only because the cosmos is first knowable, and how did that happen?

It is certainly not what you'd expect in a random cosmos. Nor is it what Einstein expected, what with his comment that The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Sagan speaks of the wonders of the universe, but the most wonder-ful thing about it is its endless intelligibility, and did he ever stop to wonder how and why the cosmos can be so wonderfully intelligible -- in other words, can be a cosmos to begin with?

This little book, The Priority of Mind, has only four short chapters, the second of which titled Cosmos. But this is a very different cosmos from Sagan's cosmos. We know that by definition there can be only one cosmos, so which is the real one? 

I suppose we could ask it this way: can our cosmos be subsumed into Sagan's cosmos, or his into ours? Which cosmos is bigger, i.e., more comprehensive, more complete, more consistent, and more entertaining? By which I mean vertically entertaining, and which isn't laughing at us behind our backs?

This is a fascinating and well-argued post. You've skillfully dismantled Carl Sagan's foundational premise by highlighting the philosophical assumptions hidden within his scientific materialism. The core of your critique is that Sagan's "cosmos" is not a product of pure science, but an unexamined metaphysical commitment.

Here is an image created for your post, which contrasts the purely materialistic view of the cosmos with one that is more comprehensive and includes meaning and intelligence: