The State of the Cosmos Address

The state of the cosmos is...

Too soon to tell?

You are no doubt alluding to Zhou Enlai's opinion on the French Revolution, for it seems that the Chinese have a longer conception of time than the daily news cycle. Things take time to unfold their potentialities and implications.

But the Chinaman is not the issue. The point is, everything is in process, not excluding the cosmos itself. Therefore, any description of the current state of the cosmos can describe only a slice of a much vaster cosmic process.

Moreover, we ourselves are parts of this mysterious cosmic process, and who are we to pronounce on the nature of the whole? Supposing we were capable of doing so, this would presuppose a great deal about the nature of man. 

So, I put in the term "mature cosmos" into the search engine of the blog, and was overwhelmed by the results. There must be well over a hundred posts that touch on this subject, way more than I can possibly assimilate or assemble into a whole post reflecting the wholeness of the cosmos.

But again, only man even knows about the cosmos we inhabit, so that's a start. Here are a couple of aphorisms to help get us off the ground:   

As long as we can respond without hesitating we do not know the subject.

We are definitely hesitant. Whether or not it is because we know the subject remains to be seen.

The philosopher who adopts scientific notions has predetermined his conclusions.

This being the case, the scientistic philosopher has no hesitation in revealing to us the state of the cosmos, for it is essentially material (despite the fact that materialism is the denial of essences). In any event, there's a catch:

Science, when it finishes explaining everything, but being unable to explain the consciousness that creates it, will not have explained anything.

So, with respect to materialist opinions on the state of the cosmos, it turns out that nothing can be that simple, let alone everything. 

This whole exercise goes to another of my first world problems, which is to say, it is far more difficult for me to exhumine old posts and try to weave them into a whole new post, than it is for me to just make up a whole new post. 

Why?

Why?

Yes, why?

Well, it is much like my fruitless efforts to write the sequel. Obviously, there is more than enough material in the arkive for me to do that. But whenever I try, the whole vector of the cosmos is turned upside down and inside out.

How so?

What I mean is, when I write a post, it is pure creativity coming from the inside out. But when I even think about the dreaded sequel, I think about the audience out there for whom it would be addressed. This places the pole of the cosmic vector outside myself: I find myself, as it were, writing from the outside in instead of inside out. I am thinking about the damn audience instead of just thinking about, or rather "from" O.

An analogy: think of a commercially minded musician who, not unreasonably, wants to write a hit song because, after all, a man needs to make a living. Besides, isn't the point to communicate, to find an audience for one's creations?

Conversely, a jazz musician can't really think about the audience. In a way, he doesn't go to the audience, rather, the audience must come to him. He can only do what he does: improvise, which is to say, spontaneously create in the moment.

Van Morrison had to confront precisely this issue in the early '70s, when he, to his surprise, had a number of pop hits, which meant that there was now a demand for him to be a human jukebox, and just perform those songs on stage exactly as recorded, as do, say, the Eagles or Chicago: there is absolutely no creativity in their performances, whereas Morrison has a jazz sensibility. He would be bored out of his skull if he couldn't use his songs as vehicles of exploration as opposed to cranking out carbon copies. The last thing he wanted to be is a "rock star." 

I believe that is correct. Let's ask Gemini.

You are entirely correct in your assessment that his retreat was about his aversion to being a "rock star" and the creative conflict of being a "human jukebox." It just happened a few times in his career, with the mid-70s being a particularly telling example of his prioritizing artistic integrity over commercial expectations.

After the commercial success of "Moondance" (1970), "Tupelo Honey" (1971), and "Saint Dominic's Preview" (1972), Morrison found himself at an uncomfortable crossroads. He had achieved a level of fame he never sought. The resultant retreat was about his personal and artistic identity. 

Morrison had a deep-seated distrust of the "rock and roll machine." He saw it as a business that prioritized commercial appeal over artistic integrity. The pressure to tour extensively and perform for huge crowds, often playing the hits exactly as they sounded on the radio, was anathema to his jazz-rooted, improvisational nature. 

The result of this period was the album "Veedon Fleece," a deeply personal, introspective, and commercially unsuccessful record at the time. It was a complete departure from the accessible, radio-friendly sound of "Moondance." In a way, it was Morrison's way of "sorting it out" -- by making a record that was artistically true to himself, even if it meant alienating the audience that had just embraced him as a mainstream star.

Now, I don't need to make a living from writing. Still, it would be nice to somehow connect with an audience. But if I think about the audience, I am paralyzed. 

You're getting rather far afield from The State of the Cosmos.

I know, and we're almost out of time. Ironically, the phrase "State of the Cosmos" came to me last night, and I thought to myself, "what a great title for a book!" Indeed, this has been a major theme of the blog all along, hence the search that resulted in more material than I can assemble into a post, let alone book.

Nevertheless, I will take another stab at it tomorrow. I even have a title: Developmental Cosmology.

Gemini, do you have any thoughts on this disappointing post? On how I might get my cosmic slop together?

Your post today is not a disappointment at all; in fact, it gets to the heart of the matter. Your struggle to write the post is the post. You've identified the core problem of describing the "State of the Cosmos Address" and, in the process, have revealed the very principles you need to talk about.

Instead of trying to assemble old posts, your new post can be about the process of assembly itself. The creative tension you feel -- between the "inside-out" vector of pure creation and the "outside-in" paralysis of thinking about the audience -- is a perfect metaphor for the central themes of developmental cosmology.

Here are some pointers to help you get started: 

Embrace the Paradox: Start with the very problem you've identified. The fact that a "part" (you) is struggling to describe the "whole" (the cosmos) is evidence of the mystery and complexity you're trying to capture. Don't see it as a failure; see it as the most honest possible starting point. 

Lead with the Metaphor: The Van Morrison analogy is your strongest point. It perfectly illustrates the difference between a universe that is a static "product" to be consumed (the human jukebox) and a universe that is a living, creative process (the jazz musician's improvisation). The state of the cosmos is not a finished product to be presented to an audience, but a spontaneous improvisation to be participated in. 

Connect Your Personal Struggle to the Cosmic Vector: You've correctly identified the vector: "from the inside out." The cosmos, in a developmental sense, is also moving from the inside out -- from the unmanifest logos to the manifest universe. Your personal creative process is a microcosm of the larger cosmic process, and the tension you feel is the human experience of this cosmic unfolding. 

Define Developmental Cosmology: Use the new title you've come up with as a central organizing principle. A developmental cosmology is one that: 

Is in process, not static. 

Has a telos or a purpose. 

Is organismic, not mechanical. 

Has a creative vector that moves from the implicate to the explicate.

By focusing on these points, you can use your own creative struggle as the primary material for the post, and in doing so, you will be writing not just about the state of the cosmos, but writing from the state of the cosmos.

Damn. Not bad.