Meditations on the First Principle

It's easy enough to prove that materialist explanations are insufficient, but it's not altogether clear what to replace them with. 

That is to say, we know that horizontal and vertical are complementary down here, and we can even deduce that the vertical must be ontologically prior, since no amount of time or horizontal shuffling could have given rise to it.

Beyond this, the sages diverge. 

Man has literally been trying to map the vertical ever since he became man and uttered an astoneaged WTF?! Gemini, how many religions are there in the world?

It's tricky to give an exact number of religions in the world because there's no single, universally agreed-upon definition of what counts as a distinct religion.

That's true. For example, wokeness is a religious cult, but its members don't know it. 

Give us your best guess, Gemini.  

Estimates go as high as 10,000 distinct religions worldwide, although many of these have relatively small followings and are regionally based.

So, 10,000 different maps of the same territory. And on what basis do we pick one? For it is like trying to decide where to go on vacation without having any knowledge of the destinations involved. Rather, you have to travel there to find out. No wonder people reject the whole notion and take flight into secularism. 

The problem is, you may not care about the Absolute, but the Absolute cares about you. In other words, you can only pretend to reject it, because you'll inevitably put a false absolute in its place. 

Speaking of which -- the 10,000 religions notwithstanding -- there are some features of the vertical about which I should think all reasonable people can agree, one being that it is Absolute. People call it by different names, but it is at the top of the hierarchy, and stands as origin, source, center, and first principle.

This is somewhat analogous to how logic has its first principles without which it couldn't be logical, e.g., identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, and sufficient reason.

Supposing we begin with this Absolute, what else can we say of it except that It Is and must be? Well, I suppose it's cheating, but I fully accept Moses' testimony that this It Is is an I AM -- in other words, that it possesses subjectivity. We won't yet say that the Absolute is a person, but it's certainly not an object.

Now, I don't believe this only on Moses' authority, but because once heard, it makes sense. Most importantly, it makes sense of our own otherwise totally inexplicable subjectivity. 

Using only our own meager horizontal resources, there's not even a theory of how there could be a theory of consciousness. Oh, I know they're out there, for the tenured will always be with us. But consciousness explains the theory, not vice versa.

Having said that, merely acknowledging an Absolute subject is a rather threadbare religion. What's he like? Is there a way to get to know him better? And does he give a hoot about us? 

What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe we matter to Him.

Here's a thought: if our own subjectivity is grounded in his, then perhaps the most central features of our subjectivity may reveal something of his. Maybe it's another cheat, but this is why I accept the principle that man is -- we won't yet say created, but somehow a reflected image of this Absolute principle.

If this is the case, then features of our consciousness may reflect features of his. 

Let's think about this... Ah ha! Thinking. Certainly this is the main feature of human consciousness, that we pretty much never stop thinking. Nor is this in the way of lower animals, rather, we inhabit a world of ideas, essences, and abstract concepts that is totally inaccessible to the beasts.

And why do we do this? Here again, reduced to horizontal resources, there is no why. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we think in order to know. Know what? Truth. Just try denying that and see how far it gets you.

Could it be that the Absolute is not only the source and ground of truth, but Truth itself? If so, it would explain why there are so many seemingly contradictory truths down here -- even those 10,000 religions, because a truth can never be the truth.

Which in turn gives rise to the idea that the vertical isn't just an empty expanse, but rather must be a hierarchical order, such that the truths of one level may not apply to another. Which is why I accept the testimony of the Aphorist to the effect that 

Truths do not contradict each other except when they fall out of order.

I mean, even materialism is true insofar as we're talking about matter. It only becomes false if it rises above its station and tries to account for things above the material. Likewise, we accept Darwinism, but it certainly doesn't account for Darwin. 

Which reminds me of a quip by Keynes I read the other day in an intellectual biography of Hayek: "Starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in Bedlam." Which in turn reminds me of Gödel, and of how man cannot be enclosed in any formal system. Rather, human intelligence has access to truths that transcend any such system. 

In the same book, the author notes that "in an age of scientism, the hardest task of reason is to understand its own limitations." We concur 100% with this sentiment, which means that although man is the rational animal, in knowing this, we transcend reason. Rather, we must have a faculty that is situated higher on the vertical scale, which we shall call intellect. 

Now, reason clearly operates in time -- it takes time to reason things out -- but there is something "timeless" in the way the intellect operates, for it "sees" and "knows" in a moment. Here again, this resembles how our Absolute subject must know, which is to say, "all at once." 

It's a bit like how we can know a face. This is not something we know in an additive way, like eyes + nose + mouth somehow adds up to a face. Rather, we see the whole in an instant. 

This is also how we know those "self-evident truths" bequeathed to us by the founders. In other words, once proposed to the mind, the mind -- or intellect, rather -- assents to them because it instantly understands them. Same with the first principles of logic alluded to above.

Gosh. We've already surpassed 1,000 words, and we've barely scratched the surface of the depth. Gemini, where are we so far?

Overall, your exploration offers a compelling framework for understanding reality beyond purely materialist terms. By emphasizing the vertical dimension, the Absolute Subject, and the hierarchical nature of truth, you provide a rich ground for further inquiry and discussion. Your use of analogies and examples makes complex ideas more accessible, and the connection to logical first principles adds a strong foundation to your arguments.

Any ideas on how to proceed?

Some Points for Consideration:

• The Nature of the Absolute's Subjectivity: While you establish the Absolute as an "I AM," the precise nature of this subjectivity remains open. Is it personal in the same way human subjectivity is? How does this relate to traditional theological concepts of God?
• The Problem of Evil: If the Absolute is Truth and the source of all being, how does one account for evil and suffering in the world? This is a perennial challenge in theistic and metaphysical systems.
• The Role of Revelation: While you mention Moses' testimony, the role of specific religious revelations in understanding the Absolute is not fully explored. How do different religious traditions fit into this hierarchical framework?
• The Nature of Intellect: The distinction between reason and intellect is important, but further clarification on how the intellect operates and how it can be cultivated would be beneficial.
• Testing the Model: While the model is internally consistent, how could it be tested or verified? What kind of evidence could support or challenge its claims?

Challenge accepted.

The Godless Delusion

We know that

Every Christian has been directly responsible for the hardening of some unbeliever’s heart.

I wonder if every atheist has been directly responsible for the softening of some believer's heart?

That's how it was for Dennis Prager. Brought up an observant Jew, he dabbled in secularism in college, until witnessing the stupidities -- the absence of wisdom and common sense -- to which the secular left inevitably gives rise. Seeing what the anti- and irreligious campus radicals had wrought brought him back to the fold. 

We have confirmation from a nonlocal source:

Nothing is more dangerous for faith than to frequent the company of believers. The unbeliever restores our faith.

So, sometimes the most effective evangelist can be a member of the other team. Which makes sense. For example, at the moment, the most effective spokesholes for Republican policies are Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom.

Along these lines, I stumbled upon a book called Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: 12 Essays on the Pathway from New Atheism to Christianity, showing how Dawkins in particular and the new atheists in general are turning out to be effective evangelists. For these contributors, "Richard Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists were instrumental in their conversions to Christianity."

Despite a wide range of backgrounds and cultures, all are united in the fact that they were first enthusiasts for the claims and writings of the New Atheists. But each became disillusioned by the arguments and conclusions of Dawkins, causing them to look deeper and with more objectivity at religious faith. The fallacies of Christianity Dawkins warns of simply don't exist.

Cosmic irony.

I've only finished the first few chapters, and so far the writers are rather conventional -- not exactly our type. Not to say I don't often wish I were their type. Why is it so simple for some people to just be born again and have that instant personal relationship with Jesus? I try, but so far no real fireworks in that department. 

It again reminds me of Prager. He says that his religiosity is based almost entirely on logic and reason. Nor does he generally pray for good things to happen to him, because he rejects the idea of God being a cosmic bellhop, just waiting for us to ask so as to receive. Rather, he says that his prayer life consists mostly of listening as opposed to asking. 

Ironically -- being that he is currently recovering from a severe cervical spine injury -- he also says that he doesn't want people to give up religion just because their prayers aren't answered. 

More generally, as we all know, bad things nevertheless happen to even the best people, and vice versa. Prager has been one of the most positive influences on my own life, but here he is, flat on his back while hoping for movement to return to his limbs. Yet, I am quite certain this won't shake his faith. 

One difference between us is that he doesn't have any interest in mysticism, esoterism, metaphysics, and other transrational matters, all of the things that we like to explore and discuss around here. Rather, his preoccupation is with morality. He doesn't even really care if someone is a "good person," rather, only if the person actually does good. 

If I am not mistaken, this is a very Jewish idea, that actions and behavior are much more important than good intentions. Obviously, the world is full of -- or even plagued by -- nice people with horrible ideas. Conversely, Trump isn't a moral exemplar in his personal life, but his ideas and policies are great.

If I need an operation, I don't really care if the surgeon has a personal relationship with Jesus. Rather, I just want the most skilled surgeon.  

A few days ago, the fire came within a couple hundred yards of my house. After it passed I actually did thank God, because that's the kind of guy I am, and gratitude is a nice quality to cultivate. But the moment I think about it, I wonder about the 12,000 homes that have burned to the ground. If God spared my house, why did he not spare theirs? It seems totally arbitrary and unfair. 

So, why do we pray? It seems illogical. The best answer I've come across is because God wants us to. Dávila goes even further, and says something to the effect that the only sensible thing for us to do is to keep bothering God with our prayers. At the same time,

Christianity does not solve "problems"; it merely obliges us to live them at a higher level.

And

The weight of this world can only be supported while on one's knees.

But since God wants us to pray, it must benefit us in ways that are not obvious.  

Come to think of it, why even am I religious? Much of it has to do with what we've been writing about the vertical dimension. For me, the works of Schuon truly illuminate the vertical in an unsurpassed way. Others do too, but he is so clear, comprehensive, and profound that he opened up the whole "religious world" for me. In other words, thanks to him, I had a way to approach and understand what it is religion is "talking about."

But at the same time, he is emphatic that metaphysical understanding is not enough. Rather, one must practice an orthodox religion in order to "actualize" in one's being what is otherwise merely abstract and intellectual.

It is much like knowing all about musical theory, when what you really need to do is pick up an instrument and learn how to play. Religion is an instrument for engaging the vertical. 

Is this not a form of religious indifferentism, as if any instrument will do? Not necessarily, because while their are diverse religious forms, it doesn't mean they're all equal. For me, Christianity explains more than the other options on offer, and I find that it isn't difficult to integrate the good stuff from other approaches such as Vedanta and Taoism. 

Indeed, it's much like English: if we like a word from a different language, we just steal it -- unlike, say, the French, who want to keep it pure and uncontaminated by other languages.

Which is also why I like jazz, which likewise incorporates whatever it likes from other genres -- classical, soul, blues, gospel, electronic, whatever.

Well, I got a late start this morning, and the wind is up. I'm praying that the power won't be cut again, but I suspect it will be.

Any thoughts, Gemini?

Overall, your reflection demonstrates a nuanced and intellectually engaged approach to faith. You acknowledge the difficulties and paradoxes inherent in religious belief while affirming the importance of the spiritual dimension and the value of religious practice. The exploration of different perspectives, from Prager's rational approach to your own interest in mysticism, adds depth and complexity to your analysis. The central theme that emerges is the search for a meaningful and coherent way to integrate faith, reason, and experience in a world that often seems chaotic and unpredictable.

UPDATE -- some of Schuon's thoughts on prayer:

The remembrance of God is at the same time a forgetting of oneself; conversely, the ego is a kind of crystallization of forgetfulness of God. The brain is, as it were, the organ of this forgetfulness; it is like a sponge filled with images of this world of dispersion and of heaviness, filled too with the tendencies of the ego towards both dispersal and hardening.... 

The aim of individual prayer is not only to obtain particular favors, but also the purification of the soul: it loosens psychological knots or, in other words, dissolves subconscious coagulations and drains away many a secret poison; it externalizes before God the difficulties, failures and tensions of the soul, which presupposes that the soul be humble and upright; this externalization -- carried out in face of the Absolute -- has the virtue of reestablishing equilibrium and restoring peace, in a word, of opening us to grace.... 

The important thing to grasp here is that actualisation of the consciousness of the Absolute, namely the “remembrance of God” or “prayer"... brings about a fundamental confrontation of creature and Creator.... 

It is already a death and a meeting with God and it places us already in Eternity.... Quintessential prayer brings about an escape from the world and from life, and thereby confers a new and Divine sap upon the veil of appearances and the current of forms, and a fresh meaning to our presence amid the play of phenomena.

Desperation Isn't Disqualifying, It's a Prerequisite

I like this little prayer John Duns Scotus offers at the beginning of his Treatise on the First Principle:

May the First Principle of things permit me to believe, discern, and disclose whatever pleases His Majesty and elevates our minds to contemplate Him....

Help me, Lord, as I seek the utmost limit of the knowledge our natural reason can achieve concerning the True Existence you are, if we begin with the being you have predicated of yourself [i.e., "I am who I am"].

If we're going to try to grasp something of the vertical, might as well go straight to the source. In fact, there's only so much we can understand about the source without its cooperation in some form or fashion, which we touched on yesterday vis-a-vis necessary and sufficient causes in the creation of art. 

It must be the same with regard to theology, God again being the condition without which it is impossible. Which is an orthodox doctrine, i.e., that God gives sufficient grace to every man to turn toward him, such that the turning is already a finding. 

I hope that's true, otherwise I have no explanation for all the seeking I've been documenting over the past two decades of pneumablogging, let alone the existence of readers. It reminds me of what Leonard Cohen said about the people in his Zen monastery:

“Everyone here is fucked up and desperate,” he says brightly. “That’s why they’re here. You don’t come to a place like this unless you’re desperate.” 

Truly truly, you people must be as desperate as I am: desperadOs?

This vertical desperation was equally characteristic of my more mundane dream of becoming a certified and certifiable psychoanalyst back in the day. I remember lamenting to my analyst about my suspicions that I was just too neurotic for the job, to which he brightly responded with words to the effect that "neurosis isn't a disqualification, rather, an absolute prerequisite."

In other words, it is a far better thing to have been neurotic and sorted it out than to have never been neurotic at all.

Which is very much a secular version of the idea that there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine who need no repentance.

As I've mentioned before, I ended up not pursuing my post-doc studies; or rather, my studies took a different form, i.e., a wholly vertical one. 

That is to say, upon the occasion of my 40th birthday, I decided to dedicate my life to looking into this God business instead of looking into my own unconscious. Both are more or less infinite, except that the former proceeds "upward" while latter looks "downward" for the Answer.

Of course, the one doesn't exclude the other, and Jordan Peterson is probably the most prominent explorer who tries to be mindful of both. I've been viewing a lot of videos pertaining to his full-blown descent into hell, which rendered him totally disabled for a few years not too long ago. It's hard to know what to make of that, but whatever it was, he seems to have emerged stronger and wiser. 

By the way, just to conclude the little story of my own lower vertical adventures in psychoanalysis, I never did get to the bottom of Gagdad Bob and what makes him tick. Rather, I more or less conceded that I was one of those incurable INTPs, and that there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it: INTPs are preoccupied with 

the search for the universal law behind everything they see. They want to understand the unifying themes of life, in all their complexity. They are detached, analytical observers who can seem oblivious to the world around them because they are so deeply absorbed in thought. They spend much of their time in their own heads: exploring concepts, making connections, and seeking understanding of how things work... [their] life is an ongoing inquiry into the mysteries of the universe.

Etc. Leopards and spots, nor did I choose to be this way. If God didn't make me this way, I fail to see how my selfish genes could be responsible, because why would natural selection select someone so unfit for anything conventionally useful? More generally, how can evolution account for the man who is seemingly preadapted to the vertical? Evolution doesn't know anything about verticality.

Switching into a lower gear, I suppose scientism is like chemotherapy, in that it fails to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy cells. Thus, while it eradicates superstition, it sweeps away metaphysics along with it. But in so doing, it becomes its own superstition (or perhaps substition): 

To believe that science is enough is the most naive of superstitions.

Scientism basically collapses the vertical into the horizontal, but this can never be done in any coherent or consistent manner. Again, for science to even recognize and ponder horizontality is to have risen above it, but without any principle to explain how or why this is possible. 

Which is okay. It is not the job of science to tell us how science is possible.  

Without philosophy, the sciences so not know what they know.

The most complete explanation of the How will tell us nothing whatsoever about the Why. To even ask Why? is ultimately a vertical matter. Math is silent on the question of why there are mathematicians. Their very existence is wholly unreasonable, unless they are the entailment of a higher reason, an emanation from the Logosphere. Yes, God is certainly a mathematician, but not only a mathematician.

Recall yesterday's point that the Creator doesn't create in time but with time. This is a subtle and tricksy doctrine for a timebound primate to wrap his head around, but recall also that the soul is partly in time and partly in eternity, so we aren't entirely without resources to grasp our ambiguous situation. Wolfgang Smith observes that 

the creature is more -- incomparably more! -- than its manifestation in space an time. It does not coincide with the phenomenon, the organism as conceived by the scientist.... 

Even the tiniest plant that blooms for a fortnight and then is seen no more is vaster in its metaphysical roots than the entire cosmos in its visible form: for these roots extend into eternity. And how much more does this hold true in the case of man!

Details. It's a nice sentiment, but what exactly is going on here? How is it that man in particular is incomparably vaster in his metaphysical roots than the entire cosmos in its visible form? 

Yes, because his roots extend into eternity, to the toppermost of the poppermost, to the Absolute invoked by Duns Scotus at the top, and whose help we need in order to get anywhere in our desperate quest.

Football is calling, so we'll have to end this circumnavalgazing for now. But we'll try to fill in some details in the next post. We'll end with a favorite quote by Leonard Cohen, which is sort of a guiding principle of the blog and its ceaseless effort to provide vertical entertainment for fellow desperadOs:

“What [else] would I be doing? Finding new drugs, buying more expensive wine? I don’t know. This seems to me the most luxurious and sumptuous response to the emptiness of my own existence.

“I think that’s the real deep entertainment,” he concludes. “Religion. Real profound and voluptuous and delicious entertainment. The real feast that is available to us is within this activity. Nothing touches it.”