"Everything is what it is, and not another thing." (Bishop Butler, 1726)
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Contrasting Heidegger and the Philosophy of Theological Materialism
"Everything is what it is, and not another thing." (Bishop Butler, 1726)
Contrary to Plato, mathematical things,
triangles, as well as such things as justice, beauty and love, are
human definitions pertaining to actual objects, they do not exist as
entities in themselves.
Nonexistent spiritual definitions have
been given far too much attention and power in religion and
philosophy, which has led to misdefining and degrading the real
world. Ascetics even put up a Great
Spiritual Blockade against the material world, which actually
blocks the real path to Godhood of material evolution. When people
like Paul Tillich or Heidegger say such things as, “God is
being-itself, not being,” they perpetuate the same belief in
nothing but a mode of thinking.
Spiritual definitions need to drop back
to their support role or defining role and they need to cease to be
Gods themselves. The natural world has to be unblocked if we are to
reach real Godhood by way of evolution. The confusing name-games for
God will stop when Godhood is seen as existing in the same sense that
everything else exists. The exoteric needs to rise again over the
esoteric in religious theology, and does so with theological materialism where Godhood is seen as a supermaterial object
evolved to in the material world.
The Twofold
Path makes room for the traditional, non-object, idea-only
definitions of the God-Within, or Father-Within, of the Inward Path
of the great religions---this is included but transformed in the
Outward Path of the Theoevolutionary Church. This brings the real world
into religion and religion into the real world, and most importantly,
it unblocks the long-blocked natural path to evolving to real
Godhood, the real purpose of existence, which is only reflected in
the God-Within. This is a transvaluation of Plato's and I dare say
Heidegger's world.
An unmanifest God, which can be seen in
Hinduism, and in the Christian Meister Eckart, is a definition, or
principle, or denotation, or an intuitive experience of God, but this
is not Godhood. Plato too saw an unmanifest God, as did his
followers. God or Being has been seen as unmanifest all the way to
Heidegger, whose Being remains a hidden Being, or is a process of the
human mind where Being needs thought to manifest itself.
Heidegger's chilly Being seems not to
be exactly the same as the loving God of Aquinas, but both thinkers
see Being as not an object in time but a process happening through
human thought or special experience. Aquinas at least does say that
even if we can not know God completely, God is there knowing himself,
God is a mystery but not to himself. Although the God of Aquinas does
manifest the world, his God remains a nonmaterial, unmanifest God,
and not a manifest-supermaterial-evolved-Supreme Object-in
time-Godhood, as Godhood is seen in the Theoevolutionary Church.
This God or Father-Within of Aquinas
(and the Eastern religions) is found in the Involutionary
Inward Path, it is the “unmanifest” God contained in the
virtual tabula rasa Soul. This Father Within is attained or
experienced by first ridding the body of all material desires and
surrendering to the material Soul. Nevertheless, it is only through the
Evolutionary Outward Path that one can attain Real Godhood in the
cosmos. This requires not ridding the body of material desires but
fulfilling the goal and promise of material desires in evolving to
Godhood, the supermaterial zenith of the material world .
Philosophers and theologians have
compressed too many things in God, for example, God as Creator,
Sustainer and Destroyer, when these things derive from different
things, even if they are related. Primal Matter and the Will to life
within Primal Matter seem to be the creator, and natural evolution
is, at times, the destroyer, and Godhood is the manifested Zenith of
natural and supernatural evolution.
------
I do allow the ideal to go beyond man's
mind alone and beyond man's existence. The ideal meaning can appear
within the activating Will which exists within man and within life. But
this is a Will defined as remaining in the
material-supermaterial world as part of the natural world. I think
when early phenomenology tried to avoid metaphysical constructions it
cut its head off, which is what science did...
This also means that man is not as
“free” as Heidegger suggested. We are not “hurled” into the
world with no idealistic-natural goal. The goal of the activating Will is
to activate our material being at any given stage of evolution to
evolve to the Zenith of Beings, which is Godhood. We are determined
from within by the activating Will but shaped from without by “freer”
evolution.
Heidegger seems to think
that language not merely expresses the world, including Being,
language gives the world shape, the shape of Being is always and only
linguistic. ( see “Heidegger and Aquinas,” Caputo).
This is considered a problem
in modern philosophy, but it is not a problem in reality. Language
should not and does not create the actual world, or create Being,
when it does it is giving itself far too much importance.
I think language remains
what it was for Aristotle and St. Thomas, an exterior sign of
interior mind. Language does not give birth to Being, when it does it
is in error.
The error of relativistic
Structuralism seems to be in this Heideggerian reading of language,
to them Being always depends on the language used to define Being, so
there are different Beings for different languages, since Being only
exists in languages.
We invent being with
language when we don't know what Being is, but this invention does
not mean that Being is only an invention of language, it
illustrates that we are inventing Being with language and not that
Being is only language.
Being is an Object, a Thing,
and man can try to put a word to Being, but the word does not create
Being. The exact, Absolute, Real Word or Words for Godhood can only
be known by Godhood, or perhaps by a penultimate God.
As we become higher evolved
we will better define Being, but language will never be Being Itself,
not even with Godhood. Even with Godhood, language will still be the
exterior expression of interior mind--- in Godhood's case, it will be
Absolute Exterior Expression of Absolute Interior Mind.
No wonder that solipsism rears it's
selfish head in philosophy, which seems to me to be a false
entrapment of the ego in itself. I find the world real, the activating Will real, and Godhood real, as actual existing objects. Being
and being-to-Be have material and supermaterial substance as objects.
I think I also reject Heidegger's
definition of Being more or less as "time." Profound as this
philosopher was, this seems to be a rejection of the actual object in
favor of a definition of certain moving aspects of the behavior of
objects. Time the definition is not Being the object.
Likewise Plato's Forms are not Being,
forms secondarily define Being. In the old paradox, does unity define
being or is unity beyond being? I say the form or the thought of
unity is only that, a thought in the mind-brain of being or Being,
and unity is not a real object. Unity is only part of being as the
mind-brain is only part of the body. Total unity, or Absolute Unity
would happen with Godhood attained at the zenith of material
evolution (with supermaterialism). That is, Godhood's mind knows, but
only knows within the united Body of Godhood.
Now if philosophy wants to try to
define this real world just described in epistemological detail it is
welcome to do so. But I think Being has to be rescued from such
things as Heidegger's definition of Being as the history only
of Being. Being and being are more than any kind of definition of
Being.
Is this “faith” I am applying in
defining reality, the leap of faith? Theological materialism is a
religion after all, a religion with a kind of idealistic materialism,
but an idealism grounded in the projected goal of an evolving living
object with immanent and transcendent real substance.
I am beholden to no one for this
“heresy” which allows me more freedom than most---some would say
perhaps too much freedom. Is my perspective really “poetry” or
does it move outside of philosophy? Like a pre-philosopher I see no
difference between existence and Being and I see no separation
between essence an existence. Essence would be the activating Will within
the existing real object being.
Time follows Being, time
defines the existence of Being, time is not Being, as Heidegger
seems to suggest in “Being and Time.” Time is not an object, but
Being is an object.
Thinking of time as Being
is like thinking of God as beyond the object, beyond materialism,
even beyond supermaterialism. This is making an idol of
denotation and definition.
“Being” doesn't mean
unchanging “permanence,” Godhood Itself seems to
transform into a new cosmic Godhood, the old cosmos continues to be
activated by the evolutionary Will To Godhood until
it has reached its final goal of Godhood, then it seems to begin
again, or continue on to even higher Godhood.
Being does not “stand
outside” of existence, even speech and thought are part of Being,
as the mind is part of the body.
I think that in standard ontology,
Being (big B) is the definition or denotation only of being (small b)
as in this the brain defines the body. Even in Godhood Being is the
mind of God (being). Being depends on being and being depends on
Being.
This suggest to me that the being of
ontology deserves the large B of Being because the overall total
being is superior in its totality to the Mind or Being. Being is
never separate from being. Being never “emerges” away from being
on its own. Being or Godhood simply exists as a supermaterial object
who knows itself fully as it exists.
This relates to what I see as the false
separation between “essence” and “existence.” The essence, or
idea, is never separate from the existence of the object in the same
way that Being is not separate from being.
Aquinas, the central philosopher of
Catholicism, sees Being as act, to be is to act, and this I can agree
with. But Being also exists as a living being that has evolved to
Godhood, which is the potential of all other objects in the cosmos.
Being then transforms, or continues evolving as other lesser objects
transform, into the next cosmos or the next being.
There is no It or Being left behind
when being emerges from being, or Godhood. Only the activating Will remains within matter activating the next cosmos.
It should be understood (it may be
obvious) that my thinking on Being and being, like Aquinas, is
ultimately mystical, “ratio” knows its place. I conceptualize a
mystical view of Godhood (intellectual intuition) but I consider
conceptualization a lesser instrument than knowing or being the total
Object Itself.
In the tradition of trying
to understanding Being historically comes the next stage of
understanding Being in an evolutionary way, this is the “metaphysics”
of theological materialism.
But traditional metaphysics
sees Being as eternal, always existing outside of history, so
it is really ahistorical, not unlike much of modern philosophy, in
seeing Being as withdrawn from the world.
There is a separation
between what I call the idolatry of denotation and Real Godhood. The
denotation and defining becomes the idol, the God, is given eternal
life outside of material and even supermaterial life.
Being does not “withdraw"
from the historical or evolutionary “sending” (Heidegger's term)
of life, time and history are only denotations, definitions of actual
living and transforming Being and beings, which do all the sending
and begetting---nothing outside of living objects does the sending or
transforming.
There is no “oblivion of
Being” (again Heidegger's term), there is only the transformation
of Being or the evolution of beings.
I do not think we should feature the
“principle” of substance, called “form” by Aristotle, who
thought form was the highest principle of substance. This is how
religion and philosophy veer off beyond reality, beyond the object,
beyond the truth of the object. Truth is an object first, a
principle second.
Godhood or Being should not be
envisioned as form or principle or abstraction but as a Supreme
Object, a Supermaterial Object of substance, or super-substance.
The activating Will is the acting animator
of material-supermaterial being, all the way to Godhood, whereupon
Godhood is transformed into a new cosmic Godhood containing the
animating activating Will within each material being.
For St. Thomas, Being is act, not
substance, which would be like saying God is the activating Will (although the activating Will is an acting substance). The activating Will, which is
material, is not Being or Godhood, the action of the activating Will is
part of evolution, Being is a Supreme Acting Living Object.
To Heidegger, Being is also not
causality or actuality but the radiance of what shows itself to us
(Caputo,
“Heidegger and St. Thomas"). But Being is the Zenith of
Causality and Action, more than “mere” radiance which is “only”
a property of the Object Supreme Being.
Truth is found in objects, in things,
which are then seen and described by minds. Minds require bodies,
just as the Soul and the activating Will require bodies. A Divine Mind exits
in the Divine Body of Being.
Transcendence is another word for
evolution, the transcendence of being to Godhood is evolutionary, and
the transcendence or transformation of Godhood into a new cosmic
Godhood is evolutionary.
As to proof, describing this ontology
and metaphysics corresponds to Heidegger's preference for the poet's
way of naming Being, as poets and thinkers who have been touched by
It (in older words, faith and intellectual intuition). I am waiting
for more concrete “scientific” proof, for example, proof of the
Supreme Substance of Being and proof of the evolution of beings to
Being or Godhood, which will come in the future, I believe.
I see it as a device, an abandonment,
to say, as Heidegger said, that Being is time, or more precisely,
that Being gives Itself to man in the form of time, because our
senses operate within the horizon of time. This way one doesn't
define the ground of Being.
The way to ground Being is to secure
Being in materialism-supermaterialism, to define the activating Will as
Essence, which is also supermaterial. One then can define Existence
as a material-supermaterial Body, activated by the activating Will, and
shaped from without by evolution.
Godhood is this way grounded in Its own
Essence and Existence, as all other causal life is, only Godhood or
Being has evolved to the Zenith of the material-supermaterial world.
The problem seems to stem from the
old duality of material/spiritual and the inability to see God as
material-supermaterial, along with the insistence on a wholly
spiritual God with no “confinement” in anything material or
supermaterial.
Creation is “mutatio,” nothing can
be created out of nothing. This is causal thinking, this is
theological materialism. It is time to end the battle between spirit and
matter, religion and science. At this time, reason and science can
take us to the gate, and intellectual intuition and religion can pass
us through the gate, until reason catches up.
Heidegger thought that Scholastic
metaphysics constitute an oblivion of Being (“Heidegger and
Aquinas,” Caputo), but I think religion and philosophy in general
have created an oblivion of Being.
How much simpler, elegant, to suggest
that all is materiality and supermateriality, which can even
explain Angels and Godhood, as well as human life. The lower material
evolves to the higher supermaterial. Hairsplitting arguments about
“form” and “substance,” “Potentiality,” “purity” and
“spiritual versus material” no longer apply.
Angels would be Penultimate Gods, made
of nearly the same supermaterial substance as Godhood, which are not
non-material pure spirit or pure act. Angels and Godhood are the
highest evolved Beings in the cosmos, yet made of the same material
and supermateriality as the rest of the cosmos.
As above, so below.
If only “beings” are, what
does “Being” mean, asks John Caputo (“Heidegger
and Aquinas”). I think Being in this sense is meaning only, and
far secondary to so-called lesser “being.”
If you need to give being a capital
letter then Being is at the Zenith of Evolution and being (small b)
is all evolving life leading to Godhood.
In this way both Being and being are
actual physical objects with material and supermaterial substance, in
the world, of time, and belonging to causal laws. To “define”
these things is far secondary to their actual existence.
Definition is not worthy of the terms
being or Being, these are not abstract concepts. Essence is in
existence and existence is in essence. This suggest a rejection of
any real distinction between essence and existence---this is not
Thomist. I uphold the Involutionary Inward Path to the God Within,
and I uphold upward evolution in the Evolutionary Outward Path to
Godhood without, which is the Twofold
Path of the Evolutionary Church. Heidegger's teacher, Braig,
seems to have been closer to our way of thinking about Being than
Heidegger.
For me the
subjective/objective-ideal/real arguments come down to how much of
the actual object we can subjectively see. The higher evolved we
are---that is, with higher consciousness and higher
intelligence---the more we can see of the actual object. We see
differently from a dog or honeybee but we also see more of the
actual objective object. Heidegger and Husserl seem to deny the whole
idea of seeing an objective being-in-itself, and so they deny
realism. (“Heidegger and Aquinas,” Caputo)
Seeing more of an actual objective
object has apparently enhanced our success in survival and
reproduction. Evolving to much higher consciousness and higher
intelligence will allow us to see more and more of what is real and
actual, and eventually our evolving to the highest consciousness, or
Godhood, will allow us to see all of reality and truth, which is the
goal of our evolution, activated bythe activating Will within life. I do
not think it is enough to center on advancing machines rather than
genes, as the Singulitarians do in their political correctness, which
avoids biological evolution.
I can at least agree with Aquinas in
defining Being as the very act of existing, Being as Being, rather
than merely defining Being as Being. But I do not think that
only in God are essence and
existence identical, as Aquinas seems to have thought. Essence and
existence are never separate in any life form, the difference
is that in Godhood essence and existence have evolved---together
never separate---to their highest form. Essence (the activating Will)
activates existence (material/supermaterial body) all the way from
the simple to the Supreme-Being-Actual-Object-Godhood.
Heidegger sees Being as rising up out
of concealment (Caputo), but this looks to me like the old
metaphysics, making Being pure Spirit separated from the rest of the
world. I might interpret this “rising out of concealment” as a
description of the creation of the world, but I see no real
concealment, I see only different levels of evolution where only a
God could be evolved high enough to understand the formerly
unconcealed God, who is necessarily concealed from the lower evolved
by levels of intelligence and complexity. I doubt that Heidegger
meant “unconcealed” in this way.
It seems to me that Heidegger does not
make his case for changing the old idea of language as primarily
communication, words as an exterior sign of the interior mind, or
language communicating meanings already constituted in the mind.
Heidegger wants to reject
this “dualist” language theory, but in the process I see only
complicated obfuscation---to say that “language is not
representative but manifestative” is to me obfuscation.
It is true that we can
develop names for things that do not exist outside of our minds, but
this is still language representing our interior mind, our interior
minds simply can be ignorant of the exterior world and not describe
reality. The hope is that intelligence and consciousness will evolve
to find the correct or real knowledge of the exterior world, and then
use the interior mind to describe that exterior reality.
When both beings and Being
are known and seen as material and supermaterial existing objects,
and not as immaterial word-creations or definitions, then the
language describing these objects can eliminate Idealism and most
metaphysics. Language will continue to be an exterior sign of
interior mind, but with high enough evolution---perhaps only with the
Supreme Object Godhood attained--- Godhood's Mind existing in
Godhood's Body will describe Absolute Reality with Absolute Language.
The “unconcealed” which seems to
define truth in Heidegger's ontology (and in Ancient Greek
philosophy), is defined in theological materialism as an Object.
“Unconcealedness” is attained when life evolves to its highest
truth and beauty, which is not a definition or denotation but is a
supreme supermaterial object called Godhood. Theology and philosophy
always end up perpetuating the same belief in nothing but a mode of
thinking, definitions and denotations of God. Definitions wrongly
become Gods themselves.
A key idea is to define some “truths”
as “unconcealedness,” as the Greeks supposedly did, and as
Heidegger did after them, but then go on from there and define
unconcealedness as a living object, not an idea or math
symbol.
If Heidegger was right that the Greek
word for “truth” means “unconcealment,” then I would define
truth as a material or supermaterial object released from the
concealment of nonmaterial, traditional metaphysics, and mathematics.
I could agree with
Heidegger's idea that the history of metaphysics is the history of
the “oblivion of Being,” but I would put it another way: the
history of religion and philosophy is the history of the oblivion of
the real object. Given the oblivion of the real object it is no
wonder that materialism rejected religion and much of philosophy. In
rejecting religion, materialism and philosophy ended up with empty
materialism.
In the theological materialism of the Theoevolutionary Church, the real object of
materialism is seen as hypertrophied or evolved into the
Supermaterial Supreme Object, or Godhood, attained through evolution.
This retrieves religion and philosophy and even science from the
empty oblivion of Being.
The real object has been
lost in almost diabolical abstractions, which means that Real Being
is lost in abstractions. Yes, we must use mathematics to technically
run the world, but mathematics does not replace real objects and does
not replace the Supreme Object of Real Godhood.
We know that living objects
exist in the world from the simple to the complex, and it seems
possible to think, without abstraction, that a hierarchy of living
objects exist in the cosmos, and this evolution could evolve up to
the Supremely Complex, with a highest level of evolution, where
Godhood would dwell.
A child knows that what he
sees is real, without abstractions, even if he does not know that he
will see more of the object as his senses and consciousness and
intelligence advance. This is basically all that needs to be said
regarding how we regard the real world. The emperor of abstract
definition has no clothes.
It seems that St. Thomas shifted from
Aristotle to Plato in describing abstract God which I don't go along
with. This becomes a God of definition.
The abstract idea of “pure
perfection” always blockades the real material world, as if the
world is evil. But when the material is seen to evolve to the
supermaterial then this Great
Spiritual Blockade of the material-supermaterial evolution to
Godhood will be opened, and true Godhood can be reached.
“...If metaphysics is the summit of
philosophy, it is necessary to look for the root outside of
metaphysics.” (Gilson)
Generally, both religion and philosophy
have been a philosophy of Being without existence, or Being is
considered beyond at least material existence. This has been a great
error. This has defined God as a non-object, or even as “Nothing”
in relation to material life, which is often the way mystics define
God. Philosophers and theologians have seemed to “animate
concepts,” as John Caputo put it, with “absolute idealism.”
Godhood is a supreme object with
essence, existence and being, and not Being without existence as we
know it. Godhood is not beyond the material, Godhood is
supermaterial, which is not the same as nonmaterial spirit. Godhood
is in the world as we are in the world, but Godhood is at the zenith
of evolution in the world. The Being of Godhood has existence in the
cosmos, as all other objects do.
If metaphysics kills the material world
then science should be the science of Being, seeking to discover the
substance of the supermaterial. Until then, until science knows it
has to be thus, by deepening its search to religious subjects, I have
to define idealistic materialism, which seems contradictory but is
not.
Heidegger said Being “rises up into
unconcealment,” but being is never concealed, although at this
stage in our evolution it may be concealed from us. In all
life, all the way to Godhood, being is not merely the definition of
the object, being is the existing object, from the material to the
supermaterial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment