Starfield:Sanctum Universum (collection)
| Book Information | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Note | |||
| This is a compilation of books assembled for easier reading. |
Volume 1
All people by nature desire to know. This is the maxim of the Philosopher, the start of our most ancient discourse, and the continuing truth that unites humanity's current diaspora to its cradle around the yellow sun. The death of Earth may be cause for wistful reflection; its time as the center of humanity recedes ever further into the past, and living generations find it so removed from their existence as to amount to nothing more than historical trivia. Our technology and culture advance to forms that would be scarcely recognizable as human to even our recent forebears, and yet we still identify as part of the same lineage that first tamed fires and noticed that certain of the lesser heavenly lights seemed to move in patterns. This taming and noticing, the vital combination of act and reflection, is what separates us from all other beings we have yet encountered. This is the foregone essence of humankind: All people desire to know.
The subjects of that knowledge may vary across different cultures, epochs, and individual proclivities, but the need to know, to draw existing knowledge into new combinations and to expand what exists, is ever present. Even the simplest of us seeks to know their neighbor, or themselves, or their work. The more ambitious intellects may seek to know the truth of galactic superstructures or the social origins of modernity. That pursuit unites us as a single race more than any biological coincidence or historical lineage can.
Not all knowledge is of the intellect however, and different principled approaches may yield their subsequently different conclusions or qualities of understanding altogether. Here is where the first serious objections may be raised, particularly as the disciples of scientism begin the inhale of their great collective bellows so as to put forth pure empiricism as the only valid means of knowledge. I do not wish to dampen their enthusiasm nor do I deny the great benefits that have been found through that approach. Some of our earliest recorded disputes in the history of thought stem from whether reason or experience is the right path to knowledge. Our senses may be easily deceived, so we are forced to confront the possibility that they are always so. Our minds can be addled by decrepitude or confused by ideologies, making them no more trustworthy. To assign a place of privilege to either reason or experience is itself a curatorial act, which exists as part of a long philosophical tradition whether the chooser knows so or not.
All of this is to bring me around to my greater point, that of faith. I speak not here of supernatural belief itself, though I will shortly come to it. Rather, faith is the acceptance of a truth that has been given from another. Whether the other came to it by reason or experience, whether the other is one's superior or inferior, whether the truth is a factual or qualitative one does not matter. By incorporating a truth into one's knowledge without having arrived at it by individual means, a person is committing an act of faith.
Faith takes many forms that may be unexpected. The most passionate science chauvinist may believe in the existence of atoms, even though such things have not been, CAN NOT be observed directly. They believe in them out of a trust in sound evidence and mathematical proofs, but even then, have they themselves seen the evidence? Have they themselves performed the mathematics? At some point in their epistemological journey towards greater knowing, they have, with near certainty, accepted some truth on faith. That faith may be in their teachers, in their texts, in the process of peer review, in the very existence of causality, but faith it remains.
Which brings me, then, to the question of supernatural belief, particularly the ways such beliefs manifested in human religions over the course of our history. In these matters, both believers and unbelievers are quite willing to say that the method of knowing is faith. That reason may also be applied to these same matters is unsurprising, particularly in light of the original maxim which opened this text. Many a towering intellect has turned the full force of its powers to questions of faith, and these inquiries may prove to be enlightening exercises regardless of the reader's own commitments.
There is, though, a point of departure, for at the core, the very foundation of their thought, there is an assumption of the existence of something that these thinkers choose to label as "God."
Volume 2
The concept that such philosophers label as "God" is not necessarily that of any particular faith tradition. There is a noble attempt, with varied levels of success, to separate the doctrinal tenets of their lived religion from the philosophical projects they undertook. Their philosophical reasoning differs from that of a non-believer merely in that they are willing to allow for the possibility of existence of something labeled as "God." However, none of them set out to prove such an existence, since that question is itself the exemplar of non-falsifiability. The question of the existence of something that might be considered "God" is outside the realm of reason. However, once a person has come to accept either belief or non-belief as a truth via some act of faith, then reason can subsequently be employed to continue a discourse with that axiom.
So what do we mean, then, when we are to speak of something labeled "God"? You may note that I have not yet called this something directly and have never used the more traditional label without the deployment of quotation marks. This is to intentionally set distance between whatever associations a reader may have with the concept -- all the bundles of traditions and dogmas and doctrines and persecutions and violence and mania can all be set aside for the moment. I need you to forget everything you think you know about something that people might label as "God." Clear your mind to the tabula rasa, as best you are able. We proceed from here.
Now, from this blankness, esteemed philosophers have derived notions of the self or time and space as the singular foundation for understanding reality. I do not need to recapitulate their ideas here -- I trust a well-equipped data terminal may bestow upon you the gifts of the Meditator and the Imperator in this matter. Whatever sort of epistemological framework you choose to adopt, let us assume that you have agreed to some notion of the self and some notion of reality, even if you don't agree that the one can actually perceive the other. (And here the truest existential nihilists who wish to deny even reality itself may exit the car.)
Recall our prime maxim that "all people by nature desire to know." And so from this blankness we ask questions. Who are my parents? What is justice? Why do stars twinkle? Should I pursue a romantic relationship? All of these inquiries are ways of knowing and ways of thinking and ways of acting. And underlying all of it is the reality that we share. For ultimately, all questions eventually become some sort of "why." Why did my parents abandon me? Why was this injustice committed? Why was I rejected?
And whys have a way of coalescing towards a unified point. Your parents abandoned you because of their addictions, which came from their hardships, which came from their unjust society, which was formed out of scarcity, which is a consequence of mineral distribution on the planet, which derives from the relative weights of various elements in a molten proto-planet, which is correlated with their atomic mass, which relates to the interaction of subatomic particles, which...
And so proceed ad infinitum... but not quite. Because ultimately there is an epistemic barrier beyond which we can no longer ask "why?" Why do subatomic particles act the way they do? Because of quantum strings. Why do they act the way they do? Because of the laws of mathematics and physics. Why are those laws what they are? Why does causality exist? Why does anything exist at all?
That the chain of questions continues towards this asymptote cannot be denied. The staunchest unbeliever may be quite wary that the line of questioning is approaching realms that science can no longer address, but still they cannot deny the question itself. They may only assert that they do not care about the answer. These questions exist to their conclusion, though, whether or not we choose to concede defeat earlier in the sequence.
Volume 3
So we face the question of why there is even a reality to contemplate and find the tools of our minds lacking. There is, unquestionably, a mystery underlying all reality, and I do not speak of "mystery" in the sense of a puzzle we cannot solve or a murder that cannot be attributed. Rather I speak of Mystery, the proper noun, something so remote that it is not simply unknown but unknowable. Such mysteries can also appear in a more mundane context, such as the attempts to answer the question of "who are you?" without giving the more simple answers of your name, your occupation, your ethnicity, etc. The Mystery I speak of, that underlies all reality, is unknowable to the same extent that you and I are unknowable -- not because it is so distant (though it is), but because it is also so close. Transcendence and imminence come to a paradoxical unity, in a concept that our minds can barely comprehend the proper shape of its question.
So then, the mystery that underlies all reality is the very same thing that many in our past and present choose to label as "God." I myself will not use such a label out of both respect and caution about its traditional usage. But let us acknowledge that we are speaking of the same thing.
What function does this concept have in a hostile universe? This is why I asked you to discard all your previous notions tied to the Mystery, because there tends to be an assumption of benevolence or care associated therein. Already that is skipping many steps, as it ascribes a selfhood to the mystery, which is a prerequisite for intent, which is a prerequisite for will, which is needed before any ideas of agency can be questioned. A great deal of intellectual work remains to prove those concepts, and we will arrive to them in time. But for now, avoid thinking of the Mystery as anything other than the unknowable thing which underlies reality. The ground of being, the very cause of existence itself -- that is far more interesting and far more fruitful a starting place than any sky-king creators of ages past.
This form of Mystery becomes our new frontier of knowing. The acts and reflections that unite us to our ancestors continue in our new milieu, but we are forced by circumstance to reconsider all truths from the very first principles. For those who wish to embark on the crucial philosophical voyage of this chapter of humanity, I open my mind and provide these writings as guides and signposts. Seek me out, or seek my words; it makes no difference to those who wish to know the truth.
For indeed all people, by nature, desire to know.
