Dialogue ~ 29

I would like to begin to explore what I am able to of Eleatic philosophy and its view that despite appearances, what exists is a motionless, changeless and eternal one and/or unity. Does rationalism dismiss all information gained through the faculties of sense and construct on the basis of reason alone a view of ‘what is’?

On knowledge, Xenophanes is given to have said, “… and of course the clear and certain truth no man has seen nor will there be anyone who knows about the gods and what I say about all things. For even if, in the best case, one happened to speak just of what has been brought to pass, still he himself would not know. But opinion is allotted to all.”

Is ‘truth’ that which is accessible in the midst of unity (communion) of the one? Is reason capable of such an endeavour and what role does the intellect play in allowing for reason to accomplish its goal? A quick definition of reasoning is: ‘associated with the acts of thinking and cognition and involves the use of one’s intellect.’ The philosopher Kant called attention to the difference between intellect and reason. Reason he defined as ‘the capacity to perceive ideas; whereas intellect is restricted to seeing the world in its dividedness, in the isolated-ness of single parts.’

So the intellect will discern a world of diversity and multiplicity whilst reason will generate ideas as well as to aspire for meaning in the midst of such randomness; to create order (coherence) from an appearance of chaos?

Is Xenophanes implying that even if a person were to be immersed in communion with the one, that the filters of thought and interpretation of events means that the person would be incapable even of recognising the one?

Reflect for a moment upon the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, where he said, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.”

Becoming troubled? Astonished? Surely that isn’t the conviction of one’s discerning truth through an act of reasoning alone? No, it implies that what one finds will appear to be contrary to what one had been expecting to find or of what one had been certain about? If the collaboration of reason and the intellect is driving us to build models of reality and of coherence, then how are we to employ some other means of arriving at knowledge and/or communion of the one, particularly if the senses are not to be trusted to reveal the truth (as the Eleatic school had implied)?

Are we to navigate around ‘being troubled’ on the basis of believing that there is some higher or more noble or virtuous expression of truth than the one which we currently perceive? Surely that is employing reason for reason’s sake alone; perhaps it is an act of hubris?

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus went on to say “Recognise what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”

Was Jesus encouraging for us to persevere with becoming more knowledgeable about the world, such that with the virtue of reasoning, we would be capable of identifying every little nuance of nature’s workings on first glance? Isn’t that what the modalities of science are gifting us with, in that through them we are able to extrapolate ever more intricate detail?

What is it that Jesus is suggesting that we recognise? Why did Xenophanes imply that we would not be able to recognise unity (or the gods) but would always have opinion? How is it that we are born into and are called to be in the world but at the same time as we are being encouraged to see beyond it?

Jesus also said, “I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.”

This brings me back to a question of whether we are capable of perceiving unity through an act of reasoning (and in this case, whose model of unity would be ‘right’?) or whether we are to have faith in there being a higher intelligence and wisdom than ourselves and which will ultimately redeem us?

Of course, what I am very likely skirting around here through my words is the perennial question of what is meant by illumination of the mind and how is it brought about?

In a world of complexity of appearances, how do we move into unity within ourselves, our own being, such that we are fully integrated within it? I am not referring to an act of illuminating our ‘shadow’ or of atoning for that which we have judged but of transforming our field of vision, such that we are capable of experiencing our truth directly from the knowledge of, that is to say an intimacy of being one with the world?