That is a problem when the either-or analysis is misapplied. True, it works great for computers. It also holds for certain levels of human thought. We could say that the antinomies you call complimentary are compatible with other relations that inhere.
Reductionist views prefer one of the antinomies (or aspect) at the exclusion of the others. But a resolution is something else entirely. You want to call it an ultimate standard of logic or reason, but warrants this move? I know of a patristic author who said the world is full of these antinomies simply to keep mankind from raising any aspect of creation to be divine. But calling it Logos, reason, or divine and you've already got yourself a nontraditional trinity. I'm following Freedom Protector's notice here, I think: "Your essay could be compared to to a movie, where there is a surprise twist...reading along I was expecting a Kierkagaard like statement of existence of truth of higher order which results in the resolution of a paradox, but went down the path of refuting reductionism."
But the coin thingy is misleading. The reductionist doesn't recognize the other side. The resolution is not a side.
Jeepers, cornelis, I didn’t imagine I'd made such a move. Maybe I did; perhaps I wrote carelessly. I was critiquing the seeming illogic of the reductionist view of nature. Let's see....
Just to get us all on the same page here, an antinomy is “a contradiction between two apparently equally valid principles or between inferences correctly drawn from such principles.” Examples of antinomies: beauty and evil, or slavery and freedom.
On that basis, I just don’t see how the “reductionist view” can be an antinomy. It doesn’t say there is any “contradiction” of anything; it simply refuses to recognize anything outside of itself. This strikes me as being a blatantly incorrect inference.
We were speaking of complementaries in Niels Bohr’s sense of the word. I don’t think complementaries are antimonies, either. The most obvious example of a complementarity is the particle/wave duality of subatomic physics. The complementarity principle basically says that the observer is able to discern either one or the other, but not both at the same time. Particles and waves appear to be mutually exclusive entities, but that is only from the point of view of the observer, who should know that both descriptions are “true,” and both essential to the “complete description” of the system which is constituted by both particles and waves. In an experiment, the observer must choose which he would like to see, because you can’t see both at once, as Heisenberg pointed out – i.e., his uncertainty principle (Bohr preferred to call it the indeterminacy principle), which is based on the recognition that you can’t know both the position and the velocity of a subatomic particle at the same time. If your experiment calls for viewing the “particle aspect,” the wave aspect utterly falls away from view, and vice versa. But it is “still there.”
So complementarity essentially refers to a paradox in epistemology. The observer cannot see or know the two entities “together”; but nature is constituted by both. Indeed, it is a superposition of both: This is the “higher resolution” I was referring to. The human mind cannot directly see this resolution (because man is utterly involved in it and so can’t find a point “outside” from which to view it?); but it’s already a given in nature. And to me, nature and the universe are evidently “ordered” at a “higher” principal level that we do not directly discern (e.g., physical laws and/or mathematical axioms), though we do see the “lawful results” in the created world. And so I am led to the idea of a Logos. Without a rational standard, nature could only be a random, accidental development: nothing distinct or definite could ever come to be or persist in time.
By analogy, I think an argument can be made that the human knowledge domain involves complementariness, sometimes referred to as the “Cartesian split.” On the one side of the divide are the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.); on the other, the humanities, or “sciences of the spirit” (e.g., philosophy, theology, the arts, history, etc.). In recent times it has become fashionable to say that the natural sciences are “exact” and “objective,” while the humanities are inexact and “subjective,” and therefore of inferior value (if they have any real value at all and aren’t merely exercises in superstition referring to illusory objects). Fans of this presupposition find reason to believe that the universe is in fact reducible to the matter-only, monist proposition.
Well, that’s enuf for now. Sorry for not replying sooner. I’ve been a little distracted by the election lately. Now that it’s over, and irrationality seems to have triumphed big-time, it’s time to move on….
Thanks so much for writing, cornelis!
But calling it Logos, reason, or divine and you've already got yourself a nontraditional trinity.
"Logos" is already a very old name for Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity. It originates in the opening of John's Gospel, and relates to the use of the word in Greek philosophy. As is well known, Jesus has many "Names," and this is a traditional one.
John says, In the beginning was the Word . . . and without Him nothing was made that was made." Traditionally, the Creator is God the Father, but from this verse and the creeds, it is widely accepted as orthodox that God the Father created the universe through, or with the agency of, the Son. Even Milton, widely supposed to be a Monist, depicts things this way in Paradise Lost.
But it was evident to the Church Fathers in their commentaries on John that the title of Logos also refers to the Word, to a built-in rationality, and to order in the universe, all possible meanings of the Greek word. This is standard Trinitarian doctrine, not an innovation.
The traditional Christian philosophical view is that because through the agency of the Logos God created and sustains the universe, therefore the universe shares the same rationality that we find in ourselves, who are also part of the creation. Our minds understand the objective universe and can hold rational dialogues with others concerning it, because both were created by the same rational God.
But the coin thingy is misleading. The reductionist doesn't recognize the other side. The resolution is not a side.
Sometimes true, certainly. Materialist scientists may say "either/or," and consider both sides before coming to a decision. Others may see only one side or the other. I don't recall the exact metaphor that is under question here, but I would put in my two cents worth and say that although a coin must land either heads or tails, these are also the two sides of a single coin.
Moreover, sometimes the exclusionary choice may be correct. It depends what question is under consideration.
The Bible; New Testament and in the Old which hinted or even implied at a Trinity is evident.. (Father Son(Christ/messiah/savior) and Holy Spirit..) but there could be other Spirits (more than three) involved in the drama.. I'm not saying the "IS" but there could be.. Whats not spoken or hinted at or understood or conceived or conceptually grasped could be (aspects of the trinty more finely divided)..
Because it's certain any man in "this state(human)" cannot fully conceive of whom and what God is.. All "these" references are/must be anthropomorphic (to a human)..
What IF the Holy Spirit(is a corporate entity) is indeed co-workers(Angels).. and delegates of the Godhead.. Cannot God delegate?.. Would kinda lift a guardian angel to a higher position.. and make the "trinity" quite logical in Gods business.. The devil and "his" co-workers would be a rival corporation.. If every human that ever lived has a guardian angel could explain how "God" could be everywhere at the same time.. 24/7 for a lifetime..
It's just a thought.. d;-)...
But an intriguing thought.. (to me).. I can live with the Bible account as currently conceived.. but then, other scenarios could be possible too.. Like God (itself) could be a perfect corporation.. in harmony and oneness.. Operating like a well oiled spiritual machine with "the Body of Christ" added to the mechanism.. as a project.. Cause if the Bible account is true, mankind is indeed a project of "God"..
The poor devil would just be a sharpening agent, a tool, to sharpen Gods double edged sword(his word/logos;also rhema).. wielded by Adam and Eve's progeny.. I must think more about this..
Note; nontraditional trinity, indeed.. What a concept.. Spiritual Physics/Cosmology, I mean... ;).. You people are a hoot.. Course the Holy Spirit could also be the project manager of the Angels too.. same result.. Could be a blast finally figuring out how all this works in "the eternity".. Not to speak of the human spirit being made "a little higher than the angels".. <<- biblical reference WHoa..
Wouldn't want to miss the knowledge of THIS even if I Won this entire planet in some lottery.. would be not enough to even temp me..