Humanity rests in an unfathomably tragic and suspended state. They are here of their own doing. Pascal described it perfectly--we lay in a great gulf betwixt two infinites. These infinites reach upward towards the direction of the cosmological and inward toward the molecular, atomic, and particular. Before now, I've only thought of the one infinite and how it pertains to me--the cosmological. I am but a speck, a dot in the line of time and a flake of dust in the void of the universe. But in contrast, I am also a giant. I tower above the molecular, and am a Goliath to bosons, quarks, and the like. The ends of both expanses can never be reached by our limited senses and frame. Even through thousands of years of progress in in the maths and sciences, we have barely scratched the surface of the most basic concepts in life. Many of the simple concepts hold careful and powerful mystery. We all know of gravity, and have experienced its effects, but know nothing of the mechanism which employs it. Same with matter and energy. What makes it contain/possess the properties that make it so unique, and further than that, what makes it IT? These things simply cannot be broken down--they just are. Self-evident. In the same way, it is a fruitless search to explain away the things we cannot firmly grasp in our hands, because even though we think we know much about existence, we still find ourselves dependent and insufficient. Just read Descartes' fourth meditation. Error is both of mind and will, head and heart.
"What is man in the infinite?" Pascal replies to nature. One infinite is a colossus to us, and we are a colossus to another. We cannot reach the circumference as we cannot reach the center. The ends of the line cannot be reached by a point in the middle--it can only sit there suspended. The Nothing and Infinite are both abysses of their own. The more we stare, the more awe and wonder we are captivated by, and the further we look, the more fear and terror of the unknown we are petrified by. We are but a glass frame, waiting to be crushed by the helm of nature, eaten alive by the bacterial and molecular, or even worse, burnt by the supernova, or crunched, obliterated, and ripped to shreds by the theorized gravity welds of black holes.
We even see, as Pascal describes them, the "sciences are infinite in the extent of their researches". Pascal exposes the fact that in math, there are an infinitude of problems to solve, just like in virtually every other field of expertise and trade. Everything, just like in mathematics, can be multiplied a greater time, either by light-year or star mass, or be divided into a smaller thing, as in protons and micrometers.
Pascal eloquently and efficiently defines the finite nature and state of humanity in a different and better way than I have ever heard or thought of before. He goes,
"Our intellect holds the same position in the world of thought as our body occupies in the expanse of nature. Limited as we are in every way, this state which holds the mean between two extremes is present in all our impotence. Our senses perceive no extreme. Too much sound deafens us; too much light dazzles us; too great distance or proximity hinders our view. Too great length and too great brevity of discourse tends to obscurity; too much truth is paralyzing (I know some who cannot understand that to take four from nothing leaves nothing), First principles are too self-evident for us; too much pleasure disagrees with us. . . We feel neither extreme heat nor extreme cold. Excessive qualities are prejudicial to us and not perceptible by the senses; we do not feel but suffer them. Extreme youth or age hinders the mind, as also too much and too little education. In short, extremes are for us as though they were not, and we are not within their notice. They escape us, or we them."
I find it ironic how Pascal goes from that BOMBSHELL to saying "If this be well understood, I think that we shall remain at rest. . ." Excuse me? How do you expect to find peace after the deepest recesses of the human insufficiencies are exposed? These go deeper than the joints and marrow, to the mind, heart, and soul of the person. As Pascal said, we are "incapable of certain knowledge and of absolute ignorance". We cannot know everything, but we are also not free to know nothing. It is a cage, this human frame! No wonder Paul pleaded in Romans 7:24, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" The Bible presents the depth and need of morality and heart-change for mankind. Pascal complements it by showing us that not only is our heart err'd, but so is our reason! It is limited beyond measure, yet stands above the infinite-nothing! We are chained, captured if you will, to this mean of two infinitides. What shall we do? We cannot reach the expanse by mind, because it is infinite both forwards and backwards and up and down. We cannot achieve perfection and completion either, because we have missed the mark. Whether we care to admit it or not, we are held in a state of dependence, and every effort we have to rise above that is an attempt to reach some god-like state of independence and sufficiency.
What then? If we cannot know, why do we have reason? We learned that using reason is not a sin, rather not using it would be the greater offense! Our "dependent alliance with everything" is our state, so why are we in it? Not asking this in the origin (or cause) sense of the question. I am asking in the purpose sense. If we cannot reach both infinites, why try? Why pursue? What is the point of the pursuit? Pascal said ". . .what matters it that man should have a little more knowledge of the universe? If he has it, he but gets a little higher. Is he not always infinitely removed from the end, and is not the duration of our own life equally removed from eternity, even if it lasts ten years longer?" This realization is painful. No matter our efforts, our ability and reason cannot be an end. We know this because both extremes are physically, mentally, and spiritually unreachable and impassable. We make our abilities both a means and an end, but if reason is the "yellow brick road", why would it also be "Oz"? It makes no logical sense. Reason, and our abilities, must be the means, but the means to what end? I personally think that since we may not know everything, but also know more than nothing, we are left with a little, but enough knowledge. The knowledge is sufficient for our "mission". This should be our aim: we know enough not to know everything, but to find everything. It is direction rather than perfection.
I could go on and on, but this explication is sufficient. I would like to hear your answers. What is the purpose of the pursuit? I have an answer that I've hinted at, but one that I think I'll wait to share in full until I hear your input. What do you guys have to say?
___________________________________
I commented on Caroline's and Jamie's
"What is man in the infinite?" Pascal replies to nature. One infinite is a colossus to us, and we are a colossus to another. We cannot reach the circumference as we cannot reach the center. The ends of the line cannot be reached by a point in the middle--it can only sit there suspended. The Nothing and Infinite are both abysses of their own. The more we stare, the more awe and wonder we are captivated by, and the further we look, the more fear and terror of the unknown we are petrified by. We are but a glass frame, waiting to be crushed by the helm of nature, eaten alive by the bacterial and molecular, or even worse, burnt by the supernova, or crunched, obliterated, and ripped to shreds by the theorized gravity welds of black holes.
We even see, as Pascal describes them, the "sciences are infinite in the extent of their researches". Pascal exposes the fact that in math, there are an infinitude of problems to solve, just like in virtually every other field of expertise and trade. Everything, just like in mathematics, can be multiplied a greater time, either by light-year or star mass, or be divided into a smaller thing, as in protons and micrometers.
Pascal eloquently and efficiently defines the finite nature and state of humanity in a different and better way than I have ever heard or thought of before. He goes,
"Our intellect holds the same position in the world of thought as our body occupies in the expanse of nature. Limited as we are in every way, this state which holds the mean between two extremes is present in all our impotence. Our senses perceive no extreme. Too much sound deafens us; too much light dazzles us; too great distance or proximity hinders our view. Too great length and too great brevity of discourse tends to obscurity; too much truth is paralyzing (I know some who cannot understand that to take four from nothing leaves nothing), First principles are too self-evident for us; too much pleasure disagrees with us. . . We feel neither extreme heat nor extreme cold. Excessive qualities are prejudicial to us and not perceptible by the senses; we do not feel but suffer them. Extreme youth or age hinders the mind, as also too much and too little education. In short, extremes are for us as though they were not, and we are not within their notice. They escape us, or we them."
I find it ironic how Pascal goes from that BOMBSHELL to saying "If this be well understood, I think that we shall remain at rest. . ." Excuse me? How do you expect to find peace after the deepest recesses of the human insufficiencies are exposed? These go deeper than the joints and marrow, to the mind, heart, and soul of the person. As Pascal said, we are "incapable of certain knowledge and of absolute ignorance". We cannot know everything, but we are also not free to know nothing. It is a cage, this human frame! No wonder Paul pleaded in Romans 7:24, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" The Bible presents the depth and need of morality and heart-change for mankind. Pascal complements it by showing us that not only is our heart err'd, but so is our reason! It is limited beyond measure, yet stands above the infinite-nothing! We are chained, captured if you will, to this mean of two infinitides. What shall we do? We cannot reach the expanse by mind, because it is infinite both forwards and backwards and up and down. We cannot achieve perfection and completion either, because we have missed the mark. Whether we care to admit it or not, we are held in a state of dependence, and every effort we have to rise above that is an attempt to reach some god-like state of independence and sufficiency.
What then? If we cannot know, why do we have reason? We learned that using reason is not a sin, rather not using it would be the greater offense! Our "dependent alliance with everything" is our state, so why are we in it? Not asking this in the origin (or cause) sense of the question. I am asking in the purpose sense. If we cannot reach both infinites, why try? Why pursue? What is the point of the pursuit? Pascal said ". . .what matters it that man should have a little more knowledge of the universe? If he has it, he but gets a little higher. Is he not always infinitely removed from the end, and is not the duration of our own life equally removed from eternity, even if it lasts ten years longer?" This realization is painful. No matter our efforts, our ability and reason cannot be an end. We know this because both extremes are physically, mentally, and spiritually unreachable and impassable. We make our abilities both a means and an end, but if reason is the "yellow brick road", why would it also be "Oz"? It makes no logical sense. Reason, and our abilities, must be the means, but the means to what end? I personally think that since we may not know everything, but also know more than nothing, we are left with a little, but enough knowledge. The knowledge is sufficient for our "mission". This should be our aim: we know enough not to know everything, but to find everything. It is direction rather than perfection.
I could go on and on, but this explication is sufficient. I would like to hear your answers. What is the purpose of the pursuit? I have an answer that I've hinted at, but one that I think I'll wait to share in full until I hear your input. What do you guys have to say?
___________________________________
I commented on Caroline's and Jamie's
Comments