3 ms·
Awesome question. I don't have a hugely strong mathematical background (second year university in some areas, like calculus, some stats, linear algebra, but a
by angrygoat 5y ago
Awesome question.
I don't have a hugely strong mathematical background (second year university in some areas, like calculus, some stats, linear algebra, but a long time ago), but I think I know what you're getting at. My answer is yes – I had a particular experience on a silent retreat which I think falls into this category.
There's a 15th century text by Nicholas of Cusa that I think you might enjoy and which I think speaks to what you've raised. It's a fairly hard slog, especially if you haven't read anything similar – but I hadn't when I first read it, and I made it through. The title is De Visione Dei[0].
Cusa starts out with an Icon (a sacred image) which is omnivoyant: like the Mona Lisa, it gives the impression that it looks at each observer. Cusa builds a fairly complex mathematical argument, building on the observations of monks who process around the icon, reporting to each other their observations.
From this Cusa builds a descriptive idea of the divine; but as the argument progresses, this breaks down. This, however, is not a failure – Cusa has rather wonderfully brought the scholastic, reasoned, philosophical approach into dialogue with the apophatic, negative, approach. I won't spoil the ending for you. Cusa's drawing on theology from the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity, and also on theology from Islam.
These big existential questions that fascinate me. To get a bit Kierkegaard, I think he's right in that it's what's real, it's what ought to ultimately draw our attention.
One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. I used to think about everything in terms of software, and sometimes startle people; now I often think about things in terms of texts like Cusa; which also startles people :-)
[0] https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf https://jasper-hopkins.info/dialecticalmysticism.pdf (a reputable, scholarly translation)
- omginternets 5y agoThank you so much for this. I can already tell we're on the same wavelength, and I'm looking forward to a lazy Sunday afternoon of reading. >One interesting thing studying theology/philosophy/... is that my working set of metaphors has somewhat switched. Believe it or not, I come from a literary background (my B.A. was in literature and I switched to a STEM field afterwards) so I know exactly what you mean. There's always a tension between picking the metaphor that's most fitting and the metaphor that your audience will understand. On a related note, have you ever read Leibniz's Monadology [0]? It's an attempt at a bottom-up, constructive approach to proving the existence of God. Unsurprisingly, it fails at this task, but I've always been fascinated by how close he gets, at least on the surface. You have to think very hard to see where the proof breaks down; I had to look it up. [0] https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Monadology-1714-by-Gottfried-Wilhelm-LEIBNIZ-1646-1716.pdf https://plato-philosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-...
- angrygoat 5y agoCheers :) I haven't, but it sounds fascinating – thanks for the Sunday afternoon read in return!