Unedited ramble on the unification of the natural world and the moral world
April 7, 2012
This was suggested in a yet vague way by Kant, and I want to play with it. I have all ready played with it in my musing. This is the idea there is this great singularity which unifies all things and it is the Kingdom of Nature and the Kingdom of Moral Perfection. This is the missing link that science will ultimately be in need of.
It is this. By din of God’s great wisdom and omnipotence the unity is finally and fully and ultimately realized and recognized.
It goes like this. In a world of perfect morality, the Righteous One has full control over the laws of nature which is so designed to bend by equation to the impulse of a Righteous Man. When he says, “O mountain, be moved” the science will reveal a coordination in natural laws that move that mountain. It will be the miracle of miracles. So of Leibniz-like, I guess.
The reason it has not been discovered is because there has been no evidence, scientifically acceptable, which has reveal the existence of any Righteous One, and so there has never been any reason, so far, to look for a possible connection, that this mountain actually shifted and we see exactly why in the realm of nature.
But shouldn’t there be some correlation with a very good person. You would think that a very good person should have some impact and do marvelous things? But it doesn’t work like that. Just as the King of Siam could not believe that elephants could walk on water (“not just humans, but elephants”) because he could see no solidifying as the water cooled above freezing, he was not able to accept a sudden change, a change just suddenly. He could reach freezing in Siam.
So it is with the theory of the Righteous One. Righteousness is total and absolute and no sin even in childhood. Nothing. Total perfection of a man. Only then can the unification of the world of morals be integrated into the world of nature and understood and exemplified in the great miracle of the correlated causalities: nature and freedom.
And so of course Jesus comes to mind. He was special in that he had a special mother who like Joan of Arc believed an hallucination and like Joan she accomplished a great deal, for she will have given us the Righteous One. By means of her upbringing and his willingness to take orders resulted in the fact of the Righteous One. And so we have these reports, but then unfortunately for science there is no way to replicate them and so we are left with evidence which is, scientifically speaking, hearsay, and we can hardly expect them to accept that.
There is empirical evidence, but which is only subjective valid for each individual, and that is the experience of a changed spirit. Yesterday I was ready for a “great composition” and then noticed that my glasses were missing. Formally I would have cursed and reluctantly gone after them. Now I noticed that I immediately smiled to myself, and told myself that I would get new inspirations as a result of the delay and also that I needed the exercise, and so I went off cheerfully instead of grumpily, and that cheerfulness is becoming my first reaction to so many things. And so in that regard I have some evidence which is compelling to me that there is a hand at play in this world that we are part of that hand.
So we Christians, it seems to me, are called to cooperation in the fashioning of a world in which children might be rightly reared. We are not going to make Righteous Ones from birth, because we did not hallucinate with Mary, but at least get them on the right track early, before it gets difficult.
Interesting about Mary in comparison with Eve. So Eve left too soon, before she had been instructed to raise children, and where it would have always been only Righteous Ones. So we have to dig ourselves out from where we are. So we have to produce it ourselves. At least we know the direction and at least we know the way out so that someday in deed and fact the New Jerusalem will arise on earth.
Now interesting thought from Kant and the CPrR. Suppose, he asked, that we had been able to prove the existence of God and his moral law just as well as we could prove that 7+5=12. Assuming everything else stayed the same with us and our nature, then of course the first thing we would do would be find our fun and happiness and we would of course obey the moral law, because the punishments and rewards are as clear as 7+5, we’re fools. In short we would obey the moral law out of fear, and some would obey out of hope, but none would obey out of duty. And so the one thing that we would never have ever been able to figure out is that we are free, we are free beings (which we know by the effect of the moral law upon us . . . as a duty).
So we are, I speculate, free beings who have ourselves put ourselves into our mess ourselves. This is the effect of our own personal use of our freedom. This mess. So God made us free and we have chosen this. The good news is, Kant quickly reminds us, is that since this is our choice, this choice for evil, we can choose differently.
And so, as my story develops, we are in a mess and God sends us Jesus and he shows us the way out of the mess.
Oh, I forgot. Obviously a Righteous One cannot die in this world unless he would agree to do so. But the connection between the two realms, nature and the moral, is such that that body would be reconstituted and made whole. In the stories of Jesus this is understood in terms of the cultural no-work day, i.e., no reconstitution of life on the sabbath, i.e., another unanticipated law of nature regarding the Righteous One. If he had been of another culture, this would be represented differently.
So this theory could possibly be tested, but not actually. So what kind of hypothesis could that be? possible but not actually? Is it like the hypothesis of the multi-verse? it is possible to be detected, but not by any person.
Enough.