The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[Ahanu]

@Thomas,

Does this not regard the 'Manifestation of Reality' – Revelation – as axiomatic and therefore a priori to the discussion of the nature of human potential?

And here is a corresponding statement from Baha'u'llah: "The knowledge of Him, Who is the Origin of all things, and attainment unto Him, are impossible save through knowledge of, and attainment unto, these luminous Beings who proceed from the Sun of Truth."

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah highlight that direct knowledge of God isn't the starting point. Studying the teachings and lives of these Manifestations - these remarkable human beings - is the starting point.

I'm not sure revelation as axiomatic is straightforward. Revelation, although transcendent, is transmitted in human language, which is itself contingent and imperfect - like filtering light through colored glass. If revelation is axiomatic, then why does it need the medium of human language?

 

[Aupmanyav]

@Thomas,
And here is a corresponding statement from Baha'u'llah: "The knowledge of Him, Who is the Origin of all things, and attainment unto Him, are impossible save through knowledge of, and attainment unto, these luminous Beings who proceed from the Sun of Truth."

The real meaning of the claim is that Bahaollah himself was one of these luminous beings. Don't these luminous beings feel shame in self-praise?
What would you say of a person who claims that you can double your money in one month only through him?

 

[Thomas]

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah highlight that direct knowledge of God isn't the starting point. Studying the teachings and lives of these Manifestations - these remarkable human beings - is the starting point.

OK, but are you not still starting with the manifestation as axiomatic, and the human in relation to ...

I'm not sure revelation as axiomatic is straightforward.

But the author is taking the works of Baha'u'llah as axiomatic, isn't he? He's working from the a priori standpoint of a given perspective.

Revelation, although transcendent, is transmitted in human language, which is itself contingent and imperfect - like filtering light through colored glass. If revelation is axiomatic, then why does it need the medium of human language?

There is sensing the world, which transcends language, and making sense of the world, which involves language ... the sense comes first.

 

[Ahanu]

There is sensing the world, which transcends language,

It is a false dichotomy (sensing the world vs. making sense of the world). Language provides a way to interpret the world; there is no such thing as isolated sensations without interpretation through the lens of language. What is an isolated sensation anyway? A paradoxical question like what's the sound of one hand clapping?

and making sense of the world, which involves language ... the sense comes first.

There might be a very basic, initial sensory detection happening in our brains, but even this gets categorized and interpreted instantaneously. Both are intertwined. When you feel red, it isn't just a raw sensation at first. The sensation of red is immediately perceived through the lens of our language and culture.

But the author is taking the works of Baha'u'llah as axiomatic, isn't he? He's working from the a priori standpoint of a given perspective.

If our initial experience is already influenced by our frameworks, then evaluating a message becomes even more crucial. Seekers are encouraged to study scripture, reflect critically, and arrive at their own understanding. This is quite different from accepting something axiomatic, which requires no independent investigation.

 

[Thomas]

It is a false dichotomy (sensing the world vs. making sense of the world).

Well I disagree, but that's a digression.

The point: The author's claim that "... “the anthropic principle” (itself a philosophy) ... overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored."
To which I replied the 'anthropic principle' is a philosophy in light of Baha'i Revelation ... therefore surely the revelation comes first?

Take God/Revelation/Divine Manifestation out of the picture and what have you got to work with?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Take God/Revelation/Divine Manifestation out of the picture and what have you got to work with?

If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? We know when it fell it made sound wave vibrations, but it does need an ear to interpret the waves into sound.

So if we so take God/Revelation/Divine Manifestation out of the picture, well there is nothing to interpret.

I struggle with all these principles. Anthropic? Thus I easily loose the intent of such topics.

My current picture is this progression

God. From God - Holy Spirit/Manifestations/Creation/Revelation

I see that as being all eternal, tied together and without a beginning or an end. God without a creation cannot be imagined. God without a Revelation cannot be known in this material existence.

Is not the purpose of Creation and Revelation a bounty to enable us to know and love God? That knowledge is only given by those God Annointed to do so, to those who are willing to interpret.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

The point: The author's claim that "... “the anthropic principle” (itself a philosophy) ... overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored."
To which I replied the 'anthropic principle' is a philosophy in light of Baha'i Revelation ... therefore surely the revelation comes first?

I struggle with all these principles. Anthropic? Thus I easily loose the intent of such topics.

Can we get this straightened out?
Does @Ahanu wish to outline the anthropic principle as intended here?

The 'anthropic principle' in physics says that we live in the universe that supports us, because if it was not so, we would not be around.

The Anthropic Principle also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.

Weak anthropic principle: Our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.

Strong anthropic principle:The universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

 

[RJM]

IMO physics is desperate to show that intelligent life on Earth arose by blind chance. The list of fine-tuning parameters that allow for intelligent life on Earth is so hugely stacked – one astronomical coincidence stacked upon another – that they had to come up with the anthropic principle:

And to prop-up the anthropic principle, the multiverse theory is required? Taken to its extreme the multiverse theory proposes virtually infinite (10^500+) other universes: which raises the possibility of not just one but infinite copies of myself?

So I don't think the anthropic principle overturns anything, or even that it says anything: things are the way they are, because that's just the way they are ...

LOL -- how earthshaking is that!

 

[Ahanu]

I think we are elaborating on the maxim that will prove unacceptable for traditional Christians, and it will probably be the blow that contributes to the slow deterioration of their metaphysics.

"Phenomenal consciousness overflows access consciousness" - which means "our experience (phenomenal consciousness, what it is like to be us) outstrips in complexity our ability to express it (the parts of our consciousness we can express)," says Erik Hoel. This aligns with Baha'i theology perfectly in my opinion.

This is exactly my understanding of what our French author Jean-Marc Lepain is saying. According to the English translation of the French text just before the main point that @Thomas quoted, the author wrote about the divine worlds appearing different ways to different seekers. The divine worlds are different modes of understanding reality. Human consciousness is hurled into the foreground. He said:

We have subtitled our study “Ontology of the divine worlds”. We should have called it “Ontology and hermeneutic of the divine worlds”, for the question which one must pose is “What is a 'world'?” We will show that for Baha’u’llah, the divine worlds do not constitute a cosmology, nor even a onto-cosmology such as the onto-cosmology of Ibn Sina. The divine categories are in reality onto-hermeneutic categories. A “world” is first a category of intelligibility. Every world represents a mode of Being: Being characterizes itself by a number of infinite modalities, but these existential modalities are not entirely separable from the operational modalities of the human spirit. It its essential and absolute reality the world of Being is one, but in its epistemological and phenomenological reality, as it presents itself to the spirit of man, reality appears according to infinite modalities, which are conditioned by the ontological situs of man, the ontological place from which the landscape of Being is provisionally revealed to him. This is what makes Baha’u’llah say in “Seven Valleys” that the differences which the voyager perceives between the different worlds of God derive from the condition and the spiritual state of the seeker and not from the independent reality of these worlds.

Now he goes on to talk about the anthropic principle (which should be understood in this context). The anthropic principle becomes about aligning ourselves with the "ontological situs" (spiritual state) that allows us to perceive the universe not just as a physical reality, but as a reflection of the divine. By developing our spiritual capacities, we can access a deeper understanding - like how introspection unlocks aspects of our own consciousness. The anthropic principle would be about the limitations of our perspective shaping how we perceive the universe.

"The divine worlds are thus structured by the human consciousness. It is in this way that the thought of Baha’u’llah rejoins the phenomenological preoccupations of our epoch and that his metaphysic implies a hermeneutic which permits one to question and to encompass the relationships of consciousness with the objective and subjective reality of the world. For Baha’u’llah, there are two complementary ways of apprehending the world: the one rational and scientific which exists from our exteriority, and the other intuitive and mystical which exists from our interiority. But, in order to take this second path, man must first explore and understand his interiority. Furthermore, in that which concerns God and the spiritual worlds in general, the way of interiority alone exists. This is why Baha’u’llah, after the knowledge of self, assigns as finality to human existence “to know and love God”. He affirms that this is not only the finality of all human existence but that it is also the finality of all creation, for it is impossible to conceive of a divine creation without a consciousness which knows his Creator. This is what we have called “the anthropic principle” of Baha’u’llah.

This principle overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored. It is this principle which explains that the reality of the universe appears to be structured in its functioning by a law of intelligibility which the universe shares with the human spirit. It is this principle which also implicates the necessity of a noetic and epistemological link between the creature and the Creator which is at the source of the Baha’i hermeneutic. From that also follows that Being cannot be at the center of the metaphysic, and even of the ontology, of Baha’u’llah."

So I don't think the anthropic principle overturns anything, or even that it says anything: things are the way they are, because that's just the way they are ...

LOL -- how earthshaking is that!

Traditional Christian Scholasticism believes in an objective reality that exists independently of human perception and contains fixed categories. Instead, Baha'is believe our understanding of reality can evolve (e.g., demonic possession is symbolic), reality is shaped by perception, and divine worlds are not fixed categories but rather dynamic ways of interpreting reality.

Many philosophical traditions, particularly in Western thought, place "Being" at the center of their inquiries. They aim to understand the fundamental nature of existence, what it means for something to "be." This often involves concepts like substance, essence, and existence itself. Instead of solely focusing on the objective "Being" of the universe, Baha'i thought emphasizes the role of the human observer and how our limitations shape our perception of that Being.

 

[Ahanu]

If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? We know when it fell it made sound wave vibrations, but it does need an ear to interpret the waves into sound.

So if we so take God/Revelation/Divine Manifestation out of the picture, well there is nothing to interpret.

I struggle with all these principles. Anthropic? Thus I easily loose the intent of such topics.

A traditional Christian philosopher might focus on the "Being" of the trees – their physical properties and essence as trees. The Baha'i "anthropic principle" might consider how a botanist, a hiker, and a child playing in the forest would each experience the "Being" of the forest differently. Their understanding would be shaped by their knowledge and limitations.

 

[Thomas]

"Phenomenal consciousness overflows access consciousness" - which means "our experience (phenomenal consciousness, what it is like to be us) outstrips in complexity our ability to express it (the parts of our consciousness we can express)," says Erik Hoel. This aligns with Baha'i theology perfectly in my opinion.

Such a view of consciousness does not contradict Abrahamic understanding of the relationship between the human and the divine. It's fundamental to Christian theology.

I rather think lepain thinks he's pointing out something new and unique, whereas, as far as I can see, it's inherent in the great philosophies and he's just restating something in his own words, at the same time dismissing everything else.

This is what we mean by 'the Mysteries'. John said this, Paul said this.

I'm not denying Baha'u'llah, rather Lepain's opinion that everything else is surpassed by 'the anthropic principle' when it's clearly intrinsic to spiritual philosophy generally.

To suggest that an insight wipes away 3,000 years of philosophical speculation is surely a hyperbole.

It is in this way that the thought of Baha’u’llah rejoins the phenomenological preoccupations of our epoch and that his metaphysic implies a hermeneutic which permits one to question and to encompass the relationships of consciousness with the objective and subjective reality of the world.

If he thinks other theologies do not ask these questions, he's mistaken.

For Baha’u’llah, there are two complementary ways of apprehending the world: the one rational and scientific which exists from our exteriority, and the other intuitive and mystical which exists from our interiority. But, in order to take this second path, man must first explore and understand his interiority.

Again, rather a self-evident statement? What philosophy doesn't ask the question?

Furthermore, in that which concerns God and the spiritual worlds in general, the way of interiority alone exists. This is why Baha’u’llah, after the knowledge of self, assigns as finality to human existence “to know and love God”. He affirms that this is not only the finality of all human existence but that it is also the finality of all creation, for it is impossible to conceive of a divine creation without a consciousness which knows his Creator. This is what we have called “the anthropic principle” of Baha’u’llah.

But it's not really Baha'u'llah's principle is it, rather his repetition of a received theology ... it's the Shema Isreal, it's the old Catholic Catechism:
Q: Why did God make me?
A: Top know Him and to love him.

This principle overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored.

In the author's opinion. I think he's wrong.

Philosophy is such a broad church, or a broad spectrum of principle and methodology, that to say so is a somewhat of an exaggeration.

Baha'u'llah's Anthropic Principle is writ large in Phenomenology, with no single school of thought ... it's also there in Eriugena's 'Division of Nature' – a thousand years before Baha'u'llah ... it's there in the Fathers, and it's there in the New Testament.

It is this principle which explains that the reality of the universe appears to be structured in its functioning by a law of intelligibility which the universe shares with the human spirit

Yes. Biblical studies 101. In the beginning, God said "let there be light" (cf Genesis 1:3) and this has, for millennia, been analagous to insight and intelligibility.

It is this principle which also implicates the necessity of a noetic and epistemological link between the creature and the Creator which is at the source of the Baha’i hermeneutic

The same applies to every other theism and to some degree every other religion. The Baha'i hermeneutic in that regard is hardly original, and from a Christian pov, suffers self-imposed limitation.

From that also follows that Being cannot be at the center of the metaphysic, and even of the ontology, of Baha’u’llah.

What is at the center then?

Traditional Christian Scholasticism believes in an objective reality that exists independently of human perception and contains fixed categories.Instead, Baha'is believe our understanding of reality can evolve (e.g., demonic possession is symbolic), reality is shaped by perception, and divine worlds are not fixed categories but rather dynamic ways of interpreting reality.

By 'Traditional Christian Scholasticism' do you mean contemporary Christian metaphysics, or that of the 13th century?

If nothing is 'fixed', then you're really at sea without a chart, compass or star to guide yourself by – you're hoping at best; it's all sophistry and salesmanship from then on.

Many philosophical traditions, particularly in Western thought, place "Being" at the center of their inquiries.

Well God, who is 'Beyond-Being', but OK.

Instead of solely focusing on the objective "Being" of the universe, Baha'i thought emphasizes the role of the human observer and how our limitations shape our perception of that Being.

So you're assuming 'being' is a given? How can you understand the perception of being without a philosophy of being to understand the perception?

 

[RJM]

Now he goes on to talk about the anthropic principle (which should be understood in this context). The anthropic principle becomes about aligning ourselves with the "ontological situs" (spiritual state) that allows us to perceive the universe not just as a physical reality, but as a reflection of the divine. By developing our spiritual capacities, we can access a deeper understanding - like how introspection unlocks aspects of our own consciousness. The anthropic principle would be about the limitations of our perspective shaping how we perceive the universe.

it is impossible to conceive of a divine creation without a consciousness which knows his Creator. This is what we have called “the anthropic principle” of Baha’u’llah.

@Ahanu
Would this be the most concise definition of 'the anthropic principle' as intended here in the Baha'i context?

It doesn't seem to agree with the commonly accepted scientific use of the term, as given in my post #167

Are you aware of the cosmic Fine Tuning argument, that gives rise to the necessity for the Anthropic Principle in the first place?
Wiki: Fine Tuned Universe

Traditional Christian Scholasticism believes in an objective reality that exists independently of human perception and contains fixed categories.
Instead, Baha'is believe our understanding of reality can evolve (e.g., demonic possession is symbolic), reality is shaped by perception, and divine worlds are not fixed categories but rather dynamic ways of interpreting reality.

Many philosophical traditions, particularly in Western thought, place "Being" at the center of their inquiries. They aim to understand the fundamental nature of existence, what it means for something to "be." This often involves concepts like substance, essence, and existence itself. Instead of solely focusing on the objective "Being" of the universe, Baha'i thought emphasizes the role of the human observer and how our limitations shape our perception of that Being.

This is all good for discussion, but bears no relation to the anthropic principle or the need for it -- which is to 'explain' the outrageously stacked Fine Tuning coincidences allowing life to exist in the universe at all?

Scientists are easily irritated by woo-woo use of scientific terms by various spiritual groups

 

[RJM]

suggest that an insight wipes away 3,000 years of philosophical speculation is surely a hyperbole.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Ahanu]

Such a view of consciousness does not contradict Abrahamic understanding of the relationship between the human and the divine. It's fundamental to Christian theology.

There are concepts of milk and meat, but this is not the same thing. Those that accepted universal salvation tolerated those that did not. They could assign their hell-fire minded brethren to the status of immaturity and pray they develop and mature.

The ancients of our time did not look back at the ancients of their time and say: Angels and demons are ancient representations of mind states because their description of consciousness lacked the ability and literary techniques to better describe their experiences. Unlike Christianity, what was once a mystery is no longer a mystery.

 

[RJM]

The ancients of our time did not look back at the ancients of their time and say: Angels and demons are ancient representations of mind states because their description of consciousness lacked the ability and literary techniques to better describe their experiences.

You do not accept the Quran was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) by the angel Jibreel -- as the agent of Allah? Muhammad was just experiencing a mind state?

Do you believe that intelligence exists in man alone (barring the existence of material alien species) or that entities exist, both higher and lower than man, in dimensions outside of space and time -- beyond this dimension of nature to which we are restricted by our material form -- but we experience vibrations and echoes from other dimensions, through inner senses that extend beyond our five natural senses of hearing, sight and so on?

 

[Thomas]

The ancients of our time did not look back at the ancients of their time and say: Angels and demons are ancient representations of mind states because their description of consciousness lacked the ability and literary techniques to better describe their experiences.

I tend to regard angels/demons are more than internal psychological states, and that such states can be triggered by apprehension of external entities, for example, or the interplay between the individual self, and the transcendent Self.

I read Henry Corbin's 'Imaginal Realm' is an intermediate/interface state between the human and the Divine – that 'imaginal' is not read to mean the same as 'imaginary'.

 

[RJM]

an intermediate/interface state between the human and the Divine -- that 'imaginal' is not read to mean the same as 'imaginary'.

Outside the range of our limited material senses of sight, hearing and so on, but nevertheless real. In fact the true reality that weaves our material dimension of nature. Plato's cave, imo.

 

[RJM]

No reason to think the universe is limited to the extent of material human senses, and the human instruments designed to extend human sense perception to electromagnetic spectrum x-rays and so on

Our material reality is perhaps just the holographic surface impression of a greater reality, imo

 

[Ahanu]

You do not accept the Quran was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) by the angel Jibreel -- as the agent of Allah? Muhammad was just experiencing a mind state?

A mind state might be a bit simplistic. I'll try to respond later when I have more time.

 

[Ahanu]

I tend to regard angels/demons are more than internal psychological states, and that such states can be triggered by apprehension of external entities, for example, or the interplay between the individual self, and the transcendent Self.

I read Henry Corbin's 'Imaginal Realm' is an intermediate/interface state between the human and the Divine – that 'imaginal' is not read to mean the same as 'imaginary'.

The overly complex descriptions of barzakh (interworld) in Islam are interpreted in a reasonable way in the writings of the Bab: "The term barzakh indicates [the time period] between two [successive] Manifestations of God." Complex debates about celestial interworlds avoided - just as they should be. It's a complete waste of time in my opinion. While the term barzakh does not exactly correspond to Corbin's Imaginal Realm, there are some similarities. Both involve intermediate states and non-physical reality.

Abdu'l-Baha is quite straightforward in his definition of angels: "In relation to creation, the term 'angels' applieth to those who have sanctified the hem of their garments from corrupt desires, and who mirror forth every attribute of Him Who is the Lord of the heavens. The term 'angel' is a reference to their spiritual condition and a testimony to their inner being and reality. "