The 15 IRREDUCIBLE LAW-SPHERES of COSMIC TIME
(Also called Aspects/ Modes/ Modalities/ Meaning-sides)
________________________________________
Dooyeweerd: The uncritical character of the immanence standpoint in prevailing philosophy.
Short extract from book
‘Time, Law, and History: Selected Essays’
Yet this state of affairs cannot be appreciated and acknowledged unless the immanence standpoint in philosophy is abandoned. This standpoint is characterised by the fact that one attempts to find the starting-point of philosophy [ie the “Archimedean point”*], from which the diversity of aspects is to be apprehended, in a theoretical “totality view,” within theoretical thought itself.
[...] Proceeding from its Christian starting-point, the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea not only radically distanced itself from this immanence standpoint but also demonstrated that its postulate regarding the so-called autonomy of theoretical thought is uncritical and dogmatic. The truth is that the immanence standpoint, too, is not a purely theoretical standpoint: the postulate of the self-sufficency of theoretical thought is a dogmatic assumption, at bottom a preconception of a religious kind which flagrantly contradicts the entire structure of the temporal cosmos. The postulate of the self-sufficency - the “unconditionality” - of theoretical thought, even if qualified by adding “within its own domain,” implies a primary absolutization of the theoretical synthesis, that is to say, of a theoretical abstraction whereby all of reality is “theoreticized” by denaturing the big datum of naive [ie everyday non- or pre-theoretical] experience.
[…] Why is the prejudice of the “self-sufficiency of theoretical thought within its own domain” uncritical and dogmatic? Because theoretical thought in its modal logical aspect [= analytical law-sphere in above chart] (and this is intended here) cannot unilaterally determine its relationship to the other modal aspects of reality. In the “cogito” the thinking selfhood is active, functioning not only in the logical-analytical aspect but equally in all other aspects of reality and so functioning at the same time as the individual concentration point of all these aspects of temporal human existence. Since all aspects are equally embraced by cosmic time and therefore are intrinsically temporal in nature, the concentration point of the human being, where all temporal aspects coincide as in one focal point, cannot itself be of a temporal but only of a supra-temporal, transcendent character. The theoretical synthesis is determined both by cosmic time and by the supra-temporal transcendent selfhood.
[...] The dogmatic character of the "transcendental-logical" conception of the selfhood is apparent as soon as one realizes that it is a theoretical abstraction and as such a thought-product of the thinking selfhood. The thinking selfhood identifies itself uncritically with its own thought product.
Herman Dooyeweerd, ‘Time, Law, and History: Selected Essays’, Collected Works, Series B - Volume 14, Paideia Press 2017, pp 63-66 (£10.00; $12.95)
Dooyeweerd writes:
"It follows that true self-knowledge is the primary condition for truly critical philosophical reflection. For where the self seeks its reliable ground and origin, that is where the Archimedean point of its philosophy is. Once we have understood this state of affairs, we can only conclude that the idea of the immanent self-sufficiency of theoretical thought betrays a lack of veritable critical self-reflection. The choice of the Archimedean point cannot be purely theoretical, for it is only the thinker himself who is able to make this choice. Rather than theoretical this choice is a religious act. In this act theoretical thought is concentrated upon that which is accepted by the thinking self as the ultimate root and self-sufficient origin of the cosmos.
"This self, which in Holy Scripture is called the heart*, from which life springs, is subject to the restless search for its own origin and that of the entire cosmos. This is the religious law of concentration, which even on the immanence-standpoint does not lose its sway. This unrest, issuing from man’s heart, affects philosophical thought, which in its tendency towards origin and totality cannot but point beyond its own immanent limits towards its ultimate religious Root and its Origin.
"The philosophical ground-idea is the foundation of all philosophy. It is the ultimate theoretical limiting idea in which this tendency towards origin and totality comes to expression. When we reflect upon it, we get to the necessary presuppositions of all philosophical thought.
"By the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ we do not regard the immanence standpoint as a natural premise for the Christian transcendence standpoint, but rather as a radical defection (apostasy) from the genuine self and from the true origin of all things. Thus we regard it as a falling away from the reliable ground and Origin of truth. The self that seeks a reliable ground in its theoretical thinking has fallen away from its true nature. In the end it identifies itself with its thought-abstraction. By so doing, it stumbles into the temporal diversity of meaning, where it is being dispersed. It can then only find its concentration in an absolutization, that is to say, a deification of something created."
Excerpted from "The Dilemma for Christian Philosophical Thought & the Critical Character of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea (Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee)" by Herman Dooyeweerd (Translated by Chris van Haeften).
[...] Proceeding from its Christian starting-point, the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea not only radically distanced itself from this immanence standpoint but also demonstrated that its postulate regarding the so-called autonomy of theoretical thought is uncritical and dogmatic. The truth is that the immanence standpoint, too, is not a purely theoretical standpoint: the postulate of the self-sufficency of theoretical thought is a dogmatic assumption, at bottom a preconception of a religious kind which flagrantly contradicts the entire structure of the temporal cosmos. The postulate of the self-sufficency - the “unconditionality” - of theoretical thought, even if qualified by adding “within its own domain,” implies a primary absolutization of the theoretical synthesis, that is to say, of a theoretical abstraction whereby all of reality is “theoreticized” by denaturing the big datum of naive [ie everyday non- or pre-theoretical] experience.
[…] Why is the prejudice of the “self-sufficiency of theoretical thought within its own domain” uncritical and dogmatic? Because theoretical thought in its modal logical aspect [= analytical law-sphere in above chart] (and this is intended here) cannot unilaterally determine its relationship to the other modal aspects of reality. In the “cogito” the thinking selfhood is active, functioning not only in the logical-analytical aspect but equally in all other aspects of reality and so functioning at the same time as the individual concentration point of all these aspects of temporal human existence. Since all aspects are equally embraced by cosmic time and therefore are intrinsically temporal in nature, the concentration point of the human being, where all temporal aspects coincide as in one focal point, cannot itself be of a temporal but only of a supra-temporal, transcendent character. The theoretical synthesis is determined both by cosmic time and by the supra-temporal transcendent selfhood.
[...] The dogmatic character of the "transcendental-logical" conception of the selfhood is apparent as soon as one realizes that it is a theoretical abstraction and as such a thought-product of the thinking selfhood. The thinking selfhood identifies itself uncritically with its own thought product.
Herman Dooyeweerd, ‘Time, Law, and History: Selected Essays’, Collected Works, Series B - Volume 14, Paideia Press 2017, pp 63-66 (£10.00; $12.95)
______________________
*More on the "Archimedean point" -
Dooyeweerd writes:
"It follows that true self-knowledge is the primary condition for truly critical philosophical reflection. For where the self seeks its reliable ground and origin, that is where the Archimedean point of its philosophy is. Once we have understood this state of affairs, we can only conclude that the idea of the immanent self-sufficiency of theoretical thought betrays a lack of veritable critical self-reflection. The choice of the Archimedean point cannot be purely theoretical, for it is only the thinker himself who is able to make this choice. Rather than theoretical this choice is a religious act. In this act theoretical thought is concentrated upon that which is accepted by the thinking self as the ultimate root and self-sufficient origin of the cosmos.
"This self, which in Holy Scripture is called the heart*, from which life springs, is subject to the restless search for its own origin and that of the entire cosmos. This is the religious law of concentration, which even on the immanence-standpoint does not lose its sway. This unrest, issuing from man’s heart, affects philosophical thought, which in its tendency towards origin and totality cannot but point beyond its own immanent limits towards its ultimate religious Root and its Origin.
"The philosophical ground-idea is the foundation of all philosophy. It is the ultimate theoretical limiting idea in which this tendency towards origin and totality comes to expression. When we reflect upon it, we get to the necessary presuppositions of all philosophical thought.
"By the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ we do not regard the immanence standpoint as a natural premise for the Christian transcendence standpoint, but rather as a radical defection (apostasy) from the genuine self and from the true origin of all things. Thus we regard it as a falling away from the reliable ground and Origin of truth. The self that seeks a reliable ground in its theoretical thinking has fallen away from its true nature. In the end it identifies itself with its thought-abstraction. By so doing, it stumbles into the temporal diversity of meaning, where it is being dispersed. It can then only find its concentration in an absolutization, that is to say, a deification of something created."
Excerpted from "The Dilemma for Christian Philosophical Thought & the Critical Character of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea (Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee)" by Herman Dooyeweerd (Translated by Chris van Haeften).
_______________________________
*More on the "heart" -
Dooyeweerd writes:
"God created man in His image. In the heart of man, the religious root, the center of his being, God concentrated all of creation toward His service; here He laid the supratemporal root of all temporal creatures. This human heart, from which according to Scripture come the wellsprings of life ["Above everything else guard your heart, because from it flow the springs of life." Prov 4:23 NSV], transcends all things temporal in the service of God.
The whole religious sense (meaning) of God’s creation lies in our heart, our entire ego, our complete self. This heart, in which according to the Word eternity has been laid ["He has also set eternity in the human heart" Eccles 3:11 NIV], is the true supratemporal center of man’s existence, and at the same time it is the creaturely center of all of God’s creation.
The apostasy of this heart, of this root of creation, necessarily swept with it all temporal creation. In Adam not only all mankind fell, but also that entire temporal cosmos of which man was the crowned head.
And in Christ, the Word become flesh, the second Covenant Head, God gave the new root of His redeemed creation, in Whom true humanity has been implanted through self-surrender, through surrender of the center of existence, the heart."
(Herman Dooyeweerd: The Christian Idea of the State, Craig Press 1968, p5)
________________________________
"Fata Morgana"
________________________________
"Fata Morgana"
'The inner restlessness of meaning, as the mode of being of created reality, reveals itself in the whole temporal world. To seek a fixed point in the latter is to seek it in a "fata morgana", a mirage, a supposed thing-reality, lacking meaning as the mode of being which ever points beyond and above itself. There is indeed nothing in temporal reality in which our heart can rest, because this reality does not rest in itself...
The question: "Who is man?" is unanswerable from the immanence-standpoint. But at the same time it is a problem which will again and again urge itself on apostate thought with relentless insistence, as a symptom of the internal unrest of an uprooted existence which no longer understands itself.' (Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol III: 109, 784)
(Évangile selon Jean 6:66-68, La bible en français courant)
________________________________
'At this, many of his disciples turned away and no longer accompanied him. Jesus asked the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered, "Lord, where would we go? You have the words of eternal life.”' (John 6:66-68 CEB)
________________________________
'On àm sin thionndaidh mòran dhe a dheisciobail air ais agus cha do choisich iad tuilleadh còmhla ris. Mar sin thuirt Ìosa ris an dà fhear dheug, “Am bu toigh leibhse falbh cuideachd?” Fhreagair Sìmon Peadar e, “A Thighearna, cò thuige a thèid sinn? Is ann agadsa a tha faclan na beatha maireannaich.”' (Eòin 6:66-68)
________________________________
'Ansin tharraing a lán dá dheisceabail siar agus ní théidís timpeall lena chois a thuilleadh. Dúirt Íosa dá bhrí sin leis an dáréag: “Cad mar gheall oraibhse, an mian libhse freisin imeacht?” D'fhreagair Síomón Peadar é: “A Thiarna, cé chuige a rachamaid? Is agatsa atá briathra na beatha síoraí.”' (Eoin 6:66-68)
________________________________
________________________________
“ Dès lors, beaucoup de ses disciples se retirèrent et cessèrent d’aller avec lui. Jésus demanda alors aux douze disciples: « Voulez-vous partir, vous aussi? » Simon Pierre lui répondit: « Seigneur, à qui irions-nous? Tu as les paroles qui donnent la vie éternelle.” (Évangile selon Jean 6:66-68, La bible en français courant)
________________________________
'At this, many of his disciples turned away and no longer accompanied him. Jesus asked the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered, "Lord, where would we go? You have the words of eternal life.”' (John 6:66-68 CEB)
________________________________
'On àm sin thionndaidh mòran dhe a dheisciobail air ais agus cha do choisich iad tuilleadh còmhla ris. Mar sin thuirt Ìosa ris an dà fhear dheug, “Am bu toigh leibhse falbh cuideachd?” Fhreagair Sìmon Peadar e, “A Thighearna, cò thuige a thèid sinn? Is ann agadsa a tha faclan na beatha maireannaich.”' (Eòin 6:66-68)
________________________________
'Ansin tharraing a lán dá dheisceabail siar agus ní théidís timpeall lena chois a thuilleadh. Dúirt Íosa dá bhrí sin leis an dáréag: “Cad mar gheall oraibhse, an mian libhse freisin imeacht?” D'fhreagair Síomón Peadar é: “A Thiarna, cé chuige a rachamaid? Is agatsa atá briathra na beatha síoraí.”' (Eoin 6:66-68)
________________________________
