Curiosity is perchance responsible for most (although I should think ‘all’; yet I’m inclined to eschew extremities) of our human contemplation. At one point or another, we tend to contemplate about almost ‘everything’: that is, may, and could be. Actualities and potentialities, regardless how remote and improbable the latter may be; corporeal and incorporeal, albeit how mystical and enigmatic the latter could be; as well as transcendent and base, notwithstanding how latent and unfathomable the former often is. And, what are all these but mere curiosities?
The question therefore is: What is curiosity?
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term is defined as: “1. desire to know: (a) inquisitive interest in others’ concerns: nosiness; (b) interest leading to inquiry. 2. archaic: undue nicety or fastidiousness. 3. (a) one that arouses interest especially for uncommon or exotic characteristics. … …” (“Definition of CURIOSITY”)
Curiosity is thus the state where our consciousness, at any level (i.e. conscious and/or subconscious), is in active—as opposed to passive—pursuit of knowledge.
This pursuit, in itself, is nothing but mere introspection of the mind. For the process of presumably acquiring knowledge (learning) is per se an act of reminiscence—that was proffered by Socrates; and, attested by means of his maieutic method—; which revealed the true nature of our consciousness as a faculty of something perdurable beyond, in spite of being within a certain time frame inclosed in, our mortal bodies. That very thing is the soul.
The discourse on the existence of the soul: a spark of divinity endowed by the Almighty God—Who is Author of all things seen and unseen; the Prima Causa of existence and the multitude representations of its forms i.e. creation; and, He who Exists and Causes to exist [emphasis added] i.e. in Hebrew, Yahweh—; has thus far been the primary subject of study of two opposing schools of thought: essentialism and existentialism. Concealed in the chief conceptual tenets of both schools lies a great terminological confusion: wherein existence is in its entirety indicative of a mere created state of being instead of being, ‘independently,’ in absolute terms, hence confusing creation for existence.
Having said that, I am now intellectually, ethically, and morally, even philosophically obliged, before God and man, to set myself upon the task of tracing this confusion back to its origins and further supply a sensible remedy thereto.
What is distinctively strange about the confusion of creation for existence is its antecedence to our primitive awareness and philosophically introspective exploration of the human mind and reason. As a matter of fact, it is one of the very few notions that could be, with exactitude, described as ‘atavistic’. For it was first entertained by ‘man’, the first man, the archetype, Adam, himself. This confusion, though not explicitly referred to by Hebrew Cabalists—perhaps, it was never their intention to even scantly hint on it— yet it is strikingly apparent in their conception of the Original Sin.
[Agreed! The very Adam and Eve biblical tale is fundamentally dismissed under evolutionary precepts. Notwithstanding, I refer to it herein as a facilitatory means in my search for the cognitive origins of the aforementioned confusion]
“They [Hebrew Cabalists] said that Adam’s sin had been truncatio Malcuth [or the Kingdom] a caeteris plantis, that is to say, that Adam had cut back the last of the Sephiroth*, by making a dominion for himself within God’s dominion, and by assuming for himself a freedom independent of God [my formatting], but that his fall had taught him that he could not subsist of himself [my formatting], and that men must needs be redeemed by the Messiah.” (Leibniz, orig. 1716)
*Sephiroth: “noun. (in cabalism) each of the ten attributes or emanations surrounding the infinite and by means of which it relates to the finite. They are represented as spheres on the Tree of Life.” (“Definition of Sephiroth”)
This cognitive construct of a dominion, free from and independent of God (the Prima Causa), constituted the breath of life for human self-consciousness. That is to say, it was man’s first contemplative recognition of his state of being as an independent—more precisely, cognitively independent—entity. In a word, a private intelligence.
Not so much of a surprise, the first passive [in the sense that it occurred accidentally, rather than by volition] self-aware thought conceived in that nascent private intelligence was its possession of a physical body. Having observed that this body was fully visible to the sight i.e. in a condition of perfect nakedness, it made its first deduction: that it is, in the state of nature, an intelligence inclosed with flesh; that which René Descartes thousands and thousands of years thence impeccably named res cogitan (a thinking thing) and res extensa (a body). Perplexed in awe at this first monumental discovery, this private intelligence instantly shifted gears from passiveness to activeness, eo ipso entertaining its very first curiosity as to whence the conception of the body and the observation of its condition (i.e. nakedness) came. Behold! Man became conscious of his senses—leastways, of sight. And the first sensory input was no other than his own body!
Thence, man’s “existential” (a false connotation, since in truth it was and still is an experience of creation, not existence) journey commenced, as he employed his senses to capture, process, and fathom all that surrounds him. All things perceived were fathomed in relation to his physical being, viz. body. Throughout the pre-philosophic era, which spanned thousands and thousands of years, confined to the relative dimensions of ‘his dominion’, man erroneously—more so, in naïvety—thought his mind was being introduced to other “existing matter, beings, and objects”—like himself; which had insinuated itself into his most private sanctuary i.e. his cognition; and, maliciously infused the notion that what it knows or might come to know (science) is wholly acquired rather than innate**.
** To leave no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation, ‘innate’ is herein devised to suggest that the inception point, in terms of chronological order, at which the eternal consciousness of the immortal soul began to harness and store knowledge i.e. science, cannot be indubitably pinpointed.
Then came the philosophic era and, thanks to Socrates, brought about a paradigm shift, that had presumably rectified that error, and inculcated in the private intelligence the sublimity as well as supremacy of its consciousness: its vastness; its perdurability; and, foremost, its self-sufficiency [emphasis added]. Socrates, as stated earlier, both philosophically and intellectually, proved the private intelligence’s (the human mind: in the qualitative sense of the word, i.e. the consciousness of the immortal soul) possession of these qualities/features via his maieutic method (the cross examination of the human subject to excite inductive reasoning, which in turn stimulated reminiscence). Notwithstanding, proving that science was innate and not acquired, never really made any contribution towards the resolution of the confusion; for the private intelligence only reminisced fragments of science corresponding to the particular subject of discussion; i.e. by means of sensory inputs; therefore, never transcended beyond man’s dominion. That is, never harnessed omniscience. There is no doubt however that Socrates hoped that one day it would!
From my personal perspective, that epoch was the belle époque of the human dominion. For everything was about man. Everything, terrestrial and celestial, was perceived through its relation to man. Even the gods had no other business but their personal affairs and man; noting that the former was frequently conducted according to its relatedness to the latter.
With the dawn of the Scientific Renaissance (of the 15th and 16th centuries), man reminisced the idea that he is no more than a small piece in the existential (again, in the erroneous sense of the word) mosaic. Hence, man embarked on the intellectual-cosmological transition from geocentrism to the idea of the heliocentric universe—which was introduced by Copernicus in early 16th century. As centuries turned, surfing the waves of empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism; followed by darwinism, the work of Nietzsche, and Hawking’s Singularity Theorem; man mistakenly thought that he was getting ever closer, if not had in fact, arrived at the Prima Causa of all there is. Alas! In spite of all the effort he had put in contemplation, theorization, experimentation, and acts of reminiscence, the human consciousness had been plunging ever deeper in the abysmal confusion: pulled away farther and farther from comprehending the Prima Causa.
Throughout that evolutionary—or, to describe it more properly, self-revealing—odyssey, that private intelligence had not only became aware of the innateness of science within its consciousness; but also that by the mere virtue of having one, it has an inherent ability to create bodies, corporeal extensions or representations, similar to its own (i.e. res extensa), for the ideas floating in its incorporeal sphere, via the manipulation of matter. Far more ingenious, though, the consciousness went further on to erect incorporeal structures to govern and put existence (which is, humanly understood, creation, really!) in order, such as tempus i.e. time.
For let’s consider the matter thus: Who or what has any use of that human construct we refer to as time?
No one and nothing, neither on terra, nor in the entire cosmos!
Immanuel Kant (1781) had explicated in extenso in his, “Critique of Pure Reason,” that time is an intuition. Notwithstanding, I cannot at present determine any utility that this intuition could render for any other being or thing, but man! It is entirely irrelevant—so much so that it is perfectly inconsequential—to cats and dogs, for instance. What does it mean for a cat if the time is five past ten in the morning, or ten-thirty in the morning? Absolutely nothing! Other living creatures solely react to daylight and moonlight, and other natural phenomena—for example, the seasonal cycle.
And so is language. Language is a human contrivance utilized as a means of expression and communication. Therefore, it is perforce limited to the conscious dominion of man! As such, it is pitiably wanting as to be fully-expressive of existence. Thus, we understandably—albeit, unintentionally—apply the meaning of existence—and therefore impose a limitation thereto—further still use the term itself to refer to what is in actuality creation. Language is consequently the de facto vehicle of the confusion.
Having thus far identified the origins of the confusion at hand, and further delineated the progressional path for its development, I shall henceforth endeavor to provide a plausible remedy thereto.
The remedy is mostly supplied by the synthesis of Socratic and Cartesian philosophies. Ipso facto that our imperishable consciousness (i.e. that of the soul, res cogitan, or intelligence, or whatever you wish to call it, for labels don’t really matter here) must needs to reminisce knowledge intrinsically [emphasis added]; yet, it remains dependent on external stimuli, to perform such acts; suggests that the perishable body (i.e. res extensa)—by means of its attribute, oblivion; which is inherently eccentric to a free (without a body, or sine res extensa) res cogitan —has placed fundamental functional constraints upon it. That is to say, insofar the res cogitan continues to be entrapped in the res extensa, becoming fully cognizant of the Prima Causa would persist, inalterably, as an impossibility.
If matter ultimately ordains existence, how come that we have the power to alter, merge, or even manipulate it? Isn’t the fissure at an atomic level an act of subversion of the atom by means of reduction to something lesser than it originally was? Wouldn’t that attribute a quality of fragility to existence, in case that is what existence really denotes? Thence, does it not imply per se that existence is not the absolute truth of all. Everything hitherto discussed is a compilation of creational representations, and fails to touch on the true concept—in this case, the authentic form—of existence.
For, do not fool yourselves! Existence cannot be produced nor diminished; it just is!
Of all species, man is the only creature that has the ability to create, by virtue of having within himself or rather that self is mostly comprised of that spark of divinity—which we call, the soul. That is the purposiveness of the body, res extensa [an extension of the immutable existence of our intelligence, or spirit], to exert influence—namely, partake in creation—upon matter to create myriad forms thereof. Notwithstanding, we cannot in ourselves, as coinciding res cogitan and res extensa, cause anything to exist; given that a created corporeal manifestation has distanced us from the state of purely numen, untainted, existence.
Accordingly, the paradox lies in the fact that the conditio sine qua non: that becoming an omniscient res cogitan is perforce a sine res extensa one! To actualize infinite consciousness i.e. self-sufficient, we must do away with the finite stricture—viz. the res extensa.
In truth, this confusion of creation for existence is the main reason why so many of us doubt the existence of God [emphasis added], for what a great number of humans are searching for is a created—rather than ‘Who exists and causes to exist’—God; which can never be conceived; as there’s none of this sort. For even ourselves, are mere abstracts of existence; since, as illustrated earlier, the res cogitan ( the soul, consciousness, or intelligence, or whatever you wish to call it, for labels don’t really matter here!) is inclosed with res extensa. In other words, only God exists; and God alone is fully conscious; and everything in creation, including our-corporeal-selves, is mere representation or manifestation—more precisely, extension—of ideas entertained by the Prima Causa. Nevertheless, we are a crowned creation, since after we break free from the extension (or, what nowadays is called the simulation) we revert to our pre-world form, spirit, and in perfect unity with the Prima Causa, God.
In a nutshell, in order to be completely conscious of existence—much less God—because, yes, God is greater than existence itself; for the latter is a mere quality of His—one has to become divine themself: break the bondage of the res extensa and free the spirit from his dominion, eo ipso releasing it back unto the eternal dominion of God. Simply put, to understand God ‘Who exists and causes to exist’, the Prima Causa, is not, strictly speaking [emphasis added], humanly possible [emphasis added]; as one must needs be God, or in perfect unity, so much so in perfect oneness with God, to wholly comprehend Him.
This was the unraveling of the greatest, even gravest, human confusion: That of confusing creation for existence!
Blessed is He Who is enthroned in heaven, for He created all things!
Related Publications: “How I Understood the Messiah” and “Consciousness: Heaven and Hades”
Reference
“Definition of CURIOSITY.” Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s Most-trusted Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curiosity. Accessed 18 Aug. 2021.
“Definition of Sephiroth.” American English Apple Dictionary. 2021. Accessed 9 August 2021.
Leibniz, Gottfried W. Theodicy. Apple Books; La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, translated by E.M. Huggard from C.J. Gerhardt’s Edition of the Collected Philosophical Works, 1875-1890, originally published in 1716.
