Is there then such a subject of inquiry as

This preview shows page 19 - 21 out of 171 pages.

Is there then such a subject of inquiry as Epistemology, with a capital E ? Or is it all a matter of local and even personal epistemologies, any one of which is as good, as right , as any other? These are the kinds of questions that arise when we try to survey the interface between Pleroma and Creatura, and it is clear that arithmetic somehow lies very close to that line. But do not di smiss such questions as ―abstract‖ or ‗intellectual,‖ and therefore meaningless. For these abstract questions will lead us to some very immediately human matters. What sort of question are we asking when we say, ―What is heresy?‖ or ―What is a sacrament?‖ These are deeply human questions matters of life and death, sanity and insanity, to millions of people and the answers (if any) are concealed in the paradoxes generated by the line between Creatura and Pleroma … the line which the Gnostics, Jung, and I would substitute for the Cartesian separation of mind from matter … the line that is really a bridge or pathway for messages . Is it possible to be Epistemologically wrong ? Wrong at the very root of thought? Christians, Moslems, Marxists (and many biologists) say yes -- they call such an error ―heresy‖ and equate it with spiritual death. The other religions Hinduism, Buddhism, the more frankly pluralistic religions seem to be largely unaware of the problem. The possibility of Epistemological error does not enter their epistemology. And today in America it is almost heresy to believe that the roots of thought have any importance and it is undemocratic to excommunicate a man for Epistemological errors. If religions are concerned with Epistemology, how shall we interpret the fact that some have the concept of ―heresy‖ and some do not? I believe that the story goes back to the most sophisticated religion that the world has known that of the Pythagoreans. Like Saint Augustine, they knew that Truth has some of its roots (not all) in numerology, in numbers. The history is obscure, probably because it is difficult for us to see the world through Pythagorean eyes, but it seems to be something like this: Egyptian mathematics was pure arithmetic and always particular, never making the jump from ―seven and three are ten‖ to ― x plus y equals z .‖ Their mathematics contained no deductions and no proofs as we would understand the term. The Greeks had proofs from about the fifth century B.C., but it seems that mere deduction is a toy until the discovery of proof of an impossibility by reductio ad absurdum . The Pythagoreans [[p_024]] had a whole string of theorems (which are not taught in schools today) about the relations between odd and even numbers. The climax of this study was the proof that the isosceles right triangle, with sides of unit length, is insoluble that 2 cannot
Image of page 19