Apart from human beings swearing by Cosmos, we are told nothing about the Cosmic religion. The only person to refer to it is its Nerthusian critic, Joe, who describes "Cosmos" as:
the human beings' god;
all-pervading;
primordial;
a machine god;
a mathematician's god;
to be known out in the great cold dark space between the flaming suns;
awe;
wonder;
impersonal magnificence;
flame;
vacuum;
meaningless hugeness;
incandescent gas -
- and contrasts this with:
other gods;
the old spirits of the land;
gods of life;
little gods of trees, flowers and dreams.
Joe sets up a classic antithesis that is easily resolved. "Cosmos" means not just vacuous vastness but the universe seen as a well-ordered whole as contrasted with chaos. Thus, it incorporates organic life. Solar energy sustains trees and flowers. Thus, flame and vacuum are the necessary conditions for life. Size is relative so to describe hugeness as meaningless is itself a meaningless value judgement.
The single impersonal reality manifests both as vacuum and as flowers. In Hindu philosophy, one universal God does not negate but incorporates many local gods. Joe needs to remain focused on individual trees and flowers while also understanding their total cosmic context.
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
The Cosmic religion sounds like a kind of pantheism. And is far too bloodless and abstract to truly appeal to many, IMO.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The AUTHOR'S NOTE refers to it as "...the philosophical pantheism of Cosmos..." (p. 151)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then my recollection was right.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment